- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was A7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Early Wynn Salter
- Early Wynn Salter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a disputed speedy deletion. I still say non notable band, musician, etc. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable musician. Doubtful the song charted given the few ghits. Clubmarx (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A7 now that the false claim of notability (charted hit) is removed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Janet Pilgrim (model)
- Janet Pilgrim (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Opposed prod. She appears to fail to meet the notability guidelines of WP:PORNBIO. EuroPride (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG in my opinion [1]. Epbr123 (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable as the only three time Playboy Playmate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Tony. I see the windmill tilters are taking on playmates now. I suspect other editors will keep recreating them and much time will be wasted no matter whether the percentage of playmates with articles (stubs or otherwise) goes from 100% to 95% or 80%, or whatever. I won't lose sleep, but measurable improvement to project? None.--Milowent (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - was this a pointy nomination resulting from NuclearWarfare's pointy PROD or is there a consensus to blanket PROD all these obviously notable BLPs in some sort of deletionist extermination project? Ash (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She was on the cover of a magazine magazine on several occasions. Dream Focus 17:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seems to pass GNG after reviewing Google News. Article needs to be sourced. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously Keep I took some time to expand the article and found an interesting story that leads to the notability claim of being the first "girl next door" Playmate. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per all of the above. Deletionists, if you win this article (though it doesn't look like you will) please userfy this to my userspace so that I don't have to ask an admin to dig it up again later. Dismas|(talk) 21:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, as nomination withdrawn. Bduke (Discussion) 03:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arncliffe
- Arncliffe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This disambiguation page is not needed as it only points to two places. It should be made into a redirect to the English Arncliffe as that is the oldest and the Australian place of the same name is named after the English Village. Disambiguation can be done with hatnotes. Bduke (Discussion) 23:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did consider deleting this as a speedy and then recreating it as a redirect to the North Yorkshire Arncliffe. However, it did not seem to quite fit the criteria. I would be happy if others think it does fit the speedy criteria. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is no clearcut main topic. (Plus I've added a couple of entries.) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Though two of the pieces could possibly merge the other two are distinct and notable enough to have independent articles. I would rather error on the side of an individual looking for information going to a Disambiguation page and seeing the possable results of their search rather that just being redirected to an article that has no relevance to their search criteria. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 00:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Being the oldest doesn't give Arncliffe, North Yorkshire priority. In fact, its population is just 85, compared to Arncliffe, New South Wales's 8500. Also, the traffic stats for February suggest the NSW page gets twice as many hits. Notability seems roughly the same, and so neither should take precedence. Hence, the disambiguation page is totally appropriate. StAnselm (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I will withdraw this. The addition of two new items is the key. Interestingly this page is not linked to in article space. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JForget 02:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comodo Internet Security
- Comodo Internet Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete non-notable software. It's claim to fame seems to be two short reviews in PCWorld and PCMagazine. --Bejnar (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that [PC Magazine review http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2333811,00.asp] is quite substantial, with 8 webpages. (Perhaps you only saw the overview?) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It has a fair amount of users around...a couple million, according to a post I saw lately by the CEO on the forum. You think it needs more sources then? Or does someone need to write a long review about something for it to be in Wikipedia? --LaserWraith (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You got it. A couple of someones need to write substantial reviews about it, and publish the reviews in reliable publications (electronic or hard-copy doesn't matter, fact-checking does). That is a large part of what makes an encyclopedia different from the news or Internet blogs. --Bejnar (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are two more reviews about CIS, and the new beta v. 4. Comodo Internet Security 4 Review, Comodo Internet Security Review. --LaserWraith (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You got it. A couple of someones need to write substantial reviews about it, and publish the reviews in reliable publications (electronic or hard-copy doesn't matter, fact-checking does). That is a large part of what makes an encyclopedia different from the news or Internet blogs. --Bejnar (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment found a couple of short reviews in finnish magazine MikroBitti: [2][3] (preview, full article only for subscribers). Not sure if it is enough to show notability however; both mentions are on the magazines "monthly recommended free software" article.(edit: forgot signature MKFI (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep The PC Magazine and PCWorld reviews establish notability. (And I've added a "reviews" section to this article.) The article does need cleanup. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I do think it needs a bit of cleanup. Just not deletion...I will try and clean it up, and maybe recruit some friends. --LaserWraith (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or redirect, sources seems to satisfy minimal requirements. --SF007 (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - does a plain vanilla Review of a product denote it as Notable? Each must be interpreted. Were they Paid to conduct their Review? Was the Product maker linked in any way to the Reviewers? Would every product mentioned in Consumers Digest be notable? Would a Review of a Band lend the band Notability? Just because a Product has been looked at by someone, does not make it actually WP:Notable. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 01:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, Exit2DOS, are you suggesting that PCWorld and/or PCMagazine are not WP:independent in this case? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe Reviews are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Anyone can have one done, just by sending a reviewer a free copy. Even if it turnes out to be a Bad review, does that anoint the product with WP:Notability ? Would every product mentioned in Consumers Digest (or any other reviewing magazine) be notable? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually most reviews and content on the internet makes money in some way or another. If all content was not counted because someone made money off of it, not much would be left. In addition, people are more likely to review popular products and so draw more visitors to their page. Though a reviewer may have some bias, they are less likely to review an unpopular product than a popular one. --LaserWraith (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe you grasp my point, Do Reviews alone lend WP:Notability to anything? If the only people talking about something are Reviewers, be it either good/bad/indifferent opinions, Is that enough to achieve Notability? Does the Consumers Digest review of the latest desk lamp give that model of desk lamp Notability over and above what is on Desk lamp? Does every model of Tiffany lamp deserve an Article?Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is a good question--regarding Reviews and notability--and I think it's worth coming up with a more specific guideline for software notability. But I don't think that the only people talking about this software are reviewers; just the only WP:RS's that are easy to find. In particular, I think that its notability is established in part by a long PC Magazine review in their The Best Security Suites for 2009. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it and let these guys clean it up a bit! Their are more than just "[a] couple someones" running Comodo Internet Security; deleting this article would be an immense disappointment! It's notable software and with this recent release of version 4 one could say with utmost certainty, we will see more reviews! If any of you shall still stumble in doubt? I highly recommend you run Comodo on your own PC and review it for yourselves! So many people past, present and future have and will rely on this article! Respectfully and very sincerely, --RunTrax (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Fairly widespread use, especially since it's one of the freely available software of this kind. The deletion request seems to be a bit underresearched. --grin ✎ 11:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I did research it, and all I found were short reviews like the ones in PCWorld and PCMagazine. Being free means that there is less likelihood of press releases and other corporate advertising. Yet, I had hoped to see some in depth reviews. Haven't yet. --Bejnar (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: add PCAdvisor UK, TechWorld UK, ConsumerResearch (Indi blog), PCAuthority (.AU host) under media coverage. It's legit, it's publicized, and it works...just because some "average users" haven't heard of it yet, does not mean it needs to be pulled from wiki. VulpineLady (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is: Do one paragraph reviews constitute "significant coverage"? Yes it is real, that's not the issue, nor is how well it works. --Bejnar (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer is YES: Comodo is used by ViruTotal it's less than a paragraph, it's actually a one liner; however, I believe it's significant coverage! Everyone who scans a file sees Comodo listed as one of the scanners. VirusTotal was selected by PC World as one of the best 100 products of 2007.[4]--RunTrax (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep COMODO is the best free AV software - Polish PC WORLD review 2nd place was avast! and 3rd place was AVG Free, are they "non-notable software" too?--RunTrax (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Sourcing and notability have been demonstrated to meet current guidelines. (non-admin close). -- Banjeboi 15:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. SNOW keep, on the basis of the NYT review, among others. And the principle that sources do not have to be free. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked by Bejnar to reopen, bercause he thinks the views on which I relied below for my judgment that there would have been no other possible close than keep, are not correct. Let someone else close after the full time. Instead I giv my opinion below in the discussion
The Revengers (film)
- The Revengers (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete fails WP:MOVIE, it is not even listed at Rottentomatoes. It does not have two or more full length reviews by nationally known critics. Howard Thompson did the 22 June 1972 review for The New York Times of only 259 words, on the sports page. The Time Out Film Guide said in their 102 word review: it's mainly a matter of guys galloping through forests, over mountains, and through blizzards to the point of exhausting boredom. It won no awards. --Bejnar (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I believe the nomination is misapplying WP:MOVIE. The fact that this 1972 film is not listed at Rotten Tomatoes has more to do with the web site's limited coverage of older films than with a lack of critical attention to the film. A Google News Archive search suggests that The Revengers did receive wide distribution (although most of the sources found are not available free), and at least one review is freely available online: Montreal Gazette. WP:MOVIE does not say the "two or more full length reviews by nationally known critics" must be available free online, particularly for films released before the rise of the Internet. It should also be noted that three of the cast members were previous Oscar winners, William Holden, Ernest Borgnine, and Susan Hayward, which implies that the film would have received at least some public attention at the time. If Wikipedia had existed in 1972, I doubt an article on this movie would have been rejected at the time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that sources don't have to be on the Internet. But you do have to have sources. For example the not-full-review by Howard Thompson in the The New York Times is not available without a subscription or payment. The film was released nation-wide, that is not the issue. The fact is that it wasn't even a notable film in 1972. When reviewed at all it was just squibs. For example: The Van Nuys News (Burbank, California edition) of 16 June 1972, on page 41-A, gave it a 42 word squib and a photo. The Abilene Reporter-News of 23 June 1972, page 3-B, gave it an 80 word squib, which 80 words included cast names and the PG rating. The Hutchinson News (Kansas) of 25 June 1972, page 17, copied The New York Times short review under the title "Blunt Movie Stars Holden". The Big Spring Herald (Texas) of June 1972, page 13-C, had a short 360 word review entitled "Star's Wardrobe Is Untouchable" with a picture. It included such detail as Outlay for the star's "wardrobe," at which any self respecting thrift shop would sneer, totaled $46.10 - $30 of which was for a leather vest and a battered beaver hat that late Ted Lewis wouldn't have looked at twice. William E. Scarmento, the drama critic for the Lowell Sun gave the movie a full review, page 33, 20 June 1972. Unfortunately, William E. Scarmento was not a nationally known critic. Also, he didn't like the movie despite being a fan of the studio star system, saying: The Revengers" is a western that offers nothing new in story, characters or scenery. It is a film about which long time movie fans will find the axiom, "familiarity breeds contempt" to be well said. I could go on listing newspapers that gave it short shrift or reviewers who weren't nationally known critics, but I hope the point is clear. --Bejnar (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just wondering how one is supposed to go about determining who counts as a nationally known critic, not to mention determining which critics active in 1972 were nationally known. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that sources don't have to be on the Internet. But you do have to have sources. For example the not-full-review by Howard Thompson in the The New York Times is not available without a subscription or payment. The film was released nation-wide, that is not the issue. The fact is that it wasn't even a notable film in 1972. When reviewed at all it was just squibs. For example: The Van Nuys News (Burbank, California edition) of 16 June 1972, on page 41-A, gave it a 42 word squib and a photo. The Abilene Reporter-News of 23 June 1972, page 3-B, gave it an 80 word squib, which 80 words included cast names and the PG rating. The Hutchinson News (Kansas) of 25 June 1972, page 17, copied The New York Times short review under the title "Blunt Movie Stars Holden". The Big Spring Herald (Texas) of June 1972, page 13-C, had a short 360 word review entitled "Star's Wardrobe Is Untouchable" with a picture. It included such detail as Outlay for the star's "wardrobe," at which any self respecting thrift shop would sneer, totaled $46.10 - $30 of which was for a leather vest and a battered beaver hat that late Ted Lewis wouldn't have looked at twice. William E. Scarmento, the drama critic for the Lowell Sun gave the movie a full review, page 33, 20 June 1972. Unfortunately, William E. Scarmento was not a nationally known critic. Also, he didn't like the movie despite being a fan of the studio star system, saying: The Revengers" is a western that offers nothing new in story, characters or scenery. It is a film about which long time movie fans will find the axiom, "familiarity breeds contempt" to be well said. I could go on listing newspapers that gave it short shrift or reviewers who weren't nationally known critics, but I hope the point is clear. --Bejnar (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Three major stars, plus this was Hayward's last cinematic release (she starred in a TV movie a little later). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not transferred. I doesn't matter that it was her last movie, it wasn't a major part of her career. --Bejnar (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being her last movie most definitely makes it major milestone in her career. WP:NF specifically allows that notability is and can be transferred in such cases when it states "The film features significant involvement by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not transferred. I doesn't matter that it was her last movie, it wasn't a major part of her career. --Bejnar (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep with respects to the nominator's good faith, but the film had wide theatrical release in 1972 and commercial re-release in 1979, thus meeting the notability criteria of WP:NF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are not the criteria for notability at WP:MOVIE. --Bejnar (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respects, they are... and perhaps you may have missed the attribute listed at Wikipedia:MOVIE#General_principles where it specifically states "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release"... q fact that is easily verifiable in reliable sources. And toward your concern that there is no sourcing or reviews, I am myself involved in improving the stub even as you read this... per easily found sources. A good faith withdrawl of the nomination might be in order. And again, I accept that your nomination was made in the same good faith. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And further note about commercial re-release... this 1972 film, which wwas released on television in 1979, has been commercially re-airing ever since... for instance... 1981,1985, and as recently as 2005... this last 33 years after initial release. Such facts toward notability are searchable, and as the nominator's own discussions above would indicate, WP:NF has allows wider range of notability considerations past "national reviewers" such as Judith Crist. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respects, they are... and perhaps you may have missed the attribute listed at Wikipedia:MOVIE#General_principles where it specifically states "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release"... q fact that is easily verifiable in reliable sources. And toward your concern that there is no sourcing or reviews, I am myself involved in improving the stub even as you read this... per easily found sources. A good faith withdrawl of the nomination might be in order. And again, I accept that your nomination was made in the same good faith. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Notable director and actors and reviewed in the NY Times for God's sake. This new trick of counting words in the review of a nationally-recognized critic for one of the top national papers is a new level of stupidity in Deletionist thought-- which means it's probably the wave of the future. A review by a major film critic in a major paper is a review and that recognizes the notability of the film. Dekkappai (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also concerned a bit with the article being sent to AFD only 23 minutes after its creation [5]. Seems to be that WP:IMPROVE and WP:POTENTIAL are being forgotten. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being released on television is not a re-release of a film. I found plenty of reviews, as mentioned about, I cite at least five of them. There is no dispute that the film was released nation-wide. The problem is that it didn't garner the minimum two reviews by nationally recognized film critics, nor did it meet any of the other criteria at WP:MOVIE. Many movies have been shown on television more than five years after their theatrical release, that does not make them notable. If you have a citation to a reliable source for a actual theatrical re-release in 1979, I would withdraw the Afd. I didn't find one. I have plenty of sources that show that it was shown on television in 1979. --Bejnar (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Commercial re-release 7 years after original theatrical release is a commercial re-release... You seem to be stuck in thinking that "only" reviews can make a film notable... and that just ain't so.
- And due to its wide international release theatrical release before its US television release 7 years later, the film is also searchable in other languages and under other titles:
- Spain Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Austria Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Denmark Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Sweden Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- West Germany Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Turkey Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Finland Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Italy Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- France Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Poland Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Greek Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Notablity guidelines allow that a film with release and coverage in languages other than English, might not always have US American-only reviews. When the GNG is met, it matters not that some sources might be non-English. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can find all the sources you like, just be specific and list only substantive ones that meet the criteria. --Bejnar (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are incorrect to continue insisting on ONLY "substantive" reviews for a 38 year-old film, as that demand is not per guideline that already accepts it as notable as a film with theatrical release in 1972, commercial re-release in 1979, and repeated release through at least 1985. That has been shown and sourced above and shows notability per WP:NF, even if you think it somehow does not. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And please Bejnar, do you believe only 23 minutes was a reasonable time limit to allow a new article to be improved after its creation? Do you believe that AFD is the only response to a new article that is a work-in-process? Might not a tag for sources or improvement been far more beneficial to the project than immediately nominating it for deletion? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A release for television is not a commercial re-release. Sorry. Otherwise every film shown on television that was made before 1940 would be notable. 23 minutes is irrelevant to this Afd. This was not a work in progress, it came out as fully formed as most articles about William Holden movies. Notability is not transferred and this film had no significant reviews. I searched. --Bejnar (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I must disagree again. 23 minutes from creation to AFD, without so much as a template toward concerns is indeed relevent to this discussion, and chaffs at WP:IMPROVE more than a little. Any demand or expectation that each new article must be fully formed and never in need of improvement or expansion is an unreasonable expectation, and runs contrary to editing policies WP:IMPERFECT, WP:PRESERVE, WP:HANDLE, and the deletion policies at WP:ATD. We are a community and as a community we are here to improve Wikipedia. A template would have sufficed quite well... while 23 minutes from creation to AFD for any article with even the slightest WP:POTENTIAL questions the good faith of the author or any editor who might have otherwise come forward to improve the article through regular editing. Perhaps it might have been better to tag and let it be done if possible, or not... than deciding unilaterally that it can not and thus should not be done. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I disagree with Bejnar on most other issues relating to this AfD, I do agree that a television broadcast should not be classified as the kind of re-release that WP:NOTFILM is referring to. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it does apply in this case... specialy as the original distributor National General Pictures closed and ceased distributing films in 1973. The product was acquired and then re-release by NBC in 1979. Different company... a new and commercial release. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A release for television is not a commercial re-release. Sorry. Otherwise every film shown on television that was made before 1940 would be notable. 23 minutes is irrelevant to this Afd. This was not a work in progress, it came out as fully formed as most articles about William Holden movies. Notability is not transferred and this film had no significant reviews. I searched. --Bejnar (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can find all the sources you like, just be specific and list only substantive ones that meet the criteria. --Bejnar (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being released on television is not a re-release of a film. I found plenty of reviews, as mentioned about, I cite at least five of them. There is no dispute that the film was released nation-wide. The problem is that it didn't garner the minimum two reviews by nationally recognized film critics, nor did it meet any of the other criteria at WP:MOVIE. Many movies have been shown on television more than five years after their theatrical release, that does not make them notable. If you have a citation to a reliable source for a actual theatrical re-release in 1979, I would withdraw the Afd. I didn't find one. I have plenty of sources that show that it was shown on television in 1979. --Bejnar (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per notability standards. Reviews plus this from Google Book Search shows that it at least crosses the threshold. Erik (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is more significant coverage. The Wikipedia article does not need to be able to become Good or Featured; there is enough coverage here for this article to comfortably be Stub or Start. In light of this and interest of other editors to keep, I would recommend withdrawal of this AfD. Erik (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notable film because it was "directed by Daniel Mann and stars William Holden and Ernest Borgnine." Once notable, always notable. I'm too young to remember it, and I've been told it was pretty awful, but that is hardly a reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not transferred. --Bejnar (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually even WP:NF allows that notability is and can be transferred when it states "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." If that's not "transference", I don't know what is. Oh... and since your comment brought that criteria to the fore, the film was the American film debut of notable German actor Reinhard Kolldehoff... making it a significant involvement "by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not transferred. --Bejnar (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious Keep: The film IS notable per the examples and guidelines provided by Michael. I'm hoping a personal aversion of the film by the nominator is not what this AfD is about. If so this is waste of editors time from actually improving the article—time you seemingly didn't even consider for the creator or other interested editors when slapping the page with an AfD tag 23 minutes after creation. —Mike Allen 07:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep not based on the TV showings, but simply on the fact that it was released nationwide in 1972. I remain convinced that all films with wide, commercial releases about which verifiable articles can be written should be considered notable. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A brief check on Google news search [6] shows results from back when the movie came out. Dream Focus 16:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As I reverted my close, I will give an opinion instead : It's not my field, but it seemed obvious to me that any NYT review, even a moderate length one, is enough for notability of a film DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The wording of WP:NF can reasonably lead to this nomination. Determining if a film ". . . has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" (emphasis mine) is similar to the featured article criterion that the breadth of the subject be addressed, but I can see how an objective measure like word count can be used as a starting point. The question of whether a television airing can really fulfill the intent of the film being "given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release" really seems to stretch the intention of that statement, but again, I can see that there's some merit to the argument. Both are actually reasonable, but weak, arguments, but only one was labeled "a new level of stupidity" during the debate. There's no point in me offering an opinion on the article since it's a very likely keep regardless, but I thought a comment on the tone of the debate was in order.--~TPW 19:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious Keep (as another editor posted), based on the sources provided, as well as the cast. Easily satifies the notability requirements. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Easily satisfies notability guidelines. It's still Snowing.Edward321 (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zoo Code
- Zoo Code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The prod has been contested, so I'm nominating it. Non-notable code, only sources are one personal website. No apparent repercusion out of that website (note that it's an adaption of the Geek Code, which is actually notable). Enric Naval (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject_Furry of this discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- I agree with the nominator. No reliable sources to be found. Reyk YO! 20:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, although I'd merge to a list of geek-code derivatives if there were a reliable source. GreenReaper (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I own one of the web sites currently used as a reference, and I'm quite certain that no secondary sources exist. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added an archived version from archive.org, in case that helps. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
tl;dr comment posted by blocked Histin' Fitler (talk · contribs)
|
---|
|
- User was blocked (for rather obvious reasons); also, this gargantuan wall of text was just copied and pasted from elsewhere on the 'net. Fran Rogers❇ 00:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nominator, lack of sources, lack of notability. Chzz ► 00:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Chzz ► 00:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unencyclopedic entry with no documented notability from reliable sources. -RobertMel (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above though I'm open to Heyman save. Also a Comment that I removed the {{rescue}} tag that Delicious carbuncle added as part of its usage is to explain on this AfD why the article should or how it could be kept. Instead they have been adding this article as a see also link on numerous articles. And now they have re-added the rescue tag. Sorry, I'm just not seeing any reliable sourcing for this. -- Banjeboi 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Comparing this to the related Geek Code will show that Geek Code also suffers from weak sourcing because these are internet terms and their main use is by subcultures. I am confident sources can be found to bring it this article up to the same level as the more well-known Geek Code or Bear Code. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even within the small, obscure subculture in which this code was briefly used, it was obscure. The Geek Code was popular among a subculture multiple orders of magnitude larger than this one, and it's still marginally sourced. I am quite serious when I say (above) that the necessary sources do not exist. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the geek code has a very good coverage in computing books and sociological books[7]. In contrast, Zoo code seems to have exactly zero coverage in dead tree sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even within the small, obscure subculture in which this code was briefly used, it was obscure. The Geek Code was popular among a subculture multiple orders of magnitude larger than this one, and it's still marginally sourced. I am quite serious when I say (above) that the necessary sources do not exist. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd ask Delicious carbuncle if he tagged this article for Rescue to prove a point? Seems to be trying to mock us. Dream Focus 10:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you assume that by tagging the article for rescue I am trying to mock you? Although the subject matter relates to a particular subculture, it is no less worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I assume from your comments here that you find the idea of zoophilia distasteful, but not everyone shares your views. This article was created by User:FT2 who has been an admin, oversighter, checkuser, and member of the arbitration committee. One of the sites used as an external link belongs to User:Zetawoof who has been editing here since 2004. I believe that this type of article is the spirit behind WP:NOTCENSORED. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - useless, obscure trivia that amounts to garbage. --MohammadMosaddeq (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are no relevant news results. Whenever this term is used, its for something else. I think this entire page is a hoax. Read the first part of it.
- "The Zoo Code is an Internet self-classification code based upon the Geek Code and adapted and used within the online zoophile subculture from around 1996, intended as a shorthand "signature" to describe themselves, their philosophies, and their stances on certain common issues such as animal welfare and vegetarianism."
They are combining zoophile, which is someone who wants to have sex with animals, with animal welfare. Can you care about the welfare of an animal if you want to rape it? I don't think there are any animals out there that want a human to have sex with them. And would everyone who wants to have sex with animals, also be a vegetarian? Dream Focus 10:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please let's not derail this into a discussion about values held by zoophiles. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per pretty much everyone. (Re to Dream Focus; presumably the animals don't mind it all that much. Dogs have painful ways to let you know they're not happy with you, particularly if you're waving your exposed genitalia in their direction.) – iridescent 12:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable sources and nothing to indicate notability. --RL0919 (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Bold redirect Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haidee
- Haidee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not need an article, move to Don Juan DimaG (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Don Juan, I agree. There is nothing here. She is not a subject of academic allegory. --Bejnar (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - A viable alternative to delete.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted as a possible CV with no meaningful content
Dr. Eric Jensen
- Dr. Eric Jensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This looks to me to be very much a Career Resumé, not a valid article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete If he is indeed notable, it'd be best just to demolish and start over. The current form is blatantly unacceptable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider it gone. Hope you don't mind if I borrow one of your otters and a hammer for a moment. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was A7 by PeterSymonds; blatant puff piece. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Andi Zack
- Andi Zack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources - google hits give minor references but no significant coverage. noq (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The facts (co-writing songs for Danielle Peck and Josh Thompson) check out, but there just aren't any sources. Notability isn't inherited. Tone is spammy and promotional puffery. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. G3 —SpacemanSpiff 18:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
James Hardwick
- James Hardwick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Harry the Dog WOOF 17:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was about to tag this with a Speedy Delete. It's not notable and disparaging. Plus, it's all about its creator.--Morenooso (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted by PeterSymonds. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Killen
- Sarah Killen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing notable besides being chosen at random for attention by a TV host. I do not use ONE EVENT very freely as a reason for deletion, but I think it does apply here. . DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of some satellites launched since 1960
- List of some satellites launched since 1960 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Violates WP:NOT; WP is not for indiscriminate lists of stuff. mhking (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list with no criteria for inclucion. Possible speedy deletion as no context/test page. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A list of satellites seems reasonable to me. The first was launched in 1957 so why start the list in 1960? Does WP already have a list? Steve Dufour (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a fairly arbitrary start-point, I agree, maybe thats why its a "List of some satellites". Anyhoo, WP has these, more defined, lists already - List of satellites in geosynchronous orbit, List of Earth observation satellites and List of satellites which have provided data on Earth's magnetosphere. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of early satellites might be useful, like before 1970 or so. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- arbitrary and pointless list. As Dylan notes, we already have several satellite-related lists with clearly defined inclusion criteria. This one is redundant to those, and not very useful. Reyk YO! 20:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. First of all, the use of "some" in the title indicates this list doesn't have any clear criteria for inclusion. Second, I can't think of any good reason to use 1960 as the cutoff point, since as mentioned above the first satellites were launched only three years before. A general List of satellites might be appropriate; this one isn't. –Grondemar 21:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Welcome to Wikipedia, User:Segunadyefa. Needless to say, Wikipedia already has lots of articles about satellites, and you may be able to offer useful contributions to those. This one runs afoul of several rules, the main one being the original synthesis problem of selecting "some" satellites from all of the ones that have been launched over the last 52 years. This one would be a delete.
That said, I think that Wikipedia should, if it hasn't done so already, make a project that tries to create as comprehensive a record of satellite launches, each one individually cited, starting with the year 1957 (a redirect to Sputnik, obviously) and continuing for each year thereafter. I recall looking at a 1970 Information Please Almanac where there was a listing of each launch up through 1969, and thinking "they couldn't do that now". Wikipedia could do that now. There probably is something already, but "if there ain't, there oughta be". The number that have been launched is too many for any single list.Mandsford (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Further comment As it turns out we have an entire series of articles called 1957 in spaceflight, 1958 in spaceflight, etc., that serve the purpose of the most comprehensive listing of launches to be found anywhere. All interested authors should consider contributing to those articles. Mandsford (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question/comment Perhaps I'm missing something basic but why is 1960 important? Sputnik launched just a few years earlier in 1957, so this is pretty close to purporting to be a list of every satellite ever launched. I'd be more inclined to keep a list of every satellite than a list with an arbitrary criteria for inclusion that is 95% complete. ThemFromSpace 06:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Let the satellite articles be contained within their own pages. This is the worst kind of forking we can have. It engenders inaccuracy, duplicate edits, and hard-to-verify accuracy. Shadowjams (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Arbitrarily defined and incomplete list. Better to stick with the more clearly defined lists already available, or create a truly comprehensive list if that is feasible. --RL0919 (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The consensus here is to keep. If the article had been unreferenced with RS, then it would be a self-referential piece with no place in mainspace. However, as has been mentioned here, there are references to mainstream news agencies, and as such this is relevant for a mainspace article -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Flagged revisions
- Flagged revisions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This isn't really an encyclopedia article, but an excuse for the {{selfref}} and external link about the extension. If flagged revisions ever get implemented here, that aspect of Wikipedia will probably merit some coverage in Wikipedia and History of Wikipedia, but there aren't any independent sources on the extension, and there aren't likely to be any either. The single reference here is the usual speculation about what we're going to do in the future. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Previously, I had objected to the deletion of this page, on the grounds that a non-technical version of http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs should be created, and one that isnt specific to the English Wikipedia. But I just came across mw:Help:Extension:FlaggedRevs this morning, which is essentially what I wanted, and so I dont have any objection to deletion, though I dont think I can object to keeping it either without hearing more opinions. Would it be permissible to write an article here with the majority of the documentation about the software sourced to MediaWiki.org, and the information about outside opinions sourced to online newspapers? —Soap— 16:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any secondary sources? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Coverage in every major news source (CNN, BBC, New York Times, ABC, etc) - they have all discussed this specific development. Over 100 Google News hits. Chzz ► 17:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, if English Wikipedia ever turns on Flagged Revisions, that will be worth coverage in Wikipedia and History of Wikipedia, and those sources can be used to establish that it belongs there (which it will). I don't see any coverage of the actual extension in itself, though, only of the (so far, incorrect) assertion that English Wikipedia will be making a change to the way it handles editing. For an article on the actual extension, we would need coverage of the extension itself, not on proposed changes to Wikipedia. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to MediaWiki. If I understand correctly (and I might not) this is a feature of that. No need for its own article. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a feature of the MediaWiki software itself, but rather an extension. In its current form it is probably more suited to that article, although if it were expanded then it would surely contain information on the German Wikipedia's implementation and the English Wikipedia's proposed implementation. Reach Out to the Truth 06:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Mediawiki unless the aforementioned sources are added and the article is expanded accordingly, then keep. fetchcomms☛ 21:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is plenty of coverage that could be used to build this article. Most of it is about Wikipedia yeah, but it is the most popular wiki. Reach Out to the Truth 06:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or redirect to an appropriate section on one of the pages listed above. If nothing else, it's a very legitimate search term, so it needs to either have or point to reader-friendly content. Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yet another exercise in WP:SELFREF. The article namespace is supposed to hold encyclopedic contents, not Wikipedia documentation. We have a ton of that though. Pcap ping 03:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not documentation; it is (potentially) an article discussing a notable topic that has been widely covered by mainstream media. Chzz ► 03:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) I don't see in-depth coverage in the media. Only passing mentions in the context of other articles about Wikipedia. Can you point out an article that covers FRs in-depth? The most in-depth piece I was able to find is this short story, in The Register, which is a publication of limited interest per WP:ORG. All the stories seem to date to Aug 2009, so WP:NOTNEWS may also apply here. Pcap ping 03:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The New York Times' "info" page on Wikipedia (undated) discusses Flagged Revisions in 2 sections, "An Edited Wikipedia?" and "Trusted Editors vs. Everyone Else". I can't vouch for NME as a source, but it has an article dated January 27, 2009: Wikipedia to moderate all updates. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) I don't see in-depth coverage in the media. Only passing mentions in the context of other articles about Wikipedia. Can you point out an article that covers FRs in-depth? The most in-depth piece I was able to find is this short story, in The Register, which is a publication of limited interest per WP:ORG. All the stories seem to date to Aug 2009, so WP:NOTNEWS may also apply here. Pcap ping 03:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not documentation; it is (potentially) an article discussing a notable topic that has been widely covered by mainstream media. Chzz ► 03:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Taking a step back, it is easy to see that this subject has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as shown by the sources currently in the article: [8], [9], and [10]. WP:SELFREF does not condemn us from writing articles that relate to Wikipedia, it tells us the manner in which we must go about it. If this article would be related to any other online community, there wouldn't be a question about: those sources are enough to establish notability. Jujutacular T · C 22:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Enough coverage specific to this topic to make a viable article. Self-referencing in articles should be challenged, but this one appears to be a reasonable case to have. --RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The extensive media coverage is not referring to the feature itself but to its' potential application to Wikipedia. I don't even need to look at the article itself to decide that its presence is a good thing. -- samj inout 18:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JForget 02:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Déclic-Images
- Déclic-Images (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined prod. No reliable secondary sources to establish notability. It exists, but existence does not prove notability. Explodicle (T/C) 15:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That one is for me to bring clues:
- Déclic-Images is the anime licensing arm of Manga Distribution which is the closest thing to The Right Stuf International for France. For a partial list of licenses see here. The bottom line, Déclic-Images was/is the biggest licensor for good old & vintages animes series.
- Déclic-Images is also infamous for the "Goldogate" aka i tried to release teens thousands of DVD box sets of Grendizer without Toei Animation proper licensing and got caught. See Toei series of press releases and this was covered by Animeland issue #115, Animeland issue #126 & issue #159 with a brief news indicating that Déclic-Images & Manga Distribution were recognized guilty and each one fined 2.4 Millions Euros in an appeal judgment.
- (Update) Adding a link to a Japan External Trade Organization report on the French market. See page 135 where Déclic Image was ranked 4th in 2005 before filling bankruptcy due to the "Goldogate". Then again i should mention that Déclic Image & Manga Distribution are the two sides of the same coin with the same boss, sub-boss and same address.
- No vote from me because i feel myself biased and utterly awkward in this one but feel free to ask me for additional clues. (updated) --KrebMarkt 15:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm -- sounds like the licensing scandal alone would make the subject notable, given continuing coverage. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And a crazy second-hand market. The result is the Grendizer license being locked down in France for nearly 5 years and Déclic-Images losing trust from Japanese anime industry "Hi, we are the guys who tried to rip off Toei Animation and Go Nagai" is an hard sell. --KrebMarkt 15:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm -- sounds like the licensing scandal alone would make the subject notable, given continuing coverage. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Based on the coverage they get from their licensing scandal and the rest. Dream Focus 14:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; their size in France seems like enough. As usual, it's worth remembering that most sources would be in French and we only see the tip of the iceberg. --Gwern (contribs) 13:52 9 March 2010 (GMT)
- Keep because of their size and the legal matter. I've translated the article from the French version, hopefully it will be more infromative. Maethordaer (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on, well, size and coverage of the licensing scandal. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per all of the above.Dandy Sephy (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above, this appears to be a large notable French company, there are references to back the claims, plus it has in the past been involved with lots of anime titles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WinDirStat
- WinDirStat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Not notable software, article already deleted twice previously. Cupids wings (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have updated the page with proper citations and multiple editorial reviews along with a note on the software's widespread use. Bondrake (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There's only a handful of references, most of which are on shareware/freeware download sites (i.e. not particularly reliable sources). The most significant reference listed is on the pcworld.com WWW site - where it only merits a 125 word summary. Further, the article just looks like an advert for this software; most of it's just "media reception" (aka promotional spam) ++Martin++ (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - Wikipedia has already set a precedent for cataloging disk space analysis software (see Disk space analyzer) and there are far less popular disk analysis programs with less significant pages and poorer indications of notability which have not been nominated for deletion. See, e.g., SequoiaView. I have no association whatsoever with the WinDirStat authors and created the wiki page for this software because it seemed absurd for the most popular standalone disk analysis software not to have a Wikipedia page (or, for that matter, any software with more than a million users. that alone should guarantee its notability). Bondrake (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)— Cupids Wings noted (disputed below): Bondrake (talk • contribs) has made few edits outside this topic.[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Additionally, you're confusing the number of downloads with the number of users there; the two are normally dramatically different! Cupids wings (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF references points where other articles OUGHT to affect whether or not an article in question is notable or appropriate. So, referencing the fact that there are many entries for similar software along with a directory entry and noting that the standard of inclusion for other software has been lower is still relevant. Not enough to make a decision on in itself, but at least a valid point in the piece's favor. Further on the point of comparably notable software, FreeNAS is a familiar name to many, has had a Wikipedia page since 2006 (with many editors), and is the NEXT most popular software in the storage category of SourceForge after WinDirStat. Also, I'm a relatively new user, but this is by no means a single-purpose account and, as I stated above, I have no vested interest in WinDirStat or disk space analysis software in general (though I do have an interest in preserving the work I've done in cataloging some useful free, open-source software that a ton of people use). Further, the validity of arguments should be judged by their facts and not their speaker. In response to downloads vs. users: Not confusing, but you are correct. Usually download count is the closest you can get to an indication of actual use for free software though (i.e. few projects go to the effort of implementing user tracking/analysis). That said, if you reference [11], you'll see that interest in WinDirStat has been fairly constant the last few years (and is comparable to 'disk usage' generally). Given this, we can assume the weekly download count of ~15,000 to also be fairly stable and conservatively assume that at least 20 times as many people use the software as are downloading it EVERY week for the last 3 years and there are at least 1/4 million USERS. The fact that it is utility software and not "primary function" software (e.g. web browsers, content production software, etc.) will inherently limit the number of references available for it, but makes it no less notable in terms of both usage and common knowledge of its existence (even accepting that not all 2+ million downloaders are users, that doesn't limit that at least that many people thought it was interesting or useful enough to actually download and, presumably, install; far more are surely aware of it). Bondrake (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are two editorial reviews from sources I consider important. A very brief review from PCWorld is useful but maybe not significant, due to its short length. CNET's editors' review makes me take notice, because I don't see many reviews from them these days. I'm not sure whether I'd classify Gizmo's (source of this review) as reliable based on their editorial descriptions. This article currently reads as overly promotional; it needs to become more encyclopaedic. Finding additional WP:RS would help, as would deleting some of the current content. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep It was also a Lifehacker Download of the day (found in the first AfD debate). This plus the PCWorld and CNET reviews nudge it over the line for me. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article establishes notability with adequate references although this was not the case at the time the AFD was instigated. In this case the media reception seems required as part of establishing notability. Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists makes it clear that "otherstuffexists" may be a perfectly vaid argument for keeping an article but warns that (unfortunately in my view) the argument may not be appealing to some editors.Thincat (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As others already pointed out, I think that the article now has enough sources to establish notability. Svick (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per above, I also found a few more sources and added them. There are also numerous sources in other languages that may also be useful but someone more familiar in this subject area will have to weight the cost-benefit analysis of the energy of translating and if they are even needed here. Also I didn't add any of the Google Scholar Ghits which likely will help exponentially but unless there is a major issue it likely is best for someone working through all the sourcing to determine what best serves the article rather than just serving a rescue from AfD. -- Banjeboi 12:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Christopher Clarke (Actor)
- Christopher Clarke (Actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Unreferenced, vanity page, notability not established, fails WP:CREATIVE. WWGB (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not the easiest thing to search for on Google with such common names, but I found zero instances of independent non-trivial coverage. As it stands, very close to a speedy delete. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I too could find no significant coverage of this actor/performer. There are no suggestions in the article that its subject is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per above. Also, not that it's a reliable source, but not even IMDB has a listing for him (several other Christopher Clarkes, however). PDCook (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The author may visit this discussion, and if he does, I hope he understands our problems with source searches due to the subject's name not being particularly unique, and that he might then be able to offer reviews or articles about the subject or his accopmplishments. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I (movie)
- I (movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a student film, soon to be released on YouTube. There are no Google hits for "Pushing Buttons Films," the named film company. Declined PROD. FCSundae ∨☃ (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable film. De728631 (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Doesn't even come close to notable per WP:NFILM. PDCook (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not close to WP:FILM. Clubmarx (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As noted above, does not meet the notability guideline for films. –Grondemar 21:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While happpy to congratulate the student filmmakers, the film has not yet received any sort of coverage that might allow it to meet notability guidelines. If it does so in the future, the article might be welcomed back. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unnotable spam article clearly made by the student creators. Surprised it was not speedied as such. Fails WP:N, WP:NOT, and WP:NFF -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rodney Beatty
- Rodney Beatty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Autobiography of a city councillor and president of a local board of tourism etc. As a local city councillor, does not meet notability guidelines required explicitly in WP:POLITICIAN and there is no indication the WP:GNG is met. I42 (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Very much a local politician; clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN and I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above; badly fails both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sourced or referenced indication of notability at a level that would satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Lists_of_San_Francisco_topics. Black Kite 00:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of San Francisco topics
- List of San Francisco topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an almost-indecipherable mess that functions better as a category. Actually, categories serving the same function as this list do exist in the form of Category:San Francisco, California and its daughter categories. This is practically than a WP:DIRECTORY. Therefore, I urge deletion. kurykh 09:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentKeep - I left a note at User talk:Decstop the editor who created this list about the AfD and with some suggestions for improvement. Not quite sure this one needs deletion, but it does need improvement.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and encourage the editor behind this article to add everything in the list to Category:San Francisco, California and its sub categories. That would improve the category, eliminate the need for this awkward article, and conform with precdent. Also they could consider creating a Project for San Francisco in the mold of other city Projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago or Wikipedia:WikiProject Pittsburgh and many others. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nomination does not conform to our guideline which makes it clear that categories do not supersede lists and that editors should not attempt to delete one form of navigation aid to allow the other to dominate. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So how does this list serve any useful purpose? You cited a guideline but did not elaborate on how it is in any way relevant. The reason this list is nominated was because this list is simply useless from an encyclopedic point of view, not because I'm biased towards categories. You have misunderstood both the guideline and this AfD's rationale. --kurykh 07:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Organization of these topics simply by alphabetization is not very useful. Lists of San Francisco topics already does a fine job of organizing them. Location (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. We have more than one system of organization, and people shouldbe able to choose. If the list needs improvement, improve it. . DGG ( talk )
- Delete. This article is jumbled, pointless, and uselessly sorts many unrelated topics alphabetically. The Lists of San Francisco topics and the city's numerous categories do a much better job. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė♫♪ 06:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Outline of San Francisco; if not then delete. As a list this is all over the place and breaks several article guidelines and policies which lists have to abide by, but it isn't too far away from being an outline. I know outlines are a touchy topic, but I'm rather fond of them. Like lists and categories they are navigational aids, but unlike lists they aren't encyclopedia articles and unlike categories they appear in the mainspace. ThemFromSpace 07:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Lists of San Francisco topics. This list as a alphabetized list has no significant advantage over a category. On the other hand the redirect target is a well organized topical list that assists in directing the reader to articles of interest. -- Whpq (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Agree with Whpq that this is a category and not useful like Lists of San Francisco topics. To those who say that categories do not supersede lists, I would point out that this list essentially functions as a category, and that any improvements should be centralized and combined with Lists of San Francisco topics. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Kids Next Door sectors
- List of Kids Next Door sectors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a long, sourceless list about a minor aspect of a kids' TV show. It is inherently original research and consists of nothing but fan trivia. Reyk YO! 08:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fancruft and trivia at best. Wikipedia isn't a place for this. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm a fan of the series, but this is so irrelevant. TbhotchTalk 02:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
it shouldnt be deleted even if it is just fan trivia I personally would like to read it and so would a lot of people probably —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.45.139 (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joan Bergere
- Joan Bergere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only claim of importance was being burned in a single news event, 73 years ago. Fails WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:1E. RayTalk 07:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 22:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We don't write articles about people based on a single news story. I can find no other sources on her other than that she was part of the ensemble for Hellzapoppin the following year.[12] Fences&Windows 00:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete the importance of Bergere is noteworthy because of her youth, the Clyde Beatty Circus-Cole Brothers, of which she was a member. and her being a burn victim. Her membership in the Alan K. Foster girls troupe is significant as is her residence which has been established. Residence, affiliation, and the Bergere name are important to the study of history and genealogy of New York City at this time. The paucity of articles to be found on the internet is no reason for the proposed deletion. Instead, this is the action of a single individual who seeks to trim valid Wikipedia content because of not being able to add something of interest himself. The article has been added to already and will likely be supplemented with additional text in the future. At the very least someone who is involved with circus history should be summoned to determine the article's merits or lack thereof. Currently it is merely an act of a person who is looking to make a statement for himself. This makes Wikipedia suffer by having "lone" crusaders who are really not looking to improve the content, but merely to increase the number of "edits" (albeit poor ones) he/she has made, and then note the edit number on a profile page.--Robert (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting articles on non-notable people doesn't make anyone a crusader. Stick to writing about notable topics and your articles won't be deleted. You can slag off the deletion nominator all you like, but it won't save your article. Fences&Windows 20:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what your criterion for "noteworthy" is and you have no right to advise me regarding the topics I choose. Is Britney Spears noteworthy? I don't think so, and a few years from now most people could care less about her. The danger to Wikipedia from an editor like you is you dip into areas in which you have little or no knowledge, merely to make an edit. It makes your ego inflate to gain a measure of self-importance by deleting someone else's content. Perhaps you might take a writing course and learn to broaden your editing skills to include adding rather than subtracting? Just thinking....--Robert (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As far as can be discerned from the article, and my own searches, he main claim to fame is being a burn victim. Wikpedia isn't for recordingnews reports. If she has done something that meets WP:ENTERTAINER it not evident in the current article. -- Whpq (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete-Actually both Bergere and Joyce Cooke are noteworthy by being members of the Allen K. Foster troupe. Foster was a noted choreographer whose Allen K. Foster Girls performed in "The Cocoanuts" (1929). As a performer and then a producer, there is an extensive list of
Foster's credits as choreographer, director, producer, and performer at http://www.ibdb.com/person.php?id=14807. The young women needed talent to qualify for Foster's troupe for certain. Why the rush to delete, does someone have a deadline? This is not merely a "News" story, but one which has a number of areas of significance. Foster was involved with productions which pertained to the circus, i.e. "Jumbo" (1935-1936) and "The Circus Princess" (1927). In fact Bergere is listed as a performer in the cast of "Hellzapoppin", a musical revue which played from 1938-1941 for 1404 performances at several different venues (The Winter Garden Theatre, 46th Street Theatre, and The Majestic Theatre). Both the Allen K. Foster Girls and the Chester Hale Girls appeared in Busby Berkeley musicals.--Robert (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC) --Robert (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)--Robert (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please, only one !vote per customer. If you need to add additonal commentary, you can prefix it with something like "Comment". -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, regardless of what you think is or is not noteworthy, this actress doesn't appear to be notable. Please read our definition of notability, which differs significantly from your subjective opinion or my subjective opinion of what is or is not important or significant. Nyttend (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep Consensus is that this is clearly encyclopedic. Mike Cline (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gallery of dependent territory flags
- Gallery of dependent territory flags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This has no encyclopedic value. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Cf. List of cultural flags, Flags of formerly independent states, and Flags of active autonomist and secessionist movements. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, it is not unimaginable that it could hold some value. For example, it could be of use for an art student researching typical characteristics of flags of dependent territories. Haavard Ostermann (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to commons they have gallery pages there, and this can be an interwiki link at the dependent territory article(s). 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep for same reasons as Gallery of sovereign-state flags. --RBBrittain (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Traditional paper encyclopedias almost always include lots of flags; for instance, the 1989 World Book Encyclopedia entry for Flag which has 21 pages of galleries of flags. This speaks clearly to me of its encylopedic value. ⚐ ⚐ ⚐ Edward Vielmetti (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC) ⚑ ⚑ ⚑[reply]
- Weak delete No evidence of notability of the flags, and a lot of little islands and dependent areas of little importance are included. Edison (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The nomination has a negative value in that it is disruptive. For examples of encyclopedic treatments of this topic, see Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations, The world encyclopedia of flags, etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to commons No encyclopedic content. WP:NOTREPOSITORY states: "Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons." Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 01:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Reasonable grouping. That some of the areas are intrinsically unimportant is hardly relevant to this or any other geographical article. The WorldBook case is illuminating: we include everything other encyclopedias do. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:IAR. It is true that "Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of images", but the argument about the way that other encyclopedias do it is sufficiently strong — I assume that professional encyclopedias wouldn't do something that's unencyclopedic. Nyttend (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wiki is not other Encyclopedias. We have a general set of rules that determine how to make a useful Article. The use of galleries should be in keeping with Wikipedia's image use policy. Policy is clear on this topic; the "if, due to its content, a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons. We cannot ignore Policy ? I agree that we are WP:NOTPAPER, but even that mentions that "there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done". Galleries of nothing but images do not belong on THIS server. That was the entire reason for the creation of Commons, and why it was made so easy to link to it from all its sister projects. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Edward Vielmetti, Colonel Warden. If it's good enough for a print encyclopedia, it's good enough for Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JForget 02:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gallery of sovereign-state flags
- Gallery of sovereign-state flags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This has no encyclopedic value. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Cf. List of cultural flags, Flags of formerly independent states, and Flags of active autonomist and secessionist movements. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, see my entry in the discussion on dependent regions' flags. Haavard Ostermann (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to commons they have gallery pages there, and this can be an interwiki link at the sovereign state article(s). 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia pages function better than commons compilations (commons crashes computers!), and this is the kind of heavy-traffic page that needs to stay up top on wikipedia, IMHO. Flipping back-and-forth between commons and wikipedia shouldn't happen for a page of this importance. (Just my 2 cents.) Skalskal (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur. Outback the koala (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At the very least, a copy should reside on Commons, even if this is kept on Wikipedia. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "commons crashes computers!" ???? if this page on Commons does that to your computer, then the same would happen here on WP if we were allow a gazillion Pretty Picture Galleries. Commons is designed for optimal transfer of multiple large files, WP is not. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 18:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At the very least, a copy should reside on Commons, even if this is kept on Wikipedia. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur. Outback the koala (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, or at worst move to Commons. Sometimes folks DO need to see an overview of the subject, i.e., ALL the flags of the world; that in fact is how I came across this nomination. Calling this "no encyclopedic value" is totally absurd. --RBBrittain (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit: One key purpose that can ONLY be served by a gallery of flags is to show them in relative proportion. Many people don't realize that though nearly all flags are rectangular (among sovereign nations only Nepal's isn't), the proportion widely varies by country, from square (Switzerland) to extremely elongated (Qatar); that is hard to prove to some people without a gallery. --RBBrittain (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a lot of the dead tree encyclopedias have a gallery page of just national flags (and some historical flags). I believe this would be very usefull here (and perhaps add a Commons cat template on the bottom). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why create duplication? As User:Justin's Comment pointed out, a Soft redir to Commons is just as, if not more, useful and search-able. Why must the same file reside on both? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 18:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We used to have a lot of pages like "Flags with X" (if the flag has stars, animals, crosses, etc.) and I generally supported moving those to the Commons. However, as I demonstrated, this kind of gallery of only national flags has been traditionally included in encyclopedias and we are following that. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A very old copy of Britannica proves my point. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep in keeping with traditional encyclopedic content. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Poor rational, this discussion should be closed as a speedy keep. An example of drive-by tagging at its worst. Outback the koala (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith... also it would be nice if you could explain the reasoning of your !vote. As all I can gather from your current opinion is that you like it. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 18:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepEncyclopedias and almanacs long before Wikipedia had illustrations of the flags of all countries of the world. The list should exclude made up micronations and only include generally accepted sovereign states. Edison (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep , as indeed plenty of encyclopedias and dictionaries have such lists. I think the current list of states there is fine, since they are all de facto sovereign and are securely in control of [at least some] national territory, even if some (Abkhazia, Kosovo, North Cyprus, Republic of China) are not fully internationally recognized. Basically, all these flags are actually flown as national flags over some regions of the earth. Vmenkov (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep , just like any paper encyclopedia, should be able to find them all in one place. Skalskal (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Warn nominator that he should observe our deletion policy with more care. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to commons No encyclopedic content. WP:NOTREPOSITORY states: "Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons." Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 01:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has text which goes with the pictures — the captions. These provide an encyclopedic context by telling us the relevant country and linking to more detailed articles such as Flag of the United Kingdom. This is ample text for our purposes, which is to provide information in summary style, but if we wanted more we would provide it by ordinary editing not by deletion, per our editing policy. WP:NOTREPOSITORY is thus completely refuted. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your saying that the title of the flag and a link to The Actual Article is enough text to satisfy it being an Encyclopedic??? Not in my opinion. In my opinion nothing has been refuted by this claim that Flag of XXXXXX is encyclopedic content, it is simply a title (and a ruse). We do not need to edit it is true, because there is a relevant Article for each and every flag already that, by themselves, are a much more viable search term than this one thing has. (yes thing on purpose, I did not call it a Article in that last sentence, because there is no encyclopedic content.) This is a Pretty Picture Gallery and should go to Commons like all the rest before it. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The WorldBook/Brittanica examples settle the issue. We're a superset of other general encyclopedias. This is almanac-like content, and this is explicitly included as a part of Wikipedia. NOT REPOSITORY apparently needs to be rewritten for flexibility, but fortunately, all policies have exceptions. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Every general encyclopedia I have ever seen has such a gallery. Commons is not an encyclopedia. Nikola (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct, Commons is not an Encyclopedia, it is a "Shared media repository". By the same token I would mention WP is not a Pretty Picture Gallery for the storage of media files that are used across multiple projects. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 19:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be implying that the Gallery of sovereign-state flags is a "Pretty Picture Gallery". You are wrong. Nikola (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct, Commons is not an Encyclopedia, it is a "Shared media repository". By the same token I would mention WP is not a Pretty Picture Gallery for the storage of media files that are used across multiple projects. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 19:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:IAR. It is true that "Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of images", but the argument about the way that other encyclopedias do it is sufficiently strong — I assume that professional encyclopedias wouldn't do something that's unencyclopedic. Nyttend (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wiki is not other Encyclopedias. We have a general set of rules that determine how to make a useful Article. The use of galleries should be in keeping with Wikipedia's image use policy. Policy is clear on this topic; the "if, due to its content, a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons. We cannot ignore Policy ? I agree that we are WP:NOTPAPER, but even that mentions that "there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done". Galleries of nothing but images do not belong on THIS server. That was the entire reason for the creation of Commons, and why it was made so easy to link to it from all its sister projects. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepIf it's good enough for a print encyclopedia, it's good enough for Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete
- This was a hard one to judge, as it was nearly equally !voted as 'delete' and 'keep'. Relisting for a third time isn't really an option, as I think it'd still be at an impass at the end of that week! The coverage in Business today, etc, are useful, but I think that Agricola44's analysis is the clinching argument for deleting this article. I also note that most of the keeps are 'weak' keeps. I feel that the consensus is just on the side of deletion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leena Chatterjee
- Leena Chatterjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable per WP:ACADEMIC, no evidence of research online that has made significant impact in her discipline, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Prod contested by creator, who has claimed slight WP:COI on user talk page. MuffledThud (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ACADEMIC. H-index of 3 is very low. The teaching awards do not contribute towards notability. StAnselm (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning keep - she has had some coverage in indian mainstream financial media. Business today has done a cover story of her (along with eight others). Has been quoted in The Telegraph1,the telegraph2, Business today, India today, Indian express, Financial express, business line.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete despite Sodabottle's helpful collection of sources. The article itself doesn't convince me she passes WP:PROF or WP:GNG, and a handful of trivial mentions in newspaper articles doesn't make much difference. The Business Today piece is less trivial, but listing her as one of the nine best business school professors selected from only three universities doesn't really impress me either. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Keep I'll accept the BT articles--that these are probably the three top schools is different than if it were three random ones. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just to clarify - the three covered institutes (IIMs A, B and C) are the top three business schools in the country (almost all rankings agree on this).. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The fact that all aspects of actual teaching play no role in WP: PROF seems questionable IMHO. However, that's another discussion, and - based on these criteria - it seems close to impossible to prove notability based on the 9 criteria. However, for some reason the alternative standard "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor" is mentioned. Based on this, Chatterjee is without any doubt notable. She is full professor af a top-rated business school. She is cited to be known as an outstanding teacher, and is therefore obviously more often asked for an interview than even an average instructor/professor at her institution. No doubt it is debatable whether the alternative standard is to be accepted as replacement for the 9 criteria. However, even if not taken as general guideline, it is at least there to have a solid discussion basis for cases such as this. PanchoS (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I have searched WoS in a variety of ways for her publications, e.g. for author "Chatterjee L*", "Bhattacharyya AND Chatterjee", "Bhattacharyya AND Leena C*" with and without the schools' names, etc. finding nothing (Note the erroneous way in which first name and surname are swapped in the bibliography). Some of the research titles listed in the article are not in peer-reviewed publications, but are rather simply internal "white papers". What this indicates is that none of her works are published in any of the roughly 140 mainstream journals of management or social psychology (her fields of specialty) that are indexed by WoS – clear failure of WP:PROF #1. The teaching award is from an alumni association, so it does not count as a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" as described by #2. She is not an elected member of a prestigious society (#3), not in a named or distinguished chair (#5), not editor of well-established journal (#8), etc. etc. In short, none of the criteria in WP:PROF are satisfied. As David Eppstein has already mentioned above, some briefs in newspapers do not in and of themselves confer notability, and that seems to be all that is left here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. The careful analysis above indicates that notability is not achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Weak Keep - IIM is a top rated management school in India/Asia (we don’t have a reliable data to compare it with Wharton school at Penn for example – I would say IIM is as good as it gets…). Chairperson of the Placements Cell of the institute of IIM qualifies her for #5 WP:PROF. She is full professor of a top-rated business school in Asia/world. I would argue that this should be at least a weak keep. thx.--kaeiou (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Christopher Pimental
- Christopher Pimental (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This BLP is unsourced. I couldn't find books by this writer on amazon.com or mentions of his name in the google news archives, suggesting that he may be non-notable. Also, some of the statements in the article seem to be possible BLP violations (like the part about his "murky" past). Maybe someone can find sources for this article? Otherwise I think it should probably be deleted. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources outside of blogs or self published references. No reviews of his works published by independent and trustworthy journals and websites. Christopher Pimental fails WP:AUTHOR, in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - seems to have some stories published in a specialty magazine. There is no coverage about him in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Liberal denial
- Liberal denial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Political soapboxing with intent to disparage, coatrack Acroterion (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of references in google. Conservapedia also has an entry on it. --Monitor politic (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's just a biased attack page. Eeekster (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It exists. However this article doesn't provide secondary sources which cover it in depth. It would be better to just have one article on denial and discuss all types there. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Soapbox somewhere else. RayTalk 05:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 05:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Good grief I don't know where to begin. There really should be a speedy criteria for this sort of garbage (would a WP:G10 count?) For policy reasons WP:COATRACK comes to mind, as does WP:SOAPBOX, as this page's sole purpose is for bashing liberals. Umbralcorax (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If this is worthy of an article, this is by far the worse way to do so. Definitely fails WP:NPOV Avicennasis @ 06:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a thinly-veiled attack page. JIP | Talk 06:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- attack page. Pure and simple. Reyk YO! 07:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agree with other editors. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Classic example of flame bait. Fails WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, and... anything I missed? ShawnIsHere (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with deletion. There are also other articles on denialism which could also be considered. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per above. PDCook (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as attack. Already denied, tagging for review by another. This is thinly veiled as attacks go. WP:SNOW, anybody? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. This is unsourced original research as it stands and none of the Keep votes addressed this problem. If anyone would like it userfied to work on, please contact me or another admin. Black Kite 00:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of villains and monsters in Powerpuff Girls Z
- List of villains and monsters in Powerpuff Girls Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced fancruft, WP:OR. Anything really useful in this can be folded into the main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and don't bother with a merge. Nothing keepable here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No references to show notability or verify accuracy. Jim Heaphy (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- no sources, nothing but original research. This is both fan- and list cruft. Reyk YO! 07:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep List of characters, list of villains/creatures/monsters/enemies, etc. are fine for Wikipedia. Those who hate list always say delete, those who like them say keep, and sometimes the article is kept, and sometimes not. Depends whoever is around at the time to comment, and the opinions of the closing administrator. These types of articles come up to AFD so many times, with such random outcomes, why don't we just flip a coin to decide? Dream Focus 15:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Because there are other policy concerns—e.g. WP:V—to consider. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can verify fictional content from the primary source. No one is doubting that there are villains and monsters in this series. Some of them on the list have their own articles even. Dream Focus 15:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And per WP:SOURCES, while primary sources are certainly allowable, third-party coverage is best. If this is simply a recapitulation of episode summaries, that is a perfectly reasonable rationale for deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nominator is proposing a merger and so we should retain the article for its edit history and content per our licensing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced trivial listcruft/fancruft at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep appropriate combination article, the best alternative to an article on each one of them. Not unsourceable, since it is sourceable from the work it self . a list of the characters in a significant fiction is appropriate detail, not excessive. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fancruft. Shadowjams (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is nothing to merge. We do not merge in/out unsourced material which violates WP:NOR policy. JBsupreme (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Perfectly acceptable spinout to keep the main article form growing too long. Edward321 (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Attack of the Dragons
- The Attack of the Dragons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnotable compilation/tribute album. No references given or found to indicate suitability for inclusion, and no likely target for a redirect Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established. Only two of the 12 bands are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Jim Heaphy (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable tribute to a notable band; I found no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:NALBUM. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. All points considered, no consensus on whether or not the subject is notable as a creative professional. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hidenori Kusaka
- Hidenori Kusaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnotable manga artist. Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. Tagged for notability since January. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Only wrote a single series (which was illustrated by a different artist). Prod removed by IP with no edit summary. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established. Article so short that even hints of notability are absent. Jim Heaphy (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream Focus added references but I am not changing my vote. – allen四names 02:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The author created a very notable series, and their work one a notable award from a major long established network. I added that to the article. Dream Focus 08:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The English translation of his manga won a Nickelodeon kids magazine award, which is not a major publishing award (but a network one, as you already noted). The award is clearly not a major one, and the "source" is nothing but a press release that only mentions him as the author of the work. The listing of "winners" of awards also include "Best Hair in Comics" and "Grossest Thing in Comics". An award given to the manga series, NOT to Kusaka, does not make him notable. The series is notable, not him. Notability is not inherited. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Was the translation different script than the original? Are awards less notable if presented in a country that speaks a different language than what it was originally written in? And its a notable award. The series can't be notable, without the person creating it be notable. Just like a director is notable for their works, or a bestselling writer. Dream Focus 08:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, a work can be notable without its creator being notable. And the award is not notable. Its a random kids magazine award, not a significant literary award. Oh, and yes, Viz did censor some parts of their release, and flipped two characters names, so it is a different script from the original. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any significant difference? Flipping two names around doesn't change things, nor does eliminating a few things here and there. Inuyasha had all of its blood and profanity removed by the Cartoon Network when it first showed it. A rather common thing. And any award that gets coverage, is notable. Dream Focus 08:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, you are comparing different media type. Inuyasha's anime is not a written media, and it was released uncut to DVD. Big difference between modifying for broadcast and editing it period. And no, any award that gets its own generated coverage is NOT notable. Issuing press releases does not make you notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any significant difference? Flipping two names around doesn't change things, nor does eliminating a few things here and there. Inuyasha had all of its blood and profanity removed by the Cartoon Network when it first showed it. A rather common thing. And any award that gets coverage, is notable. Dream Focus 08:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, a work can be notable without its creator being notable. And the award is not notable. Its a random kids magazine award, not a significant literary award. Oh, and yes, Viz did censor some parts of their release, and flipped two characters names, so it is a different script from the original. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Academy awards give out awards for best Film Editing, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Costume Design, Makeup, and other categories some might find ridiculous. That doesn't mean you can disqualify them. Dream Focus 08:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huge difference. Those are FILM related, which the Academy awards are for. What does "grossest thing" have to do with the medium? Nothing. Its just a silly category for kids. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some watch things just to be grossed out. Many horror films are based on the gross out factor. Does anyone watch a movie just to admire how well someone's makeup is? Dream Focus 08:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And? This isn't a horror series nor was the award for horror works. It is a trivial and random category. And yes, there are people who notice the make up in a film. Cats is a vastly different experience when the actors are not wearing full, properly applied make up. Either way, if a film's only award was for best makeup and received no coverage, it would also be unnotable.
- Some watch things just to be grossed out. Many horror films are based on the gross out factor. Does anyone watch a movie just to admire how well someone's makeup is? Dream Focus 08:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huge difference. Those are FILM related, which the Academy awards are for. What does "grossest thing" have to do with the medium? Nothing. Its just a silly category for kids. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Was the translation different script than the original? Are awards less notable if presented in a country that speaks a different language than what it was originally written in? And its a notable award. The series can't be notable, without the person creating it be notable. Just like a director is notable for their works, or a bestselling writer. Dream Focus 08:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How lively is the discussion here. Only one know work as a writer, no Japanese wiki article and the work isn't an original work but rather an adaptation of video games so that lead me to ask for delete. --KrebMarkt 09:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a Japanese wiki article, as you can now see on the page; it's existed for a while but apparently the bot that's supposed to add interwiki links missed this page. In fact, the Japanese wiki page was created on 12/31/08, almost a year before this page. --70.250.214.164 (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Completely fails WP:CREATIVE. Winning a very minor award, one that is simply a popularity contest more in common with "senior superlatives" than with significant critical attention, doesn't make an author or artist notable. —Farix (t | c) 12:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Jim Heaphy, if an article is too short, the best thing to do is expand it, not delete it. And KrebbMarkt, the fact that a manga is the adaptation of a video game doesn't make it less notable. --J4\/4 <talk> 12:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On what bases should this article be kept when it doesn't pass any of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria? —Farix (t | c) 14:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @J4V4 I consider the writer work on this series as an alimentary job with no much room left for personal initiatives. --KrebMarkt 17:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: CSE results don't seem to show too much - mostly sales rankings, occasional short reviews of the manga, etc. --Gwern (contribs) 14:33 7 March 2010 (GMT)
- Comment: The existence of reviews proves his notability. WP:AUTHOR says:
- The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
- Specifically, note that a person who has authored a work that's the subject of multiple independent reviews is automatically notable. --70.250.214.164 (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficient notability or in-depth third-party coverage to justify a biographical article on this person. --DAJF (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been waffling on this one. As an original writer, he would be a clear keep based on WP:CREATIVE just from the reception already present on Pokémon Adventures. However, this is an adaptation of the stories created by the developers of the video games. A close adaptation, would make me say no, but according to the above (and I've no reason to distrust the good-faith of the editor's comments) that while some arcs closely follow the game each is based on, others diverge wildly -- and as such probably count as original writing. Narrowly keep as passing WP:CREATIVE. (Lack of biographical detail at this time is not an issue -- that just means the article remains a stub for now, and as we all know, per policy being a stub is not a wikicrime.) —Quasirandom (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Winning the Nickelodeon Magazine Comics Award does demonstrate notability. --Oakshade (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He didn't win it. The series won it. He was not sent any kind of physical award, nor given any kind of prize/recognition beyond a simply listing of the author in a simple list of kids votes. That is not a major award for purposes of notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stand corrected. He was the creator of an award winning series. Vote not changed. It might seem easy to discount "kids votes", but in fact "kids" literature is a gigantic industry and winning recognition for achievement from a major "kids" publication in fact does demonstrate notability. That the topic was "not sent any kind of physical award" has nothing to do with anything.--Oakshade (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep His work is part of a notable franchise, has won an award, is still being published over a decade after it began, and has been translated into 3 different languages. Edward321 (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Raginisri
- Raginisri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable per WP:MUSIC. Evil saltine (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Unable to find references to support notability. Article references do not follow WP:RS criteria. ttonyb (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This article is about famous tamil singer Raginisri. she has participated in many reality shows. She is one of the famous singer in chennai. she sings classical as well as western songs. she is also a noted bharatanatyam dancer. dding her repertoire (learning Hindustani Music from Lakshmi Sriram), Ragini's efforts got rewarded in the inter-state music and All India Talent Hunt competitions in New Delhi. A sought-after talent in various channels, Ragini made the most of her opportunities in Sapthaswarangal, Ragam Sangeetham Raja Geetham, Ragamaliga Bala Brahmam and Apoorva Ragangal. One of her proud moments was in being selected by Tamil Nadu Iayal Issai Nataga Mandram to render concerts in different sabhas and Tamil Sanghams all over the State. She has a appreciation society in facebook —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.102.130 (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless the person who made the above comment (or someone else) can add verifiable independent sources showing that this performer is notable. It isn't enough to say she's famous in this discussion. Please prove it with independent references, not her website or Facebook page. Jim Heaphy (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete She was a participant in a number of singing reality shows (statewide). But has won none as far as i know. And hasn't sung in any films or made albums yet.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Organizational Behavior And Leadership During A Political Revolution
- Organizational Behavior And Leadership During A Political Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original essay on American Revolution, Russian Revolution and Iranian Revolution without clearly defined topic.DonaldDuck (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the article seems to be original research, and the references are not properly cited. One of the references appears to be a novel. Jim Heaphy (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an essay. JIP | Talk 06:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep Needs updating and sourcing Put the BOTS to work!Mike Cline (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Missouri locations by per capita income
- Missouri locations by per capita income (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP is not a indiscriminate list of statistics. Mattg82 (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on procedural grounds only: it does not make sense to pick off this article via a one-off nomination, when there are similar articles for every U.S. state:
- Alabama locations by per capita income
- Alaska locations by per capita income
- Arizona locations by per capita income
- Arkansas locations by per capita income
- California locations by per capita income
- Colorado locations by per capita income
- Delaware locations by per capita income
- Florida locations by per capita income
- Georgia (U.S. state) locations by per capita income
- Hawaii locations by per capita income
- Idaho locations by per capita income
- Illinois locations by per capita income
- Indiana locations by per capita income
- Iowa locations by per capita income
- Kansas locations by per capita income
- Kentucky locations by per capita income
- List of settlements in Tennessee by per capita income
- Louisiana locations by per capita income
et cetera, et cetera. If part of a broader nomination, I would consider change my opinion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Check out WP:OSE - that there are other articles in existance is not an argument against deletion.ManicSpider (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm not seeing a problem here. Yilloslime TC 20:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all According to our most basic policy Wikipedia:Five pillars "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." It would however be useful to know how the communities on the list were chosen: it ought to include all cities and towns on which we have articles--which ought to be all of them. The source is obviously the census data in the individual articles. (that should be stated also). DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's no "keep all" about it. The nominator only brought up this article. No keep vote, because the article really is a piece of crap, as the nominator says-- no sourcing, no context, no real improvements since the cut and paste was done back in 2005. Some of the state articles listed above show what an article of this type can look like. Looks like the author was "inspired" by this [13] or something similar, and simply forgot to tell us where he or she found it. If nothing else, maybe someone can throw the number "2000" in the article. Mandsford (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See my note below. Shadowjams (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An unsourced indiscriminate list of statistics.ManicSpider (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural note - This discussion ought to consider all of these articles as one, since the rationale is the same, but I'm not sure if above comments reflect that understanding. If you comment below please indicate to which articles your comments apply (all, some, etc.). Thanks Shadowjams (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral on all - This is borderline WP:DIRECTORY, and as a practical matter I wonder if these lists will ever be updated to stay even reasonably current. That's a huge logistical nightmare that bothers me. On the other hand, there's actual content that's verifiable, and not too outside of the normal notability guidelines, although I would say it's borderline. There needs to be some limit to the permutations of lists allowed (Lists of counties by head of cattle). Shadowjams (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yeah, someone should table-ize these lists too if they're kept. Shadowjams (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and ask the author to add the appropriate U.S. Census refererences, and improve the article to bring it in line with similar articles about other states. Jim Heaphy (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep,These are not "indiscriminate lists". They need to be referenced, and put into tables, but I don't see the point in deleting them. (They could be updated, it's just copy/pasting).Smallman12q (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The problem with these lists is that they are far out of date and not likely to be kept up. I picked two at random: Colorado and Kansas. The data from Colorado was entered in August 2005—4½ years ago. Kansas data was entered in February 2005—more than 5 years ago. Neither has been updated since those dates. At least they should have a disclaimer at on the page stating the date of the information. Too bad that Wikimedia software does not have some sort of spreadsheet or database function where users could enter data and the pages would be automatically created. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- we should indeed have a way of updating these--at present, I think it would take a dedicated bot. In the meantime, we should keep these, for they are much more likely to be updated than reconstructed. DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize this is the wrong forum for an extended discussion, but what are your thoughts about a notice that the information may be out of date (either the template we have for that, or a more informal note)? Shadowjams (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be in favor of some sort of template that could be posted at the top of the page stating that the information was current as of {{{insert date}}}. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 18:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply because they are a challenge to maintain in their present state does not validate, nor provide a valid reason for their deletion.Smallman12q (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's a relevant factor. You might not share it, but practical considerations are often considered at AfD, and on close-cases, like massive list-forks, they're quite important. Shadowjams (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are these considerations the de facto standard, or is this policy? (I'd like to stress that they are difficult, but not impossible to maintain. A bot would probably be the best approach.)Smallman12q (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DEL#REASON. I'd support a bot to update these too (although if it's material that only a bot can add, it's suggestive of WP:DIRECTORY), but nobody's done that in a number of years. Shadowjams (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are these considerations the de facto standard, or is this policy? (I'd like to stress that they are difficult, but not impossible to maintain. A bot would probably be the best approach.)Smallman12q (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's a relevant factor. You might not share it, but practical considerations are often considered at AfD, and on close-cases, like massive list-forks, they're quite important. Shadowjams (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply because they are a challenge to maintain in their present state does not validate, nor provide a valid reason for their deletion.Smallman12q (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be in favor of some sort of template that could be posted at the top of the page stating that the information was current as of {{{insert date}}}. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 18:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize this is the wrong forum for an extended discussion, but what are your thoughts about a notice that the information may be out of date (either the template we have for that, or a more informal note)? Shadowjams (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- we should indeed have a way of updating these--at present, I think it would take a dedicated bot. In the meantime, we should keep these, for they are much more likely to be updated than reconstructed. DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Author blanked page; sources not found. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John Daniel Martinsson
- John Daniel Martinsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested Prod with no reason given, I can not find any sources to confirm this information. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 01:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It appears likely that this was an autobiography, and that the author/subject has blanked the page. Jim Heaphy (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Article was blanked by author, tagged for G7 and deleted (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ANGR
- ANGR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
future program with no established notability, can not find significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 01:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not shown. It appears this was written by a cast member who has blanked the page after the article was listed on AfD. Jim Heaphy (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anndretta Lyle
- Anndretta Lyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BIO can't find anything really notable to satiisfy wikiepedia guidelines. Article hasn't grown beyond a stub (in spite of being tagged since 2007) Alan - talk 23:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ENT. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Age of article aside, the article subject can be sourced for only one thing... her role as Toni in Madea Goes to Jail. Other than that, there is no other reasonable assertion of notability, and that one sourcable role is not enough. The majority of the article is made up of the "Early life" section... which A) cannot be sourced to anywhere other than her myspace or twitter, and B) offers nothing toward her notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Fantasia_Barrino. Black Kite 00:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even Angels
- Even Angels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NSONGS I can't find anythign really notable about this single, jstu a few mentions, it was only released in digital download. Alan - talk 23:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's going to have a physical release, it was released for download first. She's started promoting it now, singing it live on Oprah, there are sources to be added someone needs to add them now though.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 23:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Fantasia Barrino until it charts highly enough to qualify for its own article. Fails WP:NSONGS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eliane Cantanhêde
- Eliane Cantanhêde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete fails WP:BIO. Lacks reliable sources. One appearance in a documentary doesn't notability make. --Bejnar (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Black Kite 00:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agitprop! Records
- Agitprop! Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
label seems to be non-notable; there are no sources to assert the notability of the label. While it houses two notable artists, inheriting notability works label to artist, not artist to label; if it did, we'd get the very minor indie labels some bands were on before going onto the notable indie labels. Sceptre (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I have just added a few sources. They may not be that notable in music history but they appear notable enough in queer history to substantiate an article and sufficient potential for improvement to make deletion unnecessary. Ash (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per • Gene93k comments. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This does seem to be a notable "queer music" label in a genre known for misogyny and homophobia. Also it serves as a good list repository for the artists/bands who are not themselves notable and Internet archives has years of the labels websites which includes media reviews, press releases etc so a good article is certainly do-able. -- Banjeboi 22:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This does now seem to have some sources. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JForget 02:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gary Fitzgerald
- Gary Fitzgerald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable failed local election candidate. Got a brief mention in the Willie O'Dea affidavit controversy, hence WP:1E applies. Snappy (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The debate is welcome but should not merely concentrate on the fact that the subject stood for election. Changing the law on Cabinet secrecy is significant. The decision to ignore an explicit Constitutional provision in favour of an EU directive is of huge importance. The complaint of willie o'dea is how Gary Fitzgerald came to public attention but he had many interviews on radio, tv and profiles in the press prior to this. The complaint remains alive and is therefore relevant. Due mainly to snappy talks feedback the article was improved with a large number of reliable news sources provided. If Gary Fitzgerald was merely a failed election candidate there would be no defence to deletion, but nama, willie o'dea, internal green criticism and the legal challenge for openness on environmental matters, puts him in a similar category to Anthony Coughlan or Raymond Crotty. The Article, however, stands on its now merits. Dublinborn (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article is a mess, and in urgent need of a big cleanup (I made a quick start, but there is a lot more to do). Anyway, the issue here is not the state of the article but the notability of Fitzgerald, and this guy is clearly a high-profile political activist notable for a number of things, with extensive coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - he is a sincere activist, and knows how to get on tv, radio, and in the papers, which is not notable for an activist. A borderline case, but what tips me against the article is that Dublinborn's contributions are all about Mr GF, and then DB himself goes off the radar, indicating competent activism more than anything else. GF has concentrated on the very notable O'Dea and NAMA stories, but is hardly alone in that, and was not the first to make his points by a long shot. So I go along with snappy on this.Red Hurley (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Apologies for the amateur/messy of the draft since this was my first attempt at starting a page (perhaps better to have started with some edits), so thanks to BHG for the cleanup. The Constitutional issue on the Cabinet secrecy may appear to be the stuff of academia, but it is of importance on a number of fronts, particulary the role of subsidiary State bodies interpreting the Constitution, the supremacy of EU law and when cabinet discussions must be released. It is not quite in the Crotty sphere of legal/politcal importance, but it may well be by the end of the month if the Government lose (again) and have to go to the Supreme Court. The subject is an experienced activist from the Sensible Public Transport in Dublin campaign (referred to but not yet cited), through to NAMA (not alone but quite to the forefront as shown by the media coverage) and O'Dea (the only person to make an actual complaint AFAIK and done prior to the resignation). He was cited in the page on the willie O'Dea affidavit affair prior to my contribution. I will try to improve page again, and check in from time to time. Dublinborn (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- summary
The "vote" is 2-2. Snappy has not resiled from his initial response to the artice that it should be deleted, but he has conceded that the subject is notable for at least one reason. BrownHairedGirl and Red Hurley, recognise that the subject is notable as a sincere activist who knows hoe to get publicity for his causes, but they differ on the approach to the article. Red Hurley's main objection is that he dislikes my contributions (or lack of them). The article has been viewed 120 times, this month and this page has been viewed 38 times, but only 4 people weighed in. The subject is likely to gain further notoriety/publicity at the end of this month, as judgment is expected in his High Court action and the Green Party's convention is to be held. I suggest holding off any further consideration of deletion until then. Thanks for the input (and again for the assistance in improving the article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dublinborn (talk • contribs) 16:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sufficient sources. just remove the extensive promotionalism. It is not surprising that many minor party politicians will be found notable if enough care is taken to find sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems to me to be a minor player, but we have to follow the sources. Here, they are sufficiently significant and reliable to establish notability beyond the mere events in which he has been involved. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
James Paul Wisner
- James Paul Wisner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I failed to find any reliable secondary sources about that person. I suppose that he is not notable. vvvt 21:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can find information that credits him as a producer, but there isn't coveerage about him or any awards or accolades that I can find to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Colloquial Obsession
- Colloquial Obsession (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previous PROD was removed by an editor without comment after adding some sources. But one of those sources is a message board, and the other sources are only relevant for the singles that have already been released. There is no confirmed release date for the album and no reliable sources for the album itself at this time. Violates WP:CRYSTAL and parts of WP:HAMMER. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This does not meet WP:NALBUMS at this time. Two of the article's references make no mention of the album, and the other is a message board posting. I can find no reliable source confirming a release date or track listing, nor can I find any significant coverage for the album, so WP:HAMMER applies as well as WP:CRYSTAL. Gongshow Talk 04:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- fails WP:NALBUMS. N2e (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At Night We Live
- At Night We Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previous PROD removed without comment after an editor added track list but no sources. The upcoming album has been mentioned in a few possibly reliable sources (for example, here and here) but these are bloggish and self-promotional when investigated further. Article currently violates WP:CRYSTAL and parts of WP:HAMMER. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source, and no sources to support the claims. N2e (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Queen of the City of Ice
- The Queen of the City of Ice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am also behind the Suggested Merge that is currently in this article, thinking that perhaps the information about this song could be an enhancement to the article for the parent album. But on second thought the info in this article appears to be just unsourced and unencyclopedic interpretation of the lyrics by a fan. The song does not merit its own article per WP:NSONGS DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - for procedural reasons I removed the Suggested Merge in light of this AfD. I can put it back if the result of this AfD discussion is to keep. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources for this song, only passing mentions like this one at Allmusic; does not meet WP:NSONGS. I don't think any material from the article should be merged, so a Redirect to Shadow Gallery (album) might be the best option here. Gongshow Talk 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source, and no sources to support the claims. N2e (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 00:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
California School of Law
- California School of Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable, non-accredited online law school. Reads like an ad, POV, no significant third-party coverage (most of the references are links about the VOIP technology they use and the Socratic method). The author LawSchoolHelper (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account. 2 says you, says two 16:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nom, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any of the several sources. seems to be more of an advert for a small business than a bonafide WP article. N2e (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep correspondence school with real existence. sufficient for keeping as institution of higher education. Not accreddited, butdoes have state listing. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regardless whether they're correspondence or brick and mortar, non-accredited schools have no inherent notability, and need to satisfy WP:CORP or WP:ORG. 2 says you, says two 21:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not consider the accreditation status relevant to whether we should have an article, except that it is necessary to determine whether a non-accredited school actually exists--for a few claimed ones have not. It does apparently actually have students. The Calif Bar Association from its web site has standards for even including them on its list. ` DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So basically what you're telling me, is if I rented a storefront, taught classes on legal procedure out of a used textbook I obtained from Amazon.com, gave out "Juris Doctor participant certificates" to those who showed up and paid the fee and purported myself as the "2 School of Law" I would be eligible for an article? My point is that anyone can set up a school, there needs to be some form of benchmark in absence of formal accreditation, and consensus has stated that this is notability established through independent non-trivial journalism. 2 says you, says two 23:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not consider the accreditation status relevant to whether we should have an article, except that it is necessary to determine whether a non-accredited school actually exists--for a few claimed ones have not. It does apparently actually have students. The Calif Bar Association from its web site has standards for even including them on its list. ` DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regardless whether they're correspondence or brick and mortar, non-accredited schools have no inherent notability, and need to satisfy WP:CORP or WP:ORG. 2 says you, says two 21:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, unaccredited law school. Of the six "sources" given, five of them have nothing to do with the subject. The only citation that even mentions this school is the California Bar list confirming that it is unaccredited. --MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Existence and operation aren't sufficient for notability. We have to go to the sources to see whether we have significant coverage in reliable sources. I can't see that bar being crossed here. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Petri Prauda
- Petri Prauda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. hardly anything in gnews [14]. there's not even a Finnish WP article. LibStar (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This musician rates the briefest of mentions on many sites (eg: [15], [16], [17], [18]), but I can't find anything approaching significant coverage, and as far as I can tell, this artist does not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. In fact, given the lack of an assertion of notability, this article could even be speedily deleted on A7 grounds. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source, and no sources to support the claims. N2e (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Country Singles (newspaper)
- Country Singles (newspaper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no indication of notability. The court cases do not mention the paper, the 21balloons web site dose not mention any documentary about it. noq (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Not even mentioned in any of the sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've addressed comments above. The paper changed its name - court cases do in fact refer to this paper. I edited article to clarify this. The last reference is in fact a dead link, my error, I've deleted reference until I find correct one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfrphoto (talk • contribs) 04:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update I decided in-depth legal discussion belonged on publisher page so I put it there at Jacobsen_Publishing Mfrphoto (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not meet general notability requirements. It is not widely quoted and there are very few - if any - secondary sources that quote the magazine. The legal case mentioned in the article, if notable, should be a stand-alone entry, but regardless of the case's notability, the publication in question does not inherit notability from the case. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. per the discussion at the bottom of the AfD Black Kite 00:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese bird spider
- Chinese bird spider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The whole thing is confused taxonomic nonsense, and is really just a collection of dubious factoids. "Chinese bird spider is an English name given to several species of old-world tarantulas", "The Chinese bird spider is a fairly large specimen", "The Chinese bird spider is a rather aggressive species" - so it's several species, a specimen, and a species? There is already an article on the genus Haplopelma, which lists the species mentioned, so any mention of "Chinese Bird Spider" should probably go in there (in fact, it is mentioned in passing as a reference back to this article). The stuff about its venom is largely generic and pretty much applies to tarantula venom in general - there is an unsourced mention in Spiders having medically significant venom, and I think that is sufficient (if indeed true), though I'd suggest rewording that bit (I'll be happy to do it myself if it is agreed to delete this article). The unsourced claimed size of 8" is very likely nonsense (H schmidti is nowhere near that big. I'm not certain about the others, but most Haplopelma species grow to around 4.5" max leg span). None of the claims is supported by the cited references, which are mostly just links to photos of the several named species. Once the nonsense, and the unsupported and irrelevant claims, are removed, there's nothing not actually very much left. -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC) (modified 06:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Additional: I should mention that I'm a tarantula enthusiast, and have kept a couple of Haplopelma species. I'd be happy to fix up the related articles and make stubs for the named species (and expand the stubs later when I've consulted references), and I think this one should be deleted and redirected to Haplopelma -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with above comments. There's nothing either factually correct and/or substantiated in the article. Anything actually factual about it can go in the correct species article, when it's written §piderJon (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are numerous references to the chinese bird spider in toxicology, exactly as this article says. If there is some confusion about the species concerned then we should assist our readers by listing them, just as this article does. Deletion would leave a hole in our coverage of this notable topic and so would violate our editing policy. Note also that there is no discussion at the article's talk page and so this seems to be a drive-by contrary to our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Yes, there are references to toxicology (eg [19]), but the only reliable ones I could find refer specifically to Selenocosmia huwena (alternative name for Haplopelpma schmidti), which is only one species that has attracted the name Chinese bird spider, and I think that material should be referenced from an article on that species (which I am writing), and probably also from the Haplopelma genus article - there are no citations to any reliable sources in Chinese bird spider, so we wouldn't actually be losing any if we delete. The toxicology is briefly mentioned in the Spiders having medically significant venom article - Chinese bird spider doesn't really say any more than that does, and it seems pointless to have what little information there is duplicated. And yes, there is confusion over species (the term almost certainly doesn't originate with just one species anyway), and I'm suggesting that should be covered by the genus article Haplopelma (which should also cross-reference the toxicology information). I suggest Haplopelma should have a section describing the use of the term Chinese bird spider (but with new content, not the content of this article, which seems to be little more than unreferenced hearsay), this article should be deleted, and Chinese bird spider should be redirected there - so there would be no hole. As I say, I'm happy to do that myself and have taken a userfied copy of this article in case there is anything that can be salvaged - but I obviously need to see if we have a consensus first (and if the consensus is to keep this as a separate article, I'll be happy to improve this article in situ instead). As for WP:BEFORE, that doesn't say I have to discuss it on the Talk page first, just that I have to check the Talk page, which I did. And I have researched this, both in my general life as a tarantula enthusiast, and specifically now for this AfD as part of my general review of Tarantula-related articles as I start on some serious rework and expansion of them - there's certainly nothing "drive-by" about it. Looking back on my comment above, I can see I wasn't clear, so I've modified it (see strikes). To clarify, I'm suggesting expanding the Haplopelma article (with well-written and referenced material, not the confused and misleading content of this article), and then deleting this and redirecting the page. I didn't propose it as a merge, as I thought that was really about merging existing content rather than expanding better content elsewhere, but if the result of this is that a merge proposal would be a more appropriate route, I'll be happy to go with that. Also, regarding the relevant species articles, I have stubs for them them in my sandbox and I'm creating them as we speak. So, let there be consensus... -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC) (updated 07:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Additonal The new H. schmidti article I'm working on is here (It's a long way from complete yet, but I expect to work on it more over the next few days), and a stub for H. hainanum is here (I'll start on that one when H. schmidti is closer to completion) -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Mappings between common names and binomial names/formal taxonomies are so problematic. Clearly the way it is now is very broken - you've outlined the imprecision wrt species/several species/etc. If "Chinese Bird Spider" refers to the entire Haplopelma genus, obviously we want only one article there, so a merge/redirect would be appropriate. Even if it is only used to refer to a few Haplopelma species, it still might make sense to redirect to Haplopelma and just make it clear in the article which it refers to. If it's really just Haplopelma schmidti then I guess redirect to Haplopelma for now and then change to Haplopelma schmidti when nom is done with that page. I definitely think chinese bird spider should at least be a redirect, though - don't delete this notable term completely. In any case, thanks for taking this on; it would be great to fix the errors on these pages and get everything sourced. ErikHaugen (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It does appear to be used for H. hainanum too (and possibly other, as-yet unclassified, species), so a redirect would need to be to Haplopelma - and thanks for your kind comments -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect -- we don't need two WP articles, one with a taxonomic genus technical slant and one with a less-technical slant, and titled by one of the informal names for this set of spiders. N2e (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The subject stands alone, the given reference supports notability . Rirunmot 23:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
- Either merge and redirect to an article on the relevant genus if the designation "Chinese bird spider" can refer to several species but all in the same genus, or else keep and improve. The binomial names Selenocosmia huwena and Ornithoctonus huwena, although possibly outdated, appear to be still fairly common and should also redirect to the proper article. By the way, several sources state that they are the same species as Haplopelma huwenum and not H. schmidti; I cannot evaluate that but thought I should mention it. --Lambiam 21:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- H. huwenum and H. schmidti were synonymised by Zhu & Zhang in 2008, so all four names are currently considered the same species. I'm coming to the opinion that a short version of the article should be kept, explaining the confusion and linking to the appropriate genus and species articles - something like a slightly longer than usual disambig page (I really will get some time this weekend to get some articles up to publishable standard). I also like the idea of creating all the species names as redirects. -- Boing! said Zebedee 21:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is common solution to this problem, see for example Leaf-tailed gecko. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, good example - main link in this case would be Haplopelma genus (with an extra bit added), with extra links for the relevant species. I'd be happy to make to so. -- Boing! said Zebedee 23:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Make it so. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So I understand the nominator withdraws the nomination, so that this discussion can be speedy closed. --Lambiam 23:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I withdraw the delete nom - I'm now happy that it's better to keep and rework it as per suggestions here. Very useful discussion - thanks for everyone who'd contributed. -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, good example - main link in this case would be Haplopelma genus (with an extra bit added), with extra links for the relevant species. I'd be happy to make to so. -- Boing! said Zebedee 23:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: All animals should be notable enough to have encyclopedia articles. Dew Kane (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Boil Ease
- Boil Ease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable product. No references. Clubmarx (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete product does not appear to have been the subject of substantial coverage by relaible sources. Merge with its parent company may be a possibility, but that has no article presently. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Click on the second reference in the book, or go directly to page 802, and you will see the following text in the second column about three-quarters of the way down the page:
- Products (e.g., Boil-Ease) were advertised to cure boils for many years, but advertising now promises only to relieve the pain of boils. However, pharmacists should refer patients to a physician rather than recommending this product. Nonprescription therapy for boils is ineffective and can prolong the time until a patient consults a physician.
- Even though the text is brief, I think that it is enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how that establishes notability, or even claims it. It just says that it's a product that exists and (supposedly) doesn't work all that well. Nothing particularly notable about that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with benzocain its main ingredient.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm nuetral between two actions: Merge with benzocain, or Delete, per nom, and notability not denostrated in sources. N2e (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article cannot be kept and the content is too unreliable to be merged. The references added by User:Eastmain fall way short of the standard of reliable sources. They are either press releases or the reguritation thereof (although I can't see #4). When an encyclopaedia article relies on unreliable sources, the article is inherently unreliable. That's why the reliability of sources is essential to our notability criteria. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mkativerata. Sole Soul (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SAE (Producer)
- SAE (Producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable. No references and conflict of interest. Clubmarx (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In my opinion the article as it stands almost (but not quite) meets the criteria for a G11 speedy deletion. That aside, I cannot find any sources on the internet that would satisfy the notability guidelines at WP:MUSICBIO, but if someone else finds some I'll change my !vote. By-the-by, a conflict of interest is not by itself grounds for deletion. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source, and no sources to support the claims. N2e (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Morning Glory (band)
- Morning Glory (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Members of a possibly notable band. No sources found, no real claims of notability save for releases on redlink labels. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG; I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. It's also packed with unsourced material, and WP:BLP may be violated. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crack Rock Steady Demo
- Crack Rock Steady Demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Crack Rock Steady E.P. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No sources on either. EP and demos by marginally notable band. Full of trivia, openly admits that the personnel is OR. Demos are almost inherently NN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Baby Jesus Sliced Up in the Manger
- Baby Jesus Sliced Up in the Manger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources. Collaboration by a semi-notable band or two. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no notable songs, poorly written.--99.182.21.35 (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source, and no sources to support the claims.N2e (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ave Maria (Rossi)
- Ave Maria (Rossi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Piece has received no journalistic notice that I can find. {{notability}} tagging has resulted in some very low viewership youtube links being added. I'm sure it's very good, but is it notable? Richfife (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am this article’s primary author. I believe the minimum time for the deletion process is 7 days, is this correct? I am swamped with work and travel this week so please have a little patience with me. I may not have time until later in the week or the weekend to formally respond to your request but I will do so as soon as possible. – Thanks.G8trsrule (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've created a copy of the article in your personal space here: User:G8trsrule/Ave_Maria_(Rossi) so that article is not lost if the AFD leads to delete. You can maintain it there if you like until better sources appear. - Richfife (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete At least so far it fails WP:NSONG. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My father's Ave Maria is relatively new yet it has been performed by Susan Neves, an internationally acclaimed NY Metropolitan opera star, it has been performed internationally, legendary arranger Charles Calello has written a musical score for it for a full orchestra, and legendary choral arranger Hawley Ades wrote several choral arrangements for it before he died. Yet, after reading the notability requirements for songs WP:NSONG I find it difficult to argue with your notation that this article does not meet the required standards. This is simply because it has not yet been written about journalistically, accomplishing that is difficult for a religious piece such as this. I appreciate that Richfife has copied the article to my personal space, if the decision is made to delete this article I will maintain the full article there until such time that the Ave Maria article can stand on its own merits with more sources and references and according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Thanks for your consideration. G8trsrule (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Integral University in Paris
- The Integral University in Paris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non-notable coverage. While there is coverage (see this edition of the ILR) I can find literally nothing else. Ironholds (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Putting it delicately, this appears to be just a proposal for a project (possibly machine translated, at least in part?). External references are thin on the ground - perhaps more in French for "Université Intégrale" - but there again, pages like [20] are yet again announcing the project more than anything else. A far more concise text already appears on the biog page for its founder Michel Saloff Coste, so I can't seen anything being lost by deleting this page. AllyD (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source, and no sources to support the many article claims.N2e (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete From the reference , it seems to be an actually existing series of seminars being given under this name, which is a little on the pompous side for something at this stage of organization. In the absence of third party sources, it is impossible to tell the significance. I am also to a considerable degree bothered by the content of the article, which says that they basically formed it because they did not like their coverage in Wikipedia. I'm therefore inclined to regard this as wholly promotional, and a possible G11. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
INDK
- INDK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only notability is having members from other potentially notable bands. Choking Victim barely seems to pass muster, as do Leftöver Crack and some of these other acts, but this one doesn't meet notability outside its members. Also blatant COI. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This looks like a question of whether WP:BAND applies recursively. If the other bands are notable, the members are notable (per #6), but not "independently notable", so this fails WP:BAND. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source, and no sources to support the claims. N2e (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Link: http://www.tentcityrecords.com/ gives full info on band, this label helped produce their first album. Their full length was through GO Kart records. While not well known, INDK does have an international fan base-however small that may be- and is well known through the spin off bands. They had a song on the Major indie lable Epitaph Records sampler. -Signed KermitCrack, not signed in- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.63.203 (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crack Rock Steady 7
- Crack Rock Steady 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Stza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Alec Baillie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ara Babajian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Appears to be part of a walled garden involving a chain of non-notable acts. No hits at all on GNews, no reliable sources found. Some articles cite an interview in a questionable source. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Members appear to be notable only through other notable bands, but not "independently notable", so this fails WP:BAND. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source. N2e (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. No sign of anything which might even start to add up towards notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Not really a WP:SUMMARY, and fails WP:NOR and WP:PLOT. Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of characters in the Hulk film series
- List of characters in the Hulk film series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article, as it stands, consists of sections lifted in-whole or in part form other articles, which it then points to with {{Seealso}} or {{Main}}. As an article this adds nothing beyond what is already in those articles. J Greb (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep acceptable summary article, perWikipedia:Summary style DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Acceptable and properly sourced summary article per WP:SUMMARY. That guideline's second paragraph is important to consider. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is reshuffling of existing information into a new article, when the information is already in the right place - the relevant character article, which itself is linked into from the films (and from the film series for recurring or important characters). This is redundant replication which serves no purpose. (Emperor (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Actually it might be seen as a guideline encouraged place where the briefest of contextual information is gathered and sourced... and as such acts to benefit those readers who wish to know who these characters are. Sure... if a reader already knew all the names and characters in this article, they would be visiting the main articles... but if a reader did not already know where to look, this article then serves to increase their understanding of the various subject(s) and leads them to other articles within Wikipedia for their further elucidation. I am unable to presume that someone wishing to know what characters are in the various Hulk series already know who these characters are or where to read about them. This article allows readers to then visit the multitude of other Hulk-related articles, and includes information on characters NOT covered elsewhere. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Except the characters are linked in from the relevant film articles, so the obvious place to look for this information is on the character's page. Copying this information across to a different page is just redundant (because the information should be on the relevant character page) and pointless (because the link from the film article goes to the character page, so people looking for the information can find it there). So for example see Hulk (film)#Cast, everything points to the appropriate pages and a random user visiting and not knowledgeable about this character in a film series page would have to visit it to find the relevant information and they wouldn't know where it was anyway without some digging (digging they wouldn't need to do, thanks to the perfectly serviceable character pages). (Emperor (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Not all are from the various films. Some of them are from the various comic book or animated series as well... and not all the listed and sourced characters are mentioned in the relevent film or comic articles. And again, the fact that even a few might have a mention elsewhere is useless to the reader unless he already knew what film a character was in or knew the name of the character. This List provides them in one place and acts to benefit the reader in greater usability of the encyclopedia and the information as offered. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note: If the title is to be taken as accurate, and it should be, the characters are limited to the films Hulk (2003) and The Incredible Hulk (2008). Any information pertaining to the characters in the comics, the live action TV show, the TV movies, animated TV show and films, and video games is irrelevant and, if kept, should be removed as such. That does mean that the content here is down to - Cast list (primarily looked for in the film articles) and "In other media" sections of the character articles. There are precedents for good, concise, multiple film/show lists such as List of Batman films cast members, List of Batman television series cast members, and List of X-Men films cast members. This doesn't even come close to those. - J Greb (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is basically the same as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_characters_in_the_Fantastic_Four_film_series.--Marcus Brute (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Serious WP:OR and excessive WP:PLOT. Also a very inappropriate grouping of characters from primarily unrelated films with similar names. As its own lead notes "It must be stressed that the two films do not share the same continuity." as such they should not be grouped in this manner. Leave it to the individual film articles to cover their topics. If readers want to compare/contrast the two films, that is for them to do, not for Wikipedia editors to do with unsourced, personal research.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Board Certified Chaplain
- Board Certified Chaplain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject of this article seems to fail to meet WP notability requirements. In addition, while there is some local news coverage of individuals who have this credential, this may not satisfy the requirement that coverage be "Independent of the subject." This appears to be one membership level of the Association of Professional Chaplains (which is a professional organization whose WP article is only a redirect at this point) as described here. If the organization ever gets its own article, discussion of this credential is probably appropriate in that article per WP:NNC. But from what I have gathered, the credential itself is not notable enough to justify its own article. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that the article has been an orphan for a year. Novaseminary (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There seems to be no basis for retaining this article. It fails the general notability guideline. --Bejnar (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the fact that it was relisted twice and nobody cared. Oh yeah, and the WP:GNG fail. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source. N2e (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to chaplain. The source should be fine for this information in that article. There does not seem to be anything special about a board certified chaplain besides the certification. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A merge and redirect is normally the type of solution I appreciate, but this time I don't think it would be best. My concern with redirecting this to chaplain is that it might run afoul of WP:RFD#DELETE #2. Since Board Certified Chaplain is apparently an actual membership level (if not a notable title or credential) of an actual group, this might lead to confusion (if only minor confusion) if it points to a more general article. Not all, or even many (as evidenced by the lack of news coverage), chaplains apparently use this title. The potential for minor confusion is not outweighed by any real good or conveniece, though. I would not expect anybody searching for Board Certified Chaplain who fails to find it to be satisfied with the chaplain article, which they could then easly find anyway. Further, it is not clear that this credential is significant enough to be mentioned in the main chaplain article. As I mentioned in the nomination, I think this subject is probably appropriate for inclusion in the article about the group that created this membership level. (I assume they are notable and verifiable enough for an article, but I'm not sure of that.) That would be a natural target to redirect this article. But that group does not have its own article; its article name merely redirects to Hospice chaplain -- which might not be the best article to redirect the group's name to, but that is a different problem. So, since there is no actual stand-alone article for Association of Professional Chaplains which would be the only clearly appropriate larger article to redirect to, I would delete Board Certified Chaplain. Novaseminary (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your reasoning. I have no idea how important the Association of Professional Chaplains is. If it seems they are reasonably recognized in the world of chaplains then they could have a section in chaplain mentioning the certification. There doesn't seem to me to be much point in having two articles, one on the organization and one on the certification. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JForget 02:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
National College of Public Administration and Governance
- National College of Public Administration and Governance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completing nominaation for User:Marianov; no opinion from me. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - What is the rationale for deletion? There is none stated and although the article could use some sourcing, its out there and the College appears to be notable.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Mike Cline that there is no need to delete the NCPAG article. I read the article. Everything there is documented and reasonably presented, including the achievements and valid criticisms of NCPAG and its objectives and academic programs. I would just retain it the way the article is currently written and presented. I see no reason to further edit, revise or delete it.Hellerm234 (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)— Hellerm234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep. Appears to pass WP:Notability requirements. May need additional work, but does not meet WP:Deletion policy criteria for deletion. AkankshaG (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as a degree-awarding institution. However, contrary to what the SPA says above, the various assertions/criticisms need sourcing or cleaning up. TerriersFan (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep It is not an actual independent degree=granting institution regardless of what the first line in the article says. . It is, according to the article, a part of University of the Philippines, Dellman, and no more independent than any other part or institute of that university. But a School of Business, or Administration, can be important enough to be independently notable; some, though not all such schools are. The question is whether this is, and I am inclined to say yes, though this is the sort of thing that is difficult to be sure. It does not have a place in the university template at the bottom,if it is independent, it would go in the second group of Satellite units. The article will need considerable rewriting to clarify and reduce duplication. DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I queried the apparent nominator Marianov a few days ago and finally got this reply on his talk page.--Mike Cline (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it's very Philippines-centric only. it's not notable enough outside the Philippines. Zollerriia63 (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Notability in the Philippines is enough. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I dropped by this page in passing and reviewed the article, where I found this text: " ... Yet, it continues to play second-fiddle to the College of Business Administration of the University of the Philippines ... " I can't tell if the article is serious, tongue-in-cheek, or if there's some subtle vandalism going on. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigma Chi iota phi
- Sigma Chi iota phi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to be a subchapter of a larger fraternity on a Texas university campus. I am not an expert, but I could not find why this subject is notable from a quick search. Article was created by a new user who appears to now be inactive at Wikipedia, so it is unclear if they can explain why this subject is notable either. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This fraternity fails WP:ORG, and the article does not give much real indication of notability, if any exists. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Anything interesting about this chapter (charter date, etc) might be profitably merged up to Sigma Chi, but the search term doesn't make sense as a redirect. That said, if there were something notable about this chapter in itself - maybe the largest chapter of any fraternity, or oldest chapter house, or some notable charity event that the chapter created, or something like that - then an article might be appropriate. But I don't see evidence of that here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.