- 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. postdlf (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kimberly Amadeo
- Kimberly Amadeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Google hits and article references all lead to links trying to sell books and DVDs. Attempts in the article to establish notability of the subject (President of WorldMoneyWatch.com, expert at about.com) are also nothing but attempts to sell products. Beach drifter (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment i am the writer of this article .""She is the economic expert for About.com[1], one of the top ten most visited websites and a part of the New York Times.[2][3]""
i think these sentences are enough for showing that Kimberly Amadeo is famouse between the people who cares about US economy ans the owners of small businesses .if you take look at the about.com you can find out how many people know her.--Navid1366 (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources. The sourcing in the article is a link to the about.com front page which isn't really a reference at all, and to resumes/bios that are essetnially the equivalent of a press release. Amadeo does does not inherit notability by writing for about.com, a notable site, nor does she inherit notability from the fact that about.com is owned by the NY Times. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Whpq. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above. There is significant mention of her in reputable, third-party sources. - SudoGhost (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clandestine MUD
- Clandestine MUD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Acceptable sources were requested one year ago (April 2010) and they were never added. Subject lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. Delete. PlusPlusDave (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I could not locate any further sources for this mud, and find The Mud Connector to be weak in terms of our standards of reliability (WP:RS). Marasmusine (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm willing to consider the Mud Connector MOTM as contributing to notability, but it wouldn't suffice by itself in any event. The only other citation is first-party. I've tried repeatedly to find better sourcing for this article with no results. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The Mud Connector is very useful to MUDders (I've been playing MUDs for over a decade) but I would only consider it reliable if used in conjunction with another reference. Considering the target audience, and that the MOTM only ran for a few months (the MOTM page states it was discontinued for 'lack of interest') I would consider this a very weak source of notability, if at all. - SudoGhost (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Avatar (MUD)
- Avatar (MUD) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources, thus failing GNG. PlusPlusDave (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of meeting notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I have tried in the past to source this (see talk page), but never been able to find any solid references. Marasmusine (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Zero notability-establishing references. I've also tried to source this article and failed. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no significant coverage in reliable third party sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2011 (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 keep (nominator banned, no other opinions to delete). Amalthea 12:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DartMUD
- DartMUD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject fails GNG and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. The sources which are listed are primary and do not meet the definition of "reliable sources" by any stretch of the imagination. PlusPlusDave (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Refs 4, 6, 8, 10 are all WP:SPS by Raph Koster, who is a legitimate expert in the field of game design. In this case, DartMUD's notability is not from its own popularity, which was never more than modest, but from its influence on later game design theory. Since the ebb and flow of Internet game design is posted on, oh, the Internet, rather than print magazines or journals, what you see is exactly what one would expect from an appropriately influential mud. Note that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/MUD has listed DartMUD as a "notable mud" and Koster as a bona fide expert in the field. Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean to infer your argument is a cop out, but to state that a subject which exists online would not receive treatment or coverage from dead-tree media or any other type of media as defined at WP:RELY seems tenuous at best. If the only documentation exists in the form of a self published document and a WikiProject then the subject may not yet be notable enough. PlusPlusDave (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Read carefully the final paragraph in the WP:USERGENERATED section, which explicitly covers (and approves of) SPS'es from experts like Koster. Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly the MUD task force's notes are meant to summarize notability status according to GNG, rather than serving as a reference in themselves, but I believe that summary in re DartMUD to be entirely justified. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean to infer your argument is a cop out, but to state that a subject which exists online would not receive treatment or coverage from dead-tree media or any other type of media as defined at WP:RELY seems tenuous at best. If the only documentation exists in the form of a self published document and a WikiProject then the subject may not yet be notable enough. PlusPlusDave (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Could benefit from more references, but DartMUD is highly notable, having influenced the entire MMO genre. To quote Raph Koster, "the sort of crafting we had in UO, which is now sort of the default in all the MMOs, was taken from the LegendMUD crafting, which was inspired in part by the DartMUD crafting". Somewhat ironically, Koster also mentioned DartMUD in an article a couple of years ago, where he discussed mud history being erased from Wikipedia, going on to say "At least there’s a good DartMUD page." KaVir (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As already stated, Raph Koster is what makes this notabile. Jclemens, the link you want is here [2], and yes, the above quotes are accurate - "at least there's a good DartMUD page". It would be a sad day indeed when this goes. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per JClemens and others; significance in design seems to be well established. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - additional source of significant coverage: Wired Together: Writing, reading, and language acquisition (Hampton Press, 1998) Wikipedia does need some trimming of MUD articles, but this isn't one of them. Marasmusine (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As extensively noted, Koster citations are admissible as evidence for WP:GNG per WP:SPS. Aggregate references more than sufficient to satisfy GNG. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Not only we may take Koster as an expert, but it is nearly a premium resource for the area and time. There were a flock of muds back then, and as things go by it is reasonable to expect that the resonance occurs with only a few, while not less than those few either - frankieMR (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fractal space map
- Fractal space map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. The only source is a patent, and that's also the only thing that shows up under "fractal space map" in a Google Scholar search. Without reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the subject of the article is not presumed to be sufficiently notable. The anonymous IP who removed the prod tag did not address this concern, claiming without offering details that he found 2 hits in the ACM digital library and IEEE explore (which I was unable to reproduce). Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I did an exact phrase search for "fractal map" on the ACM digital library and got two hits. The first of these (doi:10.1145/1294685.1294717) is pretty clearly irrelevant, and the second one (doi:10.1007/978-3-642-17289-2_30) appears to be about visualization of high dimensional data by packing it into two dimensions (so not related to the subject of the article). Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – article on a non-notable proprietary visualization technique, created by a single-purpose account, presumably the inventor of the technique. I could find no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. While the search term "fractal map" does score scholarly hits, they are generally about other techniques that involve maps with some fractal aspect. --Lambiam 09:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I've worked with drill-downable reporting software and in some ways this seems to be an improvement over similar features in other programs. But I don't see the notability criteria being met at the moment even if there may be potential. WP isn't for advertising new products, no matter what merit they may have. The material on Hausdorff dimension seems ORish to me.--RDBury (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A non-notable and minor variation of treemaps. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahmad Hussain
- Ahmad Hussain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cannot see that this meets WP:Notability (musicians) and have doubts about it even meeting WP:GNG. I have edited it quite a lot for religious statements etc but even before this it was primarily reliant on self-published sources, was an autobiography & the username has been blocked. Sitush (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:GNG. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 23:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reds–Cardinals rivalry
- Reds–Cardinals rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article purports to describe a rivalry that now exists between Major League Baseball's St. Louis Cardinals and Cincinnati Reds. The article relies on a single source to establish this rivalry, a Wall Street Journal article that looks at a few incidents that took place in 2010 and argues that a wonderful new sports rivalry may be forming. The article also vaguely tries to link the events in 2010 to two separate occurrences in the 1960s. No other source has been provided stating the basic premise that a Cardinals-Reds rivalry exists, and the best a search for additional sources begun after the beginning of a discussion on the article talk page has found to provide further support for this premise is a blog that believes that the Cardinals and Reds might develop the most interesting rivalry of this decade. The article then cobbles together some franchise history for the two teams to manufacture a rivalry, probably in opposition to WP:Synth. Reliance on a single article from 2010 which basically argues that a single season's worth of encounters has created a new rivalry also appears to run afoul of WP:Recentism and WP:ONESOURCE. Combined, these issues provide serious concerns regarding the WP:N requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources. Indrian (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I am not seeing any compelling argument for this article, short of the one article this year in a relationship that dates well over a century. There is a great deal of referencing, but this is in support of what appears to be making an argument to support the contention of the rivalry. I agree with the nominator citing Synth, Recentism, and (for all intents and purposes) one source. I applaud the attempt at the article, but it simply doesn't belong here. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom as the originator of several of the talkpage discussions, in which I expressed pretty much the exact concerns raised by Indrian. umrguy42 12:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep Both teams had a heated rivalry as referenced in the WSJ article. If people were just talking about 2010, I agree it would have been recentism and it should be deleted. However, 2010 was just a renewal, not an establishment of a rivalry. They hated each other in the 60's and combined with the geographic proximity, it is definitely a rivalry of note. Arnabdas (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge See proposal below. Arnabdas (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You have no sources for this, or rather, you have the single Wall Street JOurnal source claiming this. If a rivalry truly exists dating back to the 1960s, you should be able to find more sources; we are talking a nearly fifty year period here after all. A single news reporter can say whatever he wants. Prove your position with sources or your view has no merit. Indrian (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a book by William Cook called The Summer of '64: A Pennant Lost that details the rivalry better. http://books.google.com/books?id=G_9qSkkBWssC&printsec=frontcover&dq=1964+national+league+reds+cardinals&source=bl&ots=hnByA9XhIi&sig=eEDIDDQ9KSgOrc_CNbaao8i3tH4&hl=en&ei=tLOlTeD2NsnE0QGg_PWGCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAzgK# Arnabdas (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Without reading the book, just skimming through the introduction - that book would be a great resource for an article on the '64 NL pennant race. However, it does NOT appear to be a source for a whole Cards-Reds rivalry. umrguy42 15:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that particular pennant race was a well publicized one in a long history. They have had seven times between them where they have finished 1st and 2nd. http://www.fungoes.net/2010/08/16/the-reds-cardinals-rivalry-in-perspective/
- Without reading the book, just skimming through the introduction - that book would be a great resource for an article on the '64 NL pennant race. However, it does NOT appear to be a source for a whole Cards-Reds rivalry. umrguy42 15:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a book by William Cook called The Summer of '64: A Pennant Lost that details the rivalry better. http://books.google.com/books?id=G_9qSkkBWssC&printsec=frontcover&dq=1964+national+league+reds+cardinals&source=bl&ots=hnByA9XhIi&sig=eEDIDDQ9KSgOrc_CNbaao8i3tH4&hl=en&ei=tLOlTeD2NsnE0QGg_PWGCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAzgK# Arnabdas (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You have no sources for this, or rather, you have the single Wall Street JOurnal source claiming this. If a rivalry truly exists dating back to the 1960s, you should be able to find more sources; we are talking a nearly fifty year period here after all. A single news reporter can say whatever he wants. Prove your position with sources or your view has no merit. Indrian (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the source you brought up is all about the greatness of the 1964 season. This discussion, however, is about whether or not the Cardinals and Reds have a true rivalry. That book you mentioned does not seemed to be arguing that these two teams have had a great rivalry, but rather that they had one great season of competition. Just because the Reds and Cardinals finished 1/2 in the 1964 standings does not make it a rivalry. For you to cite this source as though it was about the Reds/Cardinals is misleading. And the two clubs have finished 1st/2nd 8 times, not 7. However, the first two were back when both teams were part of the AA and the Cardinals finished 14 and 16 games ahead in those respective seasons. In 1943 the Cardinals finished 18 games ahead of the Reds, and in 2000 they finished 10 games ahead of Cincinnati. (Surely a 1st/2nd finish means little in regards to this "rivalry" if the second place team is behind by double digits in the win-lose column?) That leaves 4 close seasons between these two teams: 1926, 1939, 1964 and 2010. Only Four notable finished in over a 125 years of baseball. How can that be considered a significant rivalry?Ultimahero (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There have been a couple good challenges of phony "rivalries" at AfD recently, but this one is ill-considered. These two teams have played one another more than 2000 times, they hail from the same general region of the country and play in the same league, and their rivalry is not only well-known but it has been covered in the press. This one is valid. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Carrite, could you please provide some sources covering this "well-known" rivalry? I've been a Cardinals fan for over 25 years, and never heard of it. What I see in the article is ONE source from the Wall Street Journal saying it COULD be the next great rivalry, based on last year's kerfluffle, and pointing out a couple instances in the '60s. I don't see how that, combined with playing each other a lot, necessarily makes a rivalry. (And with two states in between them, "same general region of the country" isn't really relevant.) umrguy42 17:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Every National League team that dates from the late 19th century have played each other many times, and the Reds hail from roughly the same geographic region as all the teams in the Central Division except the Astros. Also, no press sources have been produced describing a rivalry save the single WSJ article sourced in the article. I am afraid that your objections make little sense without additional sourcing to back them up. Indrian (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This smacks of recentism. If there had been books or something of that nature written about it then I could see an article about it. But this is clearly not a notable rivalry. -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per breach of WP:RECENTISM. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's more to sports team rivalries than just playing each other on the field a bunch of times. This cuts both ways, as say Mets-Yankees and Cubs-White Sox are rivalries, despite infrequently playing each over as they compete for the same fans. At the same time, just because two teams now play often because they're in the same division doesn't make it a proper rivalry. It may develop as such, but that's a CRYSTALBALL and RECENTISM issue. And Cincinnati and St Louis aren't that close. oknazevad (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:RECENTISM and WP:SYNTH. One pennant race does not make a WP-notable rivalry, and the WSJ article is the only source arguing for the existence of a rivalry (and even then, it seems to be arguing that a rivalry might be developing more than anything). Might be okay if there were more sources on the rivalry itself, particularly prior to 2010, but I'm not seeing that right now. BryanG (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all the reasons listed above. I don't see anything concrete that makes me want to keep this. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While these two franchises may dislike each other (although most of the discussion has seemed to specifically indicate that Reds fans particularly dislike Cardinal fans) that doesn't make it a rivalry. There have only been two competitive seasons between the teams, 1964 and 2010, and one fight that appears to have been an isolated incident. This is all the evidence that has been provided for this "rivalry" despite both franchises having existed for over a century. Surely a true rivalry has more to it than this.Ultimahero (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: BeenChanged (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Page 1 of "The Summer of '64: A Pennant Lost" states that "pitchers regularly threw knockdown pitched and batters stood their ground at the plate without charging the mound very often". So what about the fight that occurred in 1967, only three years after when the book is set. It was the same style of baseball, yet the Reds and Cardinals got in a fight that Tim McCarver described as: "Nothing fuels a rivalry like a good toe-to-toe, and we sure had one that night".[1]
- Page 14 states, "All last year we kept waiting for the Reds to make their move. They never made it; had too many guys in a slump." - Milwaukee Braves manager Bobby Bragan. This indicates that the Reds had the talent and were considered in contention for longer than one year; in other words, 1964 was not a fluke and the Reds were a good team as well.
- Unfortunately, the free preview ends there.
- The Reds were picked to finish near the bottom of the standings in 1961, instead they made it to the World Series. The Cardinals were the powerhouse of the 1960s, so that is clearly an upset which causes rivalry.
- The teams are geographically close, have produced numerous Hall of Famers, play each other often in games that mean more to the fans than other series. They have had several extremely close pennant/division races and prior to the introduction of divisions in the MLB had a sustained level of competitiveness. Everyone can agree that the fact that the Reds were put in the west and the Cardinals in the east made no sense, and it effectively ruined the rivalry, in the same way that a team falling out of contention can; although that doesn't always happen (Cubs-Cardinals rivalry = Exhibit A). Now that the teams have been put back into the same division and the Reds have had time to rebuild (and 14 years is not long compared to 125 years of MLB), the rivalry has been restarted. The rivalry is boosted by - not based on - the current situation of the two teams. That combined with the fact that division realignment is all that broke up the otherwise continuous state of competitive play shows that this rivalry, although not of the highest level of prestige (BOS-NYY), is still existent and relevant to Major League Baseball and the two teams.
- I feel that I have made many good points about why the article should be kept. Although not many users have left support for keeping it, I feel that the points I made are strong enough support for the article. Moreover, a large amount of argument for the delete side has been "Just because they play each other a lot doesn't mean it is a rivalry". I have continuously proven why there is more to Reds-Cardinals than other teams in the NL Central the Reds and Cardinals play. Every time I give my point to counter a reason for deletion, someone simply posts another reason for deletion that can be countered with my same points. That is why the "Delete" side seems so supported, because it is a lot of the same opinion posted after that opinion has been addressed. I think there is enough evidence of why it should be kept and so I will probably not contribute much more to this discussion. I think the outcome can be decided now, and to me it appears to be No Consensus, as other people have posted keep opinions that were not so much refuted as simply ignored.
- While I am in no way changing my opinion to merge, I believe that if an admin so decides that this article is unfit for Wikipedia, it should be merged with Major League Baseball rivalries under the NL Central section. I think even "delete" people have agreed that it does show some level of rivalry that warrants mention in Wikipedia, even if not as an article. Once again, I am NOT changing my opinion to merge.
- BeenChanged (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This gets repeated so much that it is almost becoming hackneyed, but it bears mentioning here once again: As stated in WP:TRUTH, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." What you or I believe about the facts you have presented has no bearing on this matter; what is important is whether or not reliable sources have established the concept of a Reds-Cardinals rivalry. Right now, only one source has been found in which an author makes the claim that a rivalry exists between these teams. This is despite the rivalry going back over forty years according to your arguments. Unless you have further evidence to bring to bear on this matter, that is not enough to satisfy the WP:N requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources. Other than that one WSJ article, you do not have a source that speaks to the existence of a rivalry, only a list of specific events you believe constitute one. Arguing facts is useless here because that is the wrong argument. Bring more sources that show the existence of this rivalry and they will be weighed. The rest is just smokescreen. Indrian (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And you'r misrepresenting the evidence you are presenting. The book is NOT about the supposed rivalry between the Reds/Cardinals. It's about the the 1964 season. Just because those two teams were among the top in that season does not make the source about those two teams specifically. (And it's often forgotten but the Phillies finished a game back of the Cardinals that year just like the Reds, so it's not like it was a two-horse race the whole season.) The fight in 1967 was an isolated incidence. There is nothing to indicate that it was caused by pre-existing hatred between the teams. (I'm not suggesting that they didn't hate each other; I'm sure they did, like most teams who compete do. The question is not if they hate each other but if they hate each other MORE THAN AVERAGE. Does their hatred go beyond what we would normally expect? Does it reach levels that exceed beyond just those two teams and affect baseball as a whole, like LA-SF or NY-BOS? It's not surprising that Tim McCarver would say what he did; we would expect players that took part in the fight to dislike the competition. But, again, does it go beyond normal baseball tension? You have to substantiate that with reliable sources, which is why the book doesn't count because it doesn't address the topic.)
- You're misrepresenting the NL in the 60's when you say, "The Reds were picked to finish near the bottom of the standings in 1961, instead they made it to the World Series. The Cardinals were the powerhouse of the 1960s, so that is clearly an upset which causes rivalry." The Cardinals did field strong teams in the 60's, winning three NL Pennants. However, the Dodgers also won three pennants and they finished 2nd to the Reds in 1961. So how was 61 an upset of the Cardinals specifically, as opposed to say the Dodgers who were in 2nd place? (And the Cardinals didn't have a 2nd place finish until 1963, or 1st until 1964, which suggests that they weren't at their best until a few years after the Reds reached the World Series. Also, can you please provide sources to back up the claim that the Reds were predicted to finish near the bottom?)
- The teams are geographically close, and have had a number of Hall of Fame Players. But you could say the same about the Pirates or Cubs, so why is St. Louis/Cincinnati bigger than Pittsburgh/Cincinnati or Chicago/Cincinnati? You say that they, "play each other often in games that mean more to the fans than other series." Can you prove that with reliable sources? The St. Louis fans on Wikipedia have said that their games against Cincinnati don't really stand out. It would seem that you just don't like the Cardinals and that's your entire basis for claiming a rivalry.
- You say, "several extremely close pennant/division races and prior to the introduction of divisions in the MLB had a sustained level of competitiveness" but you fail to point out when those close seasons were; you prefer to generalize by saying "several" and thus the rest of us have to guess if we don't know the specifics. But, as I've pointed out above, they've had four close seasons: 1926, 1939, 1964 and 2010. Four close seasons in over 125 years of baseball hardly seems to make a rivalry. You write, "Everyone can agree that the fact that the Reds were put in the west and the Cardinals in the east made no sense, and it effectively ruined the rivalry..." But I would not agree with this statement because I would not agree that they had a rivalry in the first place. Your assuming your conclusion. You also say, "Now that the teams have been put back into the same division and the Reds have had time to rebuild (and 14 years is not long compared to 125 years of MLB), the rivalry has been restarted." So one good season means there's a rivalry? True rivalries don't depend on both teams having constant success. Cardinal fans and Cubs fans always hate each other, even though the latter has been historically inept. The same goes for NY/BOS and LA/SF. If your saying this rivalry only exists when both teams play well then it's not really a rivalry; it's merely a race between two teams that happen to be good at the moment.
- Sir, you and your arguments have not been ignored. Your dislike of the responses that are given is not the same thing as no response being given. It is your responsibility to make the case that this rivalry exists and, what's even more important, provide reliable sources to substantiate those claims. So far only one source has been given. I have tried hard to follow your argument point by point in my response. If you believe that I have failed to sufficiently address something you've raised then tell me specifically what it is and I will be glad to speak to that point. But I don't believe this constitutes a rivalry and thus believe the page should be deleted and should not be added to the MLB rivalries page. (If it's deleted for not being a substantial rivalry then why add it to a page about substantial rivalries?)Ultimahero (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This gets repeated so much that it is almost becoming hackneyed, but it bears mentioning here once again: As stated in WP:TRUTH, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." What you or I believe about the facts you have presented has no bearing on this matter; what is important is whether or not reliable sources have established the concept of a Reds-Cardinals rivalry. Right now, only one source has been found in which an author makes the claim that a rivalry exists between these teams. This is despite the rivalry going back over forty years according to your arguments. Unless you have further evidence to bring to bear on this matter, that is not enough to satisfy the WP:N requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources. Other than that one WSJ article, you do not have a source that speaks to the existence of a rivalry, only a list of specific events you believe constitute one. Arguing facts is useless here because that is the wrong argument. Bring more sources that show the existence of this rivalry and they will be weighed. The rest is just smokescreen. Indrian (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you say, "But I don't believe this constitutes a rivalry and thus believe the page should be deleted". So your opinion is what determines if it is kept? I believe that is in direct violation of the policy on who decides the article's fate, as you have taken part in discussion. Unless you are not in charge of it, then your argument that "you think it should be deleted" is no better than mine that it should be kept. As far as unsourced remarks in my post, those are statements that have already been made on the talk page for the article; I am simply restating them. It is not the easiest thing to find sources for topics of this nature that date back into the early/mid 1900s. There are many, many sources that back up the current events and claim it to be a rivalry. Why would so many media sources call it a rivalry if it was only one event?
- Articles that call it a rivalry found by searching "reds cardinals rivalry" on Google:
- http://digitalsportsdaily.com/mlb/2807-reds-cardinals-rivalry-heating-up.html
- http://sullybaseball.blogspot.com/2010/09/cardinals-vs-reds-could-be-rivalry-of.html
- http://www.fungoes.net/2010/08/16/the-reds-cardinals-rivalry-in-perspective/
- http://bleacherreport.com/articles/433691-brandon-phillips-brawl-great-for-cardinalsreds-rivalry-baseball - this one specifically addresses the Reds-Cardinals rivalry compared to others
- http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/article_2b61fe77-0037-5cad-beff-cd067789a33c.html - a St. Louis sportswriter who agrees with the rivalry!!!
- http://blogredmachine.com/2011/01/24/the-rivalry-renewed-cincinnati-reds-vs-st-louis-cardinals/
- http://www.101espn.com/post/54887_welcome_to_the_cardinalsreds_rivalry
- I stopped after half of page 2 and already here are sources. BeenChanged (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I told you that if you felt your arguments were being ignored then just tell me and I will respond. But you did not tell me which ones, if any, you feel I've failed to address. And I have every right to participate in this discussion. Furthermore, you must realize that by taking different sides we necessarily will argue our points in different ways. You have to provide sources because your trying to establish a position. Certainly I cannot be expected to provide sources to prove that something DOESN'T EXIST, can I? So all I can do is respond to what you say, which I believe I've done so. It's true that I said, "But I don't believe this constitutes a rivalry and thus believe the page should be deleted", but that isn't all I said. That was a summary statement of my position. I've written much more on the topic, and, quite frankly, I feel as though it is my responses that have gone unheard.
As to you sources, thank you for posting them here. The first one calls it a rivalry but in no way substantiates the claim. We don't know if it's referring to a perceived historical rivalry or just one season. The second is a blog, which is not exactly scholarly, that says the rivalry, COULD BE the next big rivalry. This source cannot be used on the basis that it is projecting into the future. The third attempts to detail 1/2 finishes between the two clubs, although as I've pointed out half of what it provides don't really count because they were blowout years (1885, 1887, 1943, and 2000). And even this article admits that there have been many long stretches of nothingness between two teams. And, I'm not sure what the source is. It's not a paper, so I'm unsure if it's even acceptable. The fourth source has the same problem as the first, namely, it does not explain if the rivalry is historical or recent, although it seems to be referring to recent events only. The fifth talks about the rivalry as if it were just starting, saying, "The NL Central needs a fresh-popping rivalry" and "But we've got something cooking, and the Cardinals and Reds have the ingredients for a feisty rivalry." So that source clearly speaks to what the rivalry COULD BE. The sixth article speaks of "renewing" the rivalry, but it's clearly speaking of renewing the intensity of 2010, not historically. The final link did not work.
So of your 7 sources, 1 doesn't work, 5 focus only on the recent history and the projected future (and thus cannot be accepted due to violating recentism) and only one COULD work. However, the one possibly good source, the third article, is the one that I'm unsure is usable because I don't know what it is. (It's clearly not a paper.) But please tell me it you know. So thanks for attempting to bring articles, but you'll have to keep trying because most of these don't meet the criteria.Ultimahero (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are talking about the "Fungoes" article, it says it is an ESPN affiliate blog. That would be reliable. Why do you discount the fifth article. It is by a writer for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. His article says that the rivalry "ranges from the boardroom to the clubhouse". That is not talking about the future, that is the present and the past. In talking about the rivalry rekindling itself, he says "This new rivalry isn't quite code red, but it's getting there." This proves my point that although it isn't yet very prominent, it does exist.
- On an unrelated note, I did not mention any of my arguments I thought were being ignored because they are not being ignored. They are being shot down with the same old "I [you the user] think it doesn't exist, therefore it should be deleted. You haven't cited any sources (debatable), therefore your opinion can't possibly be correct and I [you the user] win. Delete." BeenChanged (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You made a point by point case for your argument, and I have responded point by point. Although I do agree that until now you have not included enough sources (although more would be helpful), I have interacted with your points. Please see my responses above and reply to them. Again, I do not deny that the Reds and Cardinals have a rivalry in a very generic sense. But it's only a rivalry from one season, 2010. It's not old enough to be considered a true rivalry. I explained why I do not count the fifth source. I wrote, "The fifth talks about the rivalry as if it were just starting, saying, "The NL Central needs a fresh-popping rivalry" and "But we've got something cooking, and the Cardinals and Reds have the ingredients for a feisty rivalry." So that source clearly speaks to what the rivalry COULD BE." The article is focused on the 2010 and beyond; it doesn't establish any history. Thank you for pointing out the third source is an ESPN affiliate. Do you know who the author is? Finally, since you only defended the 3rd and 5th sources, are you agreeing that the others are inadmissible?Ultimahero (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This section of the discussion is the only part I have contributed to (apart from a small post in the section below). So I have been responding and your above posts have already been responded to with responses I agree with. The Fungoes blog does not give an author. It is powered by WordPress and is a Cardinals based blog, which helps further disprove the argument that Cardinals fans do not agree it is a rivalry. That is simply the opinion of one Cardinals fan. Much like the assumption that I am pushing for this because I don't like the Cardinals, which is not true. I don't like the Cardinals, but I am pushing for this because I think it is indeed a real rivalry, I am passionate about writing the article about it, and when I say Reds fans don't like them, I don't mean I don't, I mean many Reds fans don't. BeenChanged (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, sir, I don't think you've responded to my responses. For example, you originally wrote, "The Reds were picked to finish near the bottom of the standings in 1961, instead they made it to the World Series. The Cardinals were the powerhouse of the 1960s, so that is clearly an upset which causes rivalry." I replied by saying, "You're misrepresenting the NL in the 60's when you say, "The Reds were picked to finish near the bottom of the standings in 1961, instead they made it to the World Series. The Cardinals were the powerhouse of the 1960s, so that is clearly an upset which causes rivalry." The Cardinals did field strong teams in the 60's, winning three NL Pennants. However, the Dodgers also won three pennants and they finished 2nd to the Reds in 1961. So how was 61 an upset of the Cardinals specifically, as opposed to say the Dodgers who were in 2nd place? (And the Cardinals didn't have a 2nd place finish until 1963, or 1st until 1964, which suggests that they weren't at their best until a few years after the Reds reached the World Series. Also, can you please provide sources to back up the claim that the Reds were predicted to finish near the bottom?)" I don't believe that you've replied to this or any of my other responses. If you have then please direct me to them. But you can see that I'm not simply dismissing your arguments. Thus I would expect the same in return.Ultimahero (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, in my last post I reiterated why I don't accept the fifth source, and you did not reply. I also asked if you were disavowing the other sources since you didn't defend them. Finally, the third source does not really seem to indicate that the two teams have been long standing rivals. It asks why they aren't generally linked, then answers that question. The reason they never had much connection through their early years is explained when the author says this: "But though they supplied many Hall of Famers along the way, the Reds — how to put this delicately — have for the most part stunk." The author then explains that they were in different divisions for a long time. So the author never really seems to indicate that the teams had a standout rivalry from their history.Ultimahero (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, sir, I don't think you've responded to my responses. For example, you originally wrote, "The Reds were picked to finish near the bottom of the standings in 1961, instead they made it to the World Series. The Cardinals were the powerhouse of the 1960s, so that is clearly an upset which causes rivalry." I replied by saying, "You're misrepresenting the NL in the 60's when you say, "The Reds were picked to finish near the bottom of the standings in 1961, instead they made it to the World Series. The Cardinals were the powerhouse of the 1960s, so that is clearly an upset which causes rivalry." The Cardinals did field strong teams in the 60's, winning three NL Pennants. However, the Dodgers also won three pennants and they finished 2nd to the Reds in 1961. So how was 61 an upset of the Cardinals specifically, as opposed to say the Dodgers who were in 2nd place? (And the Cardinals didn't have a 2nd place finish until 1963, or 1st until 1964, which suggests that they weren't at their best until a few years after the Reds reached the World Series. Also, can you please provide sources to back up the claim that the Reds were predicted to finish near the bottom?)" I don't believe that you've replied to this or any of my other responses. If you have then please direct me to them. But you can see that I'm not simply dismissing your arguments. Thus I would expect the same in return.Ultimahero (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, also, the opening line of the third source says this: "The weekend series notwithstanding, the Cardinals have said goodbye to their old rivals in Chicago and Houston and are engaging a new one in the Cincinnati Reds." So it specifically refers to the Reds as a "new" rivalry.Ultimahero (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed Compromise involving MLB Rivalry page
It seems the delete side feels there are not enough reliable sources to warrant the rivalry to have its own article besides the recent events. However, there are plenty of sources talking about the rivalry as it is today. I agree with the delete side that the rivalry today alone does not warrant an article as that is a violation of Recentism. I voted keep initially because of the heated playoff races in the 60's. Some on the delete side feel that this should not be even mentioned on the MLB Rivalry page. With all due respect to my fellow editors, I simply cannot agree with that notion at all. The rivalry IS notable today and multiple RS show not only that, but even go as far to call it THE rivalry of today. If we included this on the MLB Rivalry page in it's own section, condensed the current article as it is as per WP:WEIGHT, I would agree to that and think it is a fair compromise based on WP standards due to notability and the RS that talk about the notability of the rivalry as it is today. Adding a caveat with "Recently, the Reds and Cardinals have developed what pundits X, Y and Z call the best rivalry in baseball." I do not see how not having a paragraph in the page is unreasonable. Arnabdas (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be saying that you're basing this supposed "notability" off of the recent competition between these two teams. (You even suggest adding the caveat "recently.) So, it would seem that you do not consider any of the other information (1964, the fight in 1967, etc.) to be sagas in a long-going rivalry. Thus, if you are basing everything off of what has happened recently, then are you suggesting that one competitive season is enough to make a rivalry. If that's what you're saying, then should there also be mentions of Rays/Yankees, Giants/Padres, and Dodgers/Rockies? These are all division opponents that had close seasons from the last two years. Does every duo with one close season deserve mention? Does one close season create a rivalry? In my belief there's no way that a single year can constitute a true rivalry. To give mention to one season of work is blatantly in violation of Wikipedia's Recentism policy. If either the Cardinals or Reds fade in 2011 will the section be removed from the MLB Rivalries page? The simple fact of the matter is that it's far too early to call this a rivalry. And while I don't doubt that some have prematurely jumped to that conclusion (although I note that you still failed to provide any sources for such an assertion) it doesn't mean that they are correct to do so.Ultimahero (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not misrepresent what I said. I am saying that the rivalry was RENEWED now, but can understand the opposition to it warranting its own article. The rivalry existed before and 64 and 67 represent that. I don't understand your ardent opposition to a couple of lines being inserted in the main article saying something along the lines of "the Reds an Cardinals have been noted to renew their rivalry recently." The actual statement can be debated by all means, but I do not understand your refusal to include one paragraph that is sourced reliably. Arnabdas (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not misrepresenting what you said. Notice that I SPECIFICALLY said, "You SEEM to be saying" and "IF you are basing...". Please read my comments more carefully. Above you did call it a renewal, but just here you suggested calling it "recent". Specifically, you suggested we write, "Recently, the Reds and Cardinals have developed what pundits X, Y and Z call the best rivalry in baseball." So your focus would be on the recent present, not the past. You mention nothing about the teams renewing the rivalry, at least not in this section. Furthermore, a development is substantially different than a renewal. That's why I was confused. Either the teams had a rivalry in the past and such info deserves mention, or they didn't have a rivalry in the past and thus it would not be mentioned. You seem to be suggesting that, yes indeed, they had a true rivalry before but we don't have to talk about that part. But that makes no sense to me. We can't focus on just one season or else we are violating the recentism policy. And I oppose a paragraph on the rivalry because I don't feel that one actually has existed throughout their history. That's what you must substantiate, with sources, before we can "compromise" on including it.Ultimahero (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indrian, the policy violation is regarding a separate article, not the topic itself. So my compromise is to include it in the general MLB rivalry page. The rivalry is of note and I stand by that due to the numerous sources I have found. However, a separate article would in fact be of recentism because almost all of the sources are about the current rivalry.
- Please do not misrepresent what I said. I am saying that the rivalry was RENEWED now, but can understand the opposition to it warranting its own article. The rivalry existed before and 64 and 67 represent that. I don't understand your ardent opposition to a couple of lines being inserted in the main article saying something along the lines of "the Reds an Cardinals have been noted to renew their rivalry recently." The actual statement can be debated by all means, but I do not understand your refusal to include one paragraph that is sourced reliably. Arnabdas (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While I appreciate your desire for compromise, it really does not seem necessary here. A policy argument has been made and the vast majority appear to find it valid. A compromise is what is needed when there is a more even split in views. Consensus seems to be that this article violates policy, and your compromise would not really cure that violation. Furthermore, you have not provided any of these numerous sources calling it the rivalry of today. Indrian (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know you expected me to actually publish those sources here, but since you mentioned it:
http://digitalsportsdaily.com/mlb/2807-reds-cardinals-rivalry-heating-up.html
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/433691-brandon-phillips-brawl-great-for-cardinalsreds-rivalry-baseball
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/article_2b61fe77-0037-5cad-beff-cd067789a33c.html
http://thecincinnatiman.com/baseball-brawl-reds-cardinals-duke-it-out-tcm-is-there/
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/article_0b189910-29da-5088-8539-17a18615fba2.html
http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog?name=olney_buster&id=5454489&action=upsell&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fmlb%2fblog%3fname%3dolney_buster%26id%3d5454489
http://www.101espn.com/category/csaunders-blogs/20100810/Welcome-to-the-Cardinals~Reds-rivalry!/
http://www.stlsports.org/pressbox/2010_Arch_Rivalry_Cardinals_Double_Play_Package_8_19_10.php
http://www.journal-news.com/hamilton-sports/cincinnati-reds/did-bronson-arroyo-cheat-cardinals-say-he-did-326832.html
http://www.mancavesports.org/walk-off-wrap-brandon-phillips-starts-a-rivalry-with-words%E2%80%A6really-mean-words/
http://www.scoresreport.com/2010/08/10/brandon-phillips%E2%80%99-comments-about-the-cardinals-refreshing/
http://www.shelbystar.com/articles/rivalries-48929-sports-seasons.html
http://sullybaseball.blogspot.com/2010/09/cardinals-vs-reds-could-be-rivalry-of.html
Arnabdas (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When teams exist as long as the Reds and Cardinals, it is inevitable that there will be brief periods when the two teams will be in close races, and/or see heated games. That this has happened, and may have recently happened is (I think) not a contention for debate. At issue: does all of this constitute a rivalry? The only way to demonstrate this is with multiple reliable sources, and the burden of proof for that, IMO, has not been met. Contrast this to the relationship between the Dodgers-Giants .... which have been in near continuous rivalry for the better part of 125 years ... or the White Sox and Cubs, which have a realtively unique rivalry in that they rarely played each other ... and had more of a fan rivalry. It seems that the relationship between the Reds and Cardinals sees occasional times when they are in heated contests ... but nothing that meets the level of "notable rivalry".LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My recently provided sources will support Arnabdas' claims. And if all "worthy" rivalries have a page, what is the point of the MLB rivalries page? Unless, of course, it would be to provide some information on less prominent rivalries than the "big ones" that are the delete side's basis for why Reds-Cardinals is not a rivalry (violation of Other Stuff Exists). BeenChanged (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the point of the MLB Rivalries page is not to provide info on "less prominent rivalries". The MLB Rivalries page serves as a hub for all other relevant rivalries. If a rivalry is deemed significant to have a page, it's mentioned on the MLB Rivalries page. Obviously that page would be ridiculously long if we tried to put all the information of all the rivalries there. So each rivalry gets a small section, usually just a paragraph, and a link the bigger article. But a rivalry must be important enough to warrant it's own page to be included on the MLB Rivalries page and vice versa.Ultimahero (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. You've got a fair amount of blogs on that list, but not all blogs are reliable sources. 2. Those all appear to be discussing the situation from LAST YEAR... not a LONG-STANDING rivalry between the two teams. Again, WP:RECENT/WP:CRYSTAL applies. umrguy42 14:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My recently provided sources will support Arnabdas' claims. And if all "worthy" rivalries have a page, what is the point of the MLB rivalries page? Unless, of course, it would be to provide some information on less prominent rivalries than the "big ones" that are the delete side's basis for why Reds-Cardinals is not a rivalry (violation of Other Stuff Exists). BeenChanged (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When teams exist as long as the Reds and Cardinals, it is inevitable that there will be brief periods when the two teams will be in close races, and/or see heated games. That this has happened, and may have recently happened is (I think) not a contention for debate. At issue: does all of this constitute a rivalry? The only way to demonstrate this is with multiple reliable sources, and the burden of proof for that, IMO, has not been met. Contrast this to the relationship between the Dodgers-Giants .... which have been in near continuous rivalry for the better part of 125 years ... or the White Sox and Cubs, which have a realtively unique rivalry in that they rarely played each other ... and had more of a fan rivalry. It seems that the relationship between the Reds and Cardinals sees occasional times when they are in heated contests ... but nothing that meets the level of "notable rivalry".LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well all of those sources are reliable as per Wikipedia so that discussion is moot. I did address your 2nd point. I already changed my choice from "Keep" to "Merge" since I do agree with you that 1 year is not enough to warrant it's own article. However, stating specifically something along the lines of "recently, a rivalry between the Reds and Cardinals has re-ignited from their peak in the 60's due to these fights in 2010" does not violate anything at all. It in fact, calls for a notable mention in the article itself because the topic IS notable. Arnabdas (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You continue to assume your conclusion. You're saying, "See? 2010 re-ignited this rivalry from the '60's!" But those of us in favor of deletion are not sure such a rivalry ever did exist in the 1960's. You must prove that it did, through reliable sources.Ultimahero (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What I'm saying is, other than the WSJ article, has there been any other source that establishes an actual rivalry in the 60s? Saying "well, they were both good, and there was the thing in 1964, and the fight in '67, and they've played each other for over 100 years" doesn't establish it. We need sources that say "Cards and Reds have had a rivalry going back to the '60s (or before)". And to be honest, I'm not sure you're really going to find that - I wager most St. Louis fans don't see it as a "rivalry" in the "notable" sense of the term (i.e., on par with Cards-Cubs, Yanks-Sox, Dodgers-Giants), which makes it really tough to be that notable. But this is getting us nowhere - my final (repeated) comment - as it stands, the article is a mess (even though it's well-written) of synthesized WP:ONESOURCE material with WP:UNDUE weight on WP:RECENT events, trying to argue that it has the potential to develop into a nice rivalry (for how long?) umrguy42 20:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You continue to assume your conclusion. You're saying, "See? 2010 re-ignited this rivalry from the '60's!" But those of us in favor of deletion are not sure such a rivalry ever did exist in the 1960's. You must prove that it did, through reliable sources.Ultimahero (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first three sources were also given by BeenChanged above, and I pointed out to him that they all focus on the present. Four and five also only focus on the recent. Six is not an acceptable source because it links to ESPN's insider section, which requires payment and subscription to view, so the majority of Wikipedians couldn't even open it. Seven is recent. Eight is not about Cards/Reds specifically but rather about some festival called "Arch rivalry festivities" explaining how much tickets cost to interested fans, with a Reds/Cardinals game on the agenda. Nine, ten, eleven, and twelve are all about recent events. Finally, thirteen is the blog projecting what the rivalry MIGHT BE. So I don't think any of these sources are acceptable because none of them substantiate what the rivalry is about.
Also, it appears that what the "keep " side (or "merge" side) is doing is simply going to google and searching for "reds/cardinals rivalry" and then putting the links here without even checking what they're about. If that's not what you're doing then I apologize but it sure looks that way. Specifically, source number eight leads me to believe this. If you were reading the sources before posting them then I don't see how you could possibly think this was relevant. Again, if I'm wrong then tell me, but I think you need to explain what you believed this source offered if you were really reading it.
Finally, I don't think it's fair for the "Keep" side to put a bunch of links and expect the "delete" side to sift through them all. It's the responsibility of the "keep" side to go through the sources and pull out all relevant info. I'm not saying I still wouldn't check the sources myself, but I shouldn't be obligated to do so.Ultimahero (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fuzzy matrix theory
- Fuzzy matrix theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deeply fringe; cargo-cult mathematics. bobrayner (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keepchange to no opinion, see below.--Pgallert (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC) (and improve, obviously) The term is not only used by the authors of the cited book (which does exist even if the link in the article does not work for me; find it here). This and this paper use the term, and both Automaton and ieeexplore are respectable publishers. From checking at Google Scholar it looks like an established term to me. --Pgallert (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you even find the home page for the Automaton (which is actually misspelled, it should be Automation) publishing company? WorldCat indicates virtually no holdings for this book anywhere in the world. [3] Tijfo098 (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And what's with the IEEE red herring? There is no such reference in the article, and your searches above don't support the theory claimed to be introduced in this article/book. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair response. Was mistaken with my Automaton remark--I thought I had such journal on my desk the other day, but it must have had a different name. Sorry for adding to the confusion. What I meant with my Google Scholar link and the papers was this: It is clear this title is not a hoax, and not a neologism. The remark "fringe" does not make much sense in mathematics. It can be wrong, or it can be utterly unimportant, in which case it will be forgotten soon, but the platform for opinions is rather small. Change my !vote to "no opinion" because I did not read those papers and can thus not say whether the article does at least rudimentarily sum up what they say on fuzzy matrix theory. --Pgallert (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(striken, now agreeing with Tijfo, Eppstein and others.) The subject dates back to at least the 1970's and there are plenty of academic references. I think the nominator is mistaken in saying that it is fringe. I agree that the current article is extremely poor; the only reference in it may not even be mainstream for fuzzy matrices. Dingo1729 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]- Is "fringe" bad? And is it grounds for deletion? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is some confusion here. The term fuzzy matrix does appear in many sources; e.g. [4], and it usually represents a fuzzy relation [5] (Springer book's author home page [6]) [7]. But the so-called "Fuzzy matrix theory" (which I'm not really sure what it describes) appears to be limited to Smarandache et co. A more appropriat title would be fuzzy relational calculus, [8], but I doubt a separate page from fuzzy relation is needed give we don't even have that. Like always, Wikipedia first gathers spam on a topic before useful articles. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit to the confusion. Having read more of the single reference in the article I now realize that it is not the fuzzy matrix theory which I thought it was. I thought it involved probabilistic, normally distributed entries in the matrix. I really don't know whether this mathematics is used by social scientists.Dingo1729 (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The standard textbook in the area [9] by Klir and Yuan has some 4000+ citations in google scholar. It has a chapter (#5) on fuzzy relations (which can be presented as matrixes if they are finitary fuzzy binary relations) but no such topic as "fuzzy matrix" or "fuzzy matrix theory" which are present in Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit to the confusion. Having read more of the single reference in the article I now realize that it is not the fuzzy matrix theory which I thought it was. I thought it involved probabilistic, normally distributed entries in the matrix. I really don't know whether this mathematics is used by social scientists.Dingo1729 (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per my analysis above. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The book on this topic given as the sole reference has only 4 citations in Google scholar, which appear to be references in passing. An example: "As a final conclusion, the approach opens the door towards more future extensions of the proposed approach to other global optimization techniques [11-15] and for solving other mathematical programming problems ...", in which the book is one of those included in the mass citation "[11-15]". --Lambiam 10:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a theory included in a book published in 2007 cannot have gotten that notable in this few years. Nergaal (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The actual theory predates these authors by decades, and is notable. It's just not called this way by almost everyone else. The wiki article sadly imparts no real information as to what the theory is about; it just advertises a book which is not even remotely a mainstream one on the topic, and it makes a false claim of priority—false in any substantive sense; the only contribution of these authors seems to be the clever reuse of a commonly used term with "theory" attached to it. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The confusion already present in this AfD (and the Google scholar citation counts) makes it obvious that fuzzy matrices are notable but that the Smarandache approach to it is not. And as an aside, the social scientists I've worked with are quite mathematically sophisticated and aren't interested in making their math fuzzy. After deletion, a redirect (without merging any of the content) to fuzzy associative matrix might make sense, but that article is in very sad shape too. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
April 11, 1954
- April 11, 1954 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't see how one computer program result can confer notability on a single date. Prod was contested; borderline speedyable, perhaps. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some guy made a program on some computer, input some indiscriminate data, and somehow concluded that this particular day was boring, and it was even reported on some other guys blog. Sounds perfectly reasonable. Not particularly notable however. Delete Dennis Brown (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This story was picked up on by the press in the UK but it is just a silly-season story used to fill space and amuse. It has no real intellectual or encyclopaedic value. There might be a place for mentioning it somewhere in Wikipedia (perhaps in the article on boredom), provided it is referenced to a reliable secondary source, but it does not justify an article of its own. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. It's gotten some mention in popular culture - it was featured in this Sunday's Luann (comic strip) by Greg Evans - but nothing major. Bearian (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The newspapers of the world didn't shut down on April 11, 1954 due to a lack of news to report. The topic of this article is far less notable than the events of that day. Cullen328 (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, it is completely unencyclopedic. Maybe find a way to work it into the main article on April 11, but I can't really see how. BurtAlert (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: A stint as a news filler. Joe Chill (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not sure about the blog source being a RS, but if this was reported elsewhere by RSs, then the info should be in the April 11 and 1954 articles. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Dennis Brown. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Magic–Pistons rivalry
- Magic–Pistons rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:
- Heat–Pistons rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Non-notable NBA rivalry. There are no sources that assert notability, other than game recaps of the times the teams met in the regular season and playoffs. X96lee15 (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —X96lee15 (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article appears to be WP:OR to claim a "rivalry" based on WP:ROUTINE coverage of games. No sources are currently cited, nor does any significant coverage appear possible of being found. —Bagumba (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sttrong Strong Strong Delete This article has about fifty words. WP:OR and WP:ROUTINE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxrock24 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 14 April 2011 (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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Thomas (ice hockey)
- Christian Thomas (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable hockey player. Overdrawn Invader (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or keep - The article appropriately redirected to another article which discussed the subject (with appropriate sources) before the nominator expanded the redirect into an inappropriate standalone article. If the subject is not notable, that redirect should be restored. However, given full length articles about the subject in the Toronto Star, New York Post and Newsday, and a short article in the Vancouver Sun, the subject may well be notable enough to keep. Rlendog (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded the article, with multiple substantive sources. That, along with his achievement of being part of the first father-son combination to score 50 goals in the OHL, should be enough to keep, but if not, restoring the redirect is more appropriate than deletion. Rlendog (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect with a possible lean towards keep. The nominator them self created the article which was a redirect that was already in place and then nominated it for deletion. If they nominator didn't think it should be an article not sure why they changed it to one. If they didn't think it should be a redirect then they should have put it up at redirects for discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Doesn't meet NHOCKEY on his own, but has received significant coverage in a variety of secondary sources Toronto Star, NHL.com, Hockey News Canada Hky (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sources provided do not provide significant coverage of this junior hockey player. A search for other sources doesn't come up with much, therefore fails WP:N. A REDLINE is much better than a redirect for young sports persons who might later become notable. Auseplot (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure why you say that "sources provided do not provide significant coverage" when the article itself includes references to 3 full length non-routine articles in major newspapers about this person, which alone should be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. With respect to the redirect vs. redline, the original redirect was to a section of a different article that has appropriate information about this person, including a unique accomplishment in which they both shared. So why would a redline be preferable in this case, regardless of whether he is or becomes notable in the future or not? Rlendog (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as Rlendog and Canada Hky have pointed out above, enough sources have been provided to satisfy the General Notability Guideline. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets GNG due to extent of coverage, so NHOCKEY is a moot point. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2011 (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 below is WP:GNG is satisfied. One of the two deletion !votes is improperly based only on the current state of the article rather than its potential, and so was given little weight. postdlf (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Bourque
- Ryan Bourque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable hockey player. Overdrawn Invader (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or keep - This article appropriately redirected to another well sourced article that discussed the player before the nominator inappropriately expanded it into
a bogusan inappropriate standalone article. If the subject is not notable, the redirect should be restored. However, I was able to find some articles specifically about the subject, so he might be notable enough to keep. Rlendog (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect back to the page it was originally redirected to. The nominator themself created this page and then nominated it for deletion for no apparent reason. If they felt the redirect should have been deleted then they should have put that up at Redirects for discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Doesn't meet NHOCKEY, but there is a significant amount of secondary coverage: Boston Herald, NHL.com, National Post (quoting him, not as significant as the others) Canada Hky (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sources provided do not provide significant coverage of this junior hockey player. A search for other sources doesn't come up with much, therefore fails WP:N. A REDLINE is much better than a redirect for young sports persons who might later become notable. Auseplot (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect to the redirect vs. redline, the original redirect was to a section of a different article that has appropriate information about this person. So why would a redline be preferable in this case, regardless of whether he becomes notable in the future or not? Rlendog (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sources provided by Rlendog meet WP:N quite easily. Hobit (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nontrivial coverage in reliable sources found by Canada Hky (talk · contribs) and Rlendog (talk · contribs) demonstrates that Ryan Bourque is notable. The coverage ranges from 2008 to 2011. Spanning several years, the coverage decisively establishes that Ryan Bourque passes Wikipedia:Notability, which supersedes the subject notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article currently amounts to two lines of text and one reference, so still fails Wikipedia:Notability. If folks are concerned about keeping the article then a little work on the article would not go amis.--Salix (talk): 15:55, 22 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jedediah Harrell
- Jedediah Harrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No particular notability and unsourced. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a single hit expect for the Wikipedia article and mirrors of it... hoax? Delete. BurtAlert (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, reeks of hoax. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Petteri Similä
- Petteri Similä (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable hockey player. Played with KalPa’s A junior team. Looked but could not find any information to support claim that he played in one SM-liiga game (outside of Eliteprospects.com which does not shows minutes played). Overdrawn Invader (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Why are minutes played relevant? If the information from Eliteprospects.com is correct,[25] he played a game in the SM-liiga, which should be enough to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Rlendog (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep played a game in the SM-liiga. This is more than enough to meet WP:NHOCKEY. And eliteprospects has been considered reliable before so no reason to doubt it now. -DJSasso (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Played in one SM-Liga game which satisfies WP:NHOCKEY as playing in a fully professional league. He played 25.1 minutes on Dec 12, 2010 as is shown here. -Pparazorback (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets NHOCKEY. Patken4 (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Sources provided do not provide significant coverage of this junior hockey player. A search for other sources doesn't come up with much, therefore fails WP:N, but it has been shown that he played in the SM-liiga, so he passes WP:NHOCKEY. Auseplot (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Passes WP:NHOCKEY. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jedediah Chapman
- Jedediah Chapman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Civil War captain with no particular distinction. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: unreferenced biography (most of the possible sources seem to be only geneology sites or WP clones), and no assertations of notability (fails WP:GNG and WP:MILPEOPLE). Additionally, seems to be a pretty close copy of his entry on Find a Grave; I don't think they've released copyright. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Far too junior to be notable without additional reason. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - subject seems to lack "significant coverage" in WP:RS and therefore fails WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Lots of men fought and died in the Civil War, and while all played a role in an important part in U.S. history, not all participants are inherently notable in their own right. I salute Jedediah Chapman, but I do not see how he meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2011 (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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Marinčin
- Martin Marinčin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable hockey player. Played in Slovakia's U20 league. Overdrawn Invader (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Marincin played in Slovakia's top professional league, as a member of Slovakia's U20 team. Canada Hky (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Gene93k. Nominator gives no valid reason why this player should be considered "non-notable". Just because he played in the U20 league doesn't make him non-notable. Playing in the Slovak Extraliga does make him notable though. Rlendog (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non notable hockey player who currently fails WP:NHOCKEY. Cannot find any confirmation that he actually played in the Slovak Extraliga. The U-20 team is a junior level team and not a part of the top league that would make him notable should he had played in it. -Pparazorback (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The U20 is not a junior level team per se. They are a Slovak Extraliga team (HK Orange 20) made up of Slovakia's best junior prospects. Elite Prospects shows him playing for Team Slovakia U20 (HK Orange 20) (Link), also, an Edmonton Journal interview Link, TSN.ca shows HK Orange 20 as his club team Link Canada Hky (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You beat me to this. HK Orange 20 is a Slovak Extraliga team. Rlendog (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I go back and forth on this one. We used to delete junior players who were playing in top level leagues but were playing as a junior not a pro. ie the were playing in the pro league but as an unpaid junior. But that was before the change from wp:athlete to the new wp:nsports. -DJSasso (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He plays in the top division in a country that is significant, even though his team is semi-pro/amateur. Patken4 (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Fails WP:NHOCKEY because he has not played on a senior national team. Sources provided do not provide significant coverage of this junior hockey player. A search for other sources doesn't come up with much, therefore fails WP:N. Auseplot (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: He passes criteria 1 of NHOCKEY: "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league such as the National Hockey League, World Hockey Association, Elitserien, SM-liiga, or Kontinental Hockey League" by playing in the Slovak Extraliga. Canada Hky (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Given the fact that the Slovakia Extraliga is "an existing...top professional league," and thus, by virtue of having played in that league, Marinčin passes the letter of WP:NHOCKEY. On the other hand, Marinčin was playing in that league on a particular team because he was a junior player, not a pro; as such, one could make the case that he is notable only through a loophole in the criteria. This is all pretty dicey, but I don't think it would be proper to delete the article at this time. Passing the guideline through a loophole, if that's what this is, still constitutes passing the guideline. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Non-notable hockey player. He hasn't played on a senior national team and he did not play in the Slovak Extraliga (he played on their junior league) so he doesn't pass WP:NHOCKEY. Overdrawn Invader (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2011 (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 an entirely unsourced article about a living person. By being nominated for AfD it has become contentious. WP:BLPREMOVE instructs us to "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced". The article is therefore deleted without regard to the arguments about the notability of obscure (para-)nobility. But the discussion indicates that if any sourced information about this person is re-added to Wikipedia, it should be as an addition to his father's article, rather than as a standalone article. Sandstein 06:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prince Odysseas-Kimon of Greece and Denmark
- Prince Odysseas-Kimon of Greece and Denmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject of this article is a six-year old who "is currently enrolled at knights bridge school in London". (Straight from the first lead paragraph.) It appears that this boy has never done anything notable, and he does not even come close to passing WP:BIO. His name appears in a few press reports having to do with his birth and the births of his siblings, and presumably he appears in the Gotha. That's not the in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG. The article was created by an IP when the boy was 14 months old, presumably on the (invalid) principle that notability is inherited. Hans Adler 19:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- History of this article:
- September 2004: birth of subject.
- November 2004: an IP creates the article
- December 2006: PROD (article still unsourced at this point)
- December 2006: PROD is removed and article turned into a redirect to the father's article
- August 2007: article is restored, still unsourced
- January 2008: article is turned into a redirect to the father's article
- July 2008: same editor as in 2007 restores the article, still unsourced
- April 2011: article still unsourced after 6 1/2 years, with no notability in sight.
- Unaware of the history I prodded the article, but Calathan noticed my mistake. I have proposed deletion because (1) a redirect doesn't really make sense for a non-notable person, and (2) it's not clear whether to redirect to father or mother. However, redirect is a conceivable outcome. In this case I would ask for protection of the redirect. Hans Adler 19:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - but Wikipedia has been a bit lax in the past about Royalty,
and based solely on precedent, this would be a keep.Prince Odysseas-Kimon is fourth in line to the Greek throne (if it ever comes back), and somewhere about 268 in line to the British throne (about as likely as King Ralph). A redirect to his father makes sense. I find zero sources online just about this kid. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I am sure you are aware that the precedent-based argument is actually the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and only reflects the recent numerical strength of the fans of nobility cruft. There is no such thing as a Greek throne, as Greece has been a republic since 1974 and there is no reason to believe this is ever going to change again. (The Greek monarchy was a creation of European powers in 1862/63.) Being in the line of succession for this abolished throne doesn't even come close to satisfying WP:BIO as a politician. And 268th in line for the British throne is nothing. The prod in 2006 pointed to WP:Articles_for_deletion/Angelica_Kreuger, an article that was also deleted. That child was 88th in line for the British throne. And as a practical matter, there is simply no material for an article about this child. As usual for this kind of article, it consists entirely of nobilitycruft templates. In a sense this is also a case of WP:BLP1E, the only event that has ever been reported being the child's birth. Hans Adler 21:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not know about the Angelica Kreuger precedent. I stand corrected. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, my "precedent" argument was and is based on WP:OUTCOMES, not WP:OTHERSTUFF. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, my mistake. Somehow the absurdity of WP:Articles for deletion/Alexandre Louis, Duke of Valois and similar AfDs has disillusioned me w.r.t. previous outcomes of nobility-related deletion discussions. (A not-quite-three-year-old boy who died in 1676 and whose existence is only known from a mention in a letter by his mother. No other sources. AfD ended in keep.) But of course OUTCOMES is still sane as a general principle. Hans Adler 21:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece and do the same for the other children. - dwc lr (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article as is. This article and those on the remaining siblings are of historical and political interest and are relevant. We maintain articles on children of other monarchies, such as Viscount Severn (England), and even though the Greek monarchy is defunct at the moment, these are still persons of interest. Unless there is a removal request from the children's family, these articles are harmless. As to source-less, give the article time to develop (after all, this is a child) and gain sourced information. As there has been debate on this page, there is clearly interest in maintaining the page. Why not err on the side of inclusion? After all, that was the original idea behind Wikipedia.
Unregistered (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2011 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.20.79 (talk)
- Wrong project. This is Wikipedia, not WikiGotha. This child fails all our notability guidelines. Wikipedia does not aim to give complete genealogical lists of modern representatives of formerly ruling families. And even if it did, it would be utterly pointless to do this by giving each member of such a family a separate page full of ornamental templates that have nothing to do with the person. Not even the Almanach de Gotha, or the various web pages maintained by modern royalty, uh, enthusiasts spend a full page on every little pseudo-royal rugrat or abecedarian. Why should we? Not even an average mayor of a medium-sized city gets an article here. Hans Adler 21:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "December 2006: PROD is removed and article turned into a redirect to the father's article", "January 2008: article is turned into a redirect to the father's article." There's the real problem, whatever those peoples' motivations. Not the person who restored it, who did absolutely the right thing, even if by accident or for bad reasons. If redirecting without discussion is not sanctionable, it should be. Redirected articles are only a little easier to find than deleted ones, and there is a reason we have AFDs, no? Anarchangel (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish you were right, but you are not. Try starting an AfD and saying up front that you want the outcome to be redirect rather than deletion. Anyone but a masochist will do that at most once. From the POV of AfD bureaucrat it's a criminal abuse of AfD because, according to them, "redirect" is technically the same outcome as "keep". Some admins even follow this ideology when closing AfDs and close near-unanimous redirect cases with "keep". Hans Adler 23:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Summarise, merge and redirect to Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece. The nom is quite right that this kid is not notable enough for his own article. If he was the eldest son, fine, but he's the third, so until he does something particularly noteworthy, he's only slightly more notable than a regular six-year-old. Nightw 02:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into father's article and do the same with all his siblings aside from the eldest son. Morhange (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notability is in exceptional cases inherited, and one of them is reasonably enough the immediate family of monarchs. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 18 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Terje Svabø
- Terje Svabø (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Google search yields few results other than mirror sites. The only other link to him is part of an unsourced reference on another wikipedia page, Civita. He is not even on the Civita page. Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Stuff comes up if you look for Norwegian sites. I added three references and made it a little more accurate. Even without using the Kvasir search engine, I found enough mentions of him, together with that think tank general manager position and the senior TV news positions, to establish notability.Yngvadottir (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, nationally known. Geschichte (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was unaware of his status in Norway when I created this, I am still glad I tagged it because it seems like it helped the page to improve some.Ryan Vesey (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep well known in Norway. The article has sufficient reliable sources to establish notability, such as the Dagbladet article which is solely about him and his personal life. Arsenikk (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ClearTrial
- ClearTrial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possibly non notable COI spam; see the user page for the article's creator, Nfitzmaurice (talk · contribs).
Most of the refs in the article either appear to be: primary, podcasts with person from the subject, or brief mentions. OSborn arfcontribs. 18:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm seeing lots of press releases, but not independent coverage. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply the discussion runs for 7 days. It is clear from your userpage that you have a direct commercial interest in this product/company. OSborn arfcontribs. 19:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WTF are you talking about? I do believe you have me mistaken for the person you linked to, which isn't me. Also, I was agreeing with your nomination. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was replying to a comment which was apparently later removed. OSborn arfcontribs. 18:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, that explains it. Bad form. He shouldn't have removed it, and simply struck it instead. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was replying to a comment which was apparently later removed. OSborn arfcontribs. 18:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WTF are you talking about? I do believe you have me mistaken for the person you linked to, which isn't me. Also, I was agreeing with your nomination. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yet another integrated system for clinical operations planning, forecasting, outsourcing, and project tracking. This apparently has to do with tracking clinical drug tests for pharmaceutical companies, but for some reason they just can't allow themselves to say so in English. Claims to minimal significance are only non-notable mutual admiration awards from trade associations. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- non-notable business; only references provided are PR news releases. Dialectric (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Duong Hong Ky
- Duong Hong Ky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:V, WP:N: Can't find reliable secondary sources which provide signficant coverage of this musician and community activist, only videos, his blog, and wikimirrors. As such the biography of a living person is both unverified and there is no evidence of meeting the general notability guideline. But it's possible I'm missing something, and additional sourcing, as always, is welcomed. joe deckertalk to me 18:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I am unable to find any coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I also looked for coverage for the Chicago International Musicians ensemble in which he is a member and found no coverage there either. -- Whpq (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 22:12, 15 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uttering
- Uttering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article provides only misinformation, and fails WP:VERIFY because the sources do not actually verify what the article purports. The word “uttering”, as a legal term, is used only in conjunction with the U.S. crime of Uttering and publishing, or in Canada/Britain with the crime of Uttering a forged document. Similarly, in commonly law the word has no “stand alone” legal meaning. A search of on-line legal dictionaries [26][27] fails to find the word “uttering” as a stand-alone legal term. Previous AfD was closed prematurely (after only 12 hours) by a non-admin editor. Securel (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the article needs improvement then it should be improved, rather than deleted. "Uttering" is a technical term in English law concerned with passing counterfeit coins: see [28], [29] which has a whole section on "uttering"[30] which defines the standalone term, [31] and [32]. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to be a notable topic. A case to delete could be made based on "not a dictionary" since the article is mainly about the use of the word, not the crime itself. However it is useful if a person wants to know what the crime of "uttering" is. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It helps to add the word "currency" when searching to narrow down the hits to ones that are relevant, which seem to be plentiful in at least scholar. Since it is a legal term, it would be acceptable to have more than a dictionary definition. Probably more commonly used outside of the USA, but that doesn't make it less worthy of an article in the English version of Wikipedia. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - nominating an article for the second time for AFD when nothing has changed to give a preditable delete result only results in the Keep-votes becoming more firm.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment After reviewing the logs for the first AFD, I do have to agree that it was closed improperly after less than a day and only two comments. That said, I still say to keep the article. Won't hurt to let the process play out. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Since this seemed to work the last time around, I'll try again:
- Uttering is clearly a crime in several countries. See the sources in the article (e.g., "Forgery per se is not a crime. The crime is uttering, i.e. using as genuine a fabricated writing falsely intended to pass as genuine the writing of another person."[33]) or this quote: "Uttering (Va. Code 18.2-172) is a separate and distinct offense from forgery. The crime of forgery is complete when the accused has made or altered the writing with the intent to defraud. The crime of uttering occurs when the accused uses or attempts to use a forged writing..."[34] Yes, I suppose something must be uttered just as something must be stolen, someone must be murdered, &c., but that doesn't preclude having an article under those titles at Wikipedia.
- See also the following sources for info:
- Charles Curry. "Forgery, and Uttering Forged Instruments". The Virginia Law Register. Vol. 8, No. 2 (June 1902). pp. 79-96.
- David Crystal-Kirk. "Forgery Reforged: Art-Faking and Commercial Passing-off since 1981". The Modern Law Review. Vol. 49, No. 5 (September 1986). pp. 608-616.
- — AjaxSmack 22:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have some sympathy for the nominator here - in its original usage to utter is merely to issue forth, and it survives in British English at least in respect of the spoken word (eg to utter a remark). In the case of counterfeit coin, which appears to be where the term gained legal significance in England, it was clearly important to distinguish cases where the accused had actually forged the coin from ones where he had merely uttered it (and why the latter should be a crime if the necesary guilty intent were present). So 'uttering' was a crime only in the context of what was actually uttered (and so it is very different from murder, forgery etc). Having said all that, it is clear that the word does appear widely as a crime in many legal reference works by dint of usage (I can add the Oxford Companion to Law from 1980 to the list), and is clearly notable. As a technical term, with differing applications in each jurisdiction (eg between England and Scotland) there is plenty of scope for it to become a respectable article. It is well short of that now. AJHingston (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. You note that "original usage to utter is merely to issue forth" but it has largely lost that wide meaning now and yet retains it in the legal sense. All the more reason to keep the article just as we have an article on murder that deals largely with the legal aspects of the term. "Uttering" (with explanation and examples) is precisely the type of entry that an encyclopedia was designed for. — AjaxSmack 01:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it is the reverse in Britain - to utter in relation to speech, in particular, remains a common usage, whilst the legal usage as here is obsolete in England, where the offence is of passing counterfeit notes and coins. It would be equally correct, and more natural, to speak of somebody uttering a slander as far as linguistic usage goes. But I wasn't arguing for deltion, just making the point that the nomination was not as ill-conceived as seemed to be suggested. The article does need to make very clear that it is talking specifically about the legal use and its evolution in Common Law jurisdictions. AJHingston (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Poor article, which should be improvable. There does appear to be a legal concept of uttering that is common to all of the named jurisdictions. We have scope for a lightweight article that covers this, but whose prime purpose is to link onwards to the separate descriptions of uttering in the more specific contexts for which each jurisdiction makes specific use of the term. Ideally these would be larger separate articles, although even separate sections in one (as at present) justify it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Strauss (artist)
- Mark Strauss (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I came across this page during the UBLP rescue project and am unable to find secondary sources; all I find is the subject's home page. Does not seem to meet GNG. Yoninah (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:GNG. Yoninah (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are a few news stories, mainly behind pay walls--not clear how much notability they would convey, however.[35][36][37][38] Could not find any independent coverage of his books. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:GNG. PlusPlusDave (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rebecca Javeleau Birthday Party
- Rebecca Javeleau Birthday Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Bringing this to AfD after I declined a speedy giving as its reason "Why is this here?". I didn't this was a valid CSD reason, but thought the question merited further discussion. There has been a failed attempt to bring this to AfD previously. Peridon (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No notability whatsoever. --bender235 (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - while it got a fair amount of coverage, there isn't any hint so far that this WP:EVENT holds lasting significance - frankieMR (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As per nom, and what my fellow wiki mates said above, it has not enough notability and relevance to have an article here in wikipedia. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 19:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge. I think I remember this one being in the news at the time, but a GNews search puts virtually all of the coverage in the immediate aftermath of the event, which doesn't really meet WP:EVENT. Should someone find an article that covers controversy over Facebook-based parties, however, the article would be appropriate there. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, ultimately a case of WP:NOTNEWS, with a brief spike in coverage around that time, with no evidence of actual encyclopedic notability. At best this might be worth a half-sentence mention at an article about criticism of Facebook, but only if that can be sourced. --Kinu t/c 19:44, 16 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
William Asplin
- William Asplin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Duplicate of article William Aspinwall (minister) except without sources Nightenbelle (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. Two quite evidently different people, minimal similarity between articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is a direct cut and paste of this wikisource entry. Acather96 (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If he's significant enough for a DNB entry then he's notable enough for Wikipedia. However, the article shouldn't just be a cut and paste of the DNB article, so should be reduced to a stub until someone has the time or inclination to write it properly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Race and intelligence
- Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence
- Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (3rd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (4th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (Comparison of explanations)
- Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history)
- Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence 2
- Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence in the United States
- Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article demonstrates the reason why wikipedia WP:NPOV applies to article titles not just content.
To accept the premise of the stand alone article of this title is WP:UNDUE it completely loses the scientific context of the number of world class institutions who do not consider this to be an area meritting study
The context of this contraversial issue has been completely lost from the creator's comment "copied large section from Racism"
The article is purely about IQ and not intelligence and there is a difference. Which means it is already misnamed. The information needs to be put in scientific context ie what effects an IQ test [39] to name one of many. Someone's genetic code is complex as are how things are passed on. If this subject is viewed as notable then it should appear under its closest scientific field Heritability of IQ or in a social context such as Scientific racism
Because NPOV arguments are so rarely needed on deletion I will give a short example just because there are news articles about World war II bomber found on the Moon [40] doesn't mean that the context should be ignored and an article written as if the story was believed to be true. It has nothing to do with notability.
Both Race and Intelligence and Race and IQ should be deleted WP:PSCI; WP:FRINGE; WP:NPOV; WP:UNDUE; not redirected and the content placed on Heritability of IQ as a subsection towards the end, a great deal of clean-up is still needed after the move as the article currently stands it is in breech of WP:Propaganda. Tetron76 (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. To nominate an article for deletion on the basis that its title violates NPOV is quite simply absurd. Clearly the nominator is offended by the subject matter, but the notion that IQ has a racial component has a long history and has been the subject of many scientific investigations. It matters not one whit whether it's "true" or not so far as the existence of this article is concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As politically charged as it is, the fact remains that the subject matter is certainly notable and the article itself is meticulously cited. The title is appropriate, even if it bothers someone. The controversy of Race vs. Intelligence goes back centuries, and whether there is or isn't a correlation (I'm more of a "environment vs. intelligence" guy myself), it doesn't take away the fact that subject matter is worthy (and verifiable) as an article. To say that the subject matter is fringe is just silly. As to NPOV, that is a matter of editing, as is the other reasons given for delete (ie: not valid reasons to bring an AFD to begin with). The article clearly says in the beginning that it has been a matter of debate for decades, which is true. Deleting the article won't change that. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The view that this article is viewed as meticulously cited is very scary. The first citation comes on line 17 and the cited article does not make the point that it is supposed to be backing. While I appreciate wikipedia articles are edited by non-academics, anytime a statement is made there should be a citation that contains the information to support this statement.Tetron76 (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - An unreadably massive, turgidly written exercise, but both highly notable and highly policed for POV, including the mother of all ArbCom cases. Carrite (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is has been a magnet for POV pushing, socking and meatpuppetry and WP:SPA's but it is a notable topic. Controversial, but notable. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep If an article has the wrong title, or if the contents are POV you fix it by moving the article and by editing it to NPOV, not by deleting the article. The subject is often discussed and clearly notable. Sjö (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly, not speedy keep criteria. What if the fix of the contents is to stubbify the article and then rename it to a very different title? How is this not the same as deletion?Tetron76 (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nomination does not make sense to me. What is "the premise" of the phrase "Race and intelligence"? MartinPoulter (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant that the topic implies an intersect of ideas along the lines of WP:SYNTHSIS, historically the topic was not discussed under these terms. It was along the lines of Blacks are unable to read, they have inferior intelligence because there language doesn't have a term for "chemistry". while I agree the material was widely covered it was never grouped together under the blanket of Race and intelligence. This implies an area of dicussion based upon a scientific discernment. The modern topic of discussing this is genetics and intelligence. By using scientifically imprecise descriptive terms it allows propaganda to be treated as mainstream such as the example of responding about black chess grandmasters [41]
- Keep The problems with this article can be solved by regular NPOV editing. I don't think AFD is the right venue for this conversation since a simple Google Books search turns up a number of books about this issue. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are major problems with the article, as evidenced for example by WP:ARBR&I, but the controversy concerned is covered in many top rate sources (e.g. books of Stephen Jay Gould, Jefferson Fish, Nicholas Mackintosh, Robert Sternberg, Christopher Jencks, james Flynn, Arthur Jensen, Richard Nisbett, etc). It is an article that understandably not many editors will wish to edit and which therefore, in normal circumstances, hardly changes from one problematic state to another. Exceptionally it was completely rewritten from scratch a year ago, but not under optimal circumstances. However, since there is copious first class literature on the controversy and it has over the years provoked historically noteworthy clashes between prominent academics, there is no reason to delete it. Its controversial nature and the editors it occasionally attracts will always prevent it from being either a good article or a stable article. But that is how things are. Mathsci (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is a subject brought by many researchers throughout centuries, this is what a encyclopedia is all about, it is all about the information, the article should extract any single piece of POV away and keep the article rationale. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 19:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and tag The general topic of this article is certainly notable. The problem in this case is that editors who are most interested in actively editing the article tend to have specific racialist agendas that they want to promote. Likewise, articles which have gone through arbitration often have significant structural and content problems which rise well above the usual issues that occur in other articles. Ideally there would be a tag somewhere that notes these problems exists at a more chronic level, and are likely to persist. aprock (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep None of the given rationales apply and will be explicitly rebutted if necessary. Morton Shumway—talk 21:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- I would be grateful if you explain why? i.e WP:FRINGETetron76 (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have no opinion on the article content but the nominator has failed to state a suitable rationale under which anyone should consider deleting the article. I am not sure what to recommend other than another review of WP:NPOV; I simply do not understand the nominator. Blue Rasberry (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I want to strongly encourage or even implore everyone who votes on this article to actively participate in writing the article. The article and related topics have a long history of pov problems and of focusing narrowly on the specific studies of a group of psychologists that attempt to prove that some races are naturally inferior to others, while ignoring issues of racism and the long tradition of using claims of lower intelligence for social and political purposes. I cannot vote delete as the topic is notable and I know that if enough neutral editors gather to work on the article it will be possible to write a good and neutral article about the topic. This has not been possible in the past couple of years while I have been engaged with the topic, mostly due to the imbalanced ratio of SPAs to less invested editors.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a highly notable topic widely discussed in reliable sources. There is no reason whatsoever for this proposal for deletion.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that as well, but since this has been put up on AFD so many times, piling on might actually be helpful. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment since I have clearly failed to express myself well I will try to expand the detail. From wikipedia guidelines:
An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea,[3] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.
- None of the 173 sources are presenting information the article with relation to the mainstream ideas within Genetics or Cognitive science.
- To present even the best possible written article on this topic requires information that is off topic to show that race is too crude a measure when doing a genetic study before the lead. The title prevents the inclusion of the information as it is a superset of the article.
- This is Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Pseudoscience point 3, if it was genuine science: race to start off with would have to be replaced by ethnicity as "black", "white" and "asian" all cover more than one ethnic group as demonstrated by David Cameron's comments about Oxford University's 2009 admissions [42] and IQ would be adjusted for race in the way that they are for age.
- While it is true that the content issues could be improved by deleting every unsourced or wrongly Cited lines and adding factors that affect an IQ test from Brest feeding, to limitations of questions, it is not ever possible to present this information in a manner that is appropriate for a lay-person to understand without information preceding the lead because it is unencyclopedic.
- In my opinion the argument is about the content being what wikipedia is not and discussions of notability are therefore Ignoratio elenchi.Tetron76 (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think we already got your point. Every single issue you have mentioned are topics for the article's talk page, and some seem a bit hysterical, such as WP:Propaganda. I will leave it at that and let the closing admin make their determination as they see fit, as it appears the probability of this discussion invoking Godwin's Law is rapidly approaching 1. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my nomination since when I started making the nomination, the preexisting AfD wasn't showing on the talk page, I am effectively nominating on the same reasons as were made in 2005. I accept that an extra 5+ years of POV doesn't change the interpretation of wikipedia guidelines and clearly I am not eloquent enough for this debate to be of value.Tetron76 (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP but work on it and perhaps re-title it. I think the general areas of intelligence and its definition, (supposed) measurement by conventional IQ tests, the results of such tests as they correlate with economic status individually and by country, performance changes over time for individuals and groups, correlations with school success and job success, the proposed linkage of such test results to the ill-defined category of race, and the political and social policy conclusions some draw from the test results needs to be carefully discussed. The reasons that many people hold false stereotypes and draw illogical conclusions about these issues also ought to be examined, though that bleeds over into psychology, sociology and politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.175.10 (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Six years later, the article is still an exhaustive survey of all the facts other than the ones that really count. It has no substantial mention of the cultural bias in IQ testing into which economic and therefore education differences play, the flimsiness of IQ as a measure of the scope of human intelligence, rebuttals of the concept of race, or how lack of opportunity creates a disincentive to scholarly thinking in general. The only time the word "culture" is used in the entire article is as a rebuttal of a passing mention of cultural bias later on in the article. Articles on controversial subjects such as these should be given the chance to become balanced, and scrapped if they remain as biased as this. Anarchangel (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zanran
- Zanran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability and COI concerns. MorganKevinJ(talk) 17:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete COI concerns don't bother me as that can be fixed, as could the spammy way this article is written, as an endorsement of the website. What bothers me is the inability to verify the notability of this subject matter via any reliable source. Too new to know if it will or will not ever be notable. It would appear that at this time, it is not. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with Dennis Brown. The article is spam, but more important is the total lack of any sign of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - COI/spam may not in itself be a reason for deletion, but without reliable sources the problem is not correctable and the subject fails WP:GNG. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2011 (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. Sandstein 06:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Legend of Nereid
- Legend of Nereid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
does not meet the notability guideline for books Mootros (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a published book series. It's as notable as any other graphic novel. Cedear (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Dream Focus 13:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I did not find anything in my Google search to indicate notability. – Allen4names 17:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not within the Anime/Manga project scope. see Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga#What_topics_we_do_not_cover --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet or even claim to meet WP:Bk. "As notable as any other graphic novel" is the same as saying not-notable. Wickedjacob (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2011 (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. Sandstein 06:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ThermaHelm
- ThermaHelm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A fringe non-notable company/product. They claim to offering something new and revolutionary, yet the product is barely in production - it still seems to be at the prototype stage as helmets take 16 weeks to produce. There are some references - one a patent application (which anyone can do), two from the company itself (the Sussex Innovation Centre) and one from the Daily Mail which looks like a press-release reprint. Yet there are none from motorcycle-related publications which is where you would expect a new and revolutionary motorcycle helmet to be reported and featured. The Daily Mail website mentions July 2010 as the launch of a cheaper version of the helmet, yet that is not apparent on the company's website - yet more evidence that this is a minor league product/company that launched with a big splash and has faded to nothing. Bottom line - the company itself would fail the notability test, and I can see no reason why the product itself is notable enough to keep this article. Biker Biker (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. "fringe" is not the correct way to describe start-up companies. If they'd been around for years and achieved nothing, then maybe. As far as "offering something new and revolutionary", most would argue that these words applied tightly to a British innovation in the form of a motorcycle helmet with an endothermic reactor that cooled your brain on impact, let alone it's ability to call emergency services and transmit riders' GPS coordinates. The helmet is not "at prototype stage" just because it takes 12-16 weeks to make a bespoke, hand made carbon fibre and Kevlar helmet from the results of a fitting kit dispatched to buyers days after purchase (I brought one and thus know). The industry standard for bespoke CF helmets is 16 weeks from order to delivery, as set by 43.6% market leader Arai. The British patent is Granted; it is not possible for "anyone [to] do" that. The Daily Mail don't "reprint" articles and thus that article is genuine. Notoriety is prolific as the are literally thousands of articles on this innovation in the motorcycling and general press. Biker Biker removed links to 90% of them and then claimed there aren't any(?) Odd. In this month's (April 2011) Fast Bikes magazine, ThermaHelm's Halo helmet was ranked the best in a hands-on test of all the top helmets. Just because articles like these don't get distributed on the net by the publisher in order to keep printed readership up, does not mean articles on this product are not marking its notoriety daily. Despite this, a web search shows 57,000 results. Spendthrift Biker Biker then claims this university-based, life-saving innovation company has hoodwinked the public by not yet launching a less expensive version and has thus, in his opinion, has "faded to nothing" - despite totally selling out in 3 days of an 11 day show at the Carole Nash International Motorcycle Show in November last year, according to a Cisionwire news release. Hailypaige (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling me a spendthrift, and any other name calling or personal attack will do nothing to further your cause and won't help you keep your article. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attack made (unlike your unfactual and defamatory comments on the technology) just factual defense to your baseless comments. Hailypaige (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC) http://www.cisionwire.com/search-news-media/revolutionary-new-motorcycle-helmet-sells-out Hailypaige (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cisionwire.com is a self-published source i.e. it is a facility for companies to publish their own press releases. What is needed on Wikipedia is reliable and verifiable third party (ideally secondary) sources not corporate promotional material. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok...here we go...including some of those removed by Biker Biker - to which he now claims lack of notoriety and coverage in motorcycle press(??)
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/article80925.ece
DAILY UPDATED MOTORCYCLE NEWS WEBSITE: http://indianmotosblog.com/thermahelm-future-motorcycling-helmet
http://www.techmagnews.com/tag/helmet
DAILY BIKES NEWS AND REVIEWS: http://www.bikerzlane.com/12390/futuristic-helmet-design-thermahelm.html
http://articles.org/the-halo-by-thermahelm-the-science-of-cold/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXcF2Nxf5kA
http://www.geeky-gadgets.com/thermahelm-ice-pack-helmet-15-01-2010/
OBSESSIVE COVERAGE OF THE AUTO INDUSTRY: http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/09/video-thermahelm-motorcycle-helmet-is-swell-err-not/
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/health/health-care/2011-03-27/doctors-move-forward-research-brain-cooling.html (mention near bottom)
INSURANCE COMPANIES: http://www.swinton.co.uk/motor/motorcycle/SpecialistBikeNews/ThermaHelm-'can-save-lives-by-cooling-the-brain'_19563004
Foreign:
Uzbekistan: http://www.webdev.uz/thermahelm-termoshlem-kotoryj-soxranit-zhizni-tysyacham-motociklistov-video/
Italy: http://www.diredonna.it/thermahelm-il-casco-salva-vita-5301.html
Greece: http://www.mototriti.gr/data/news/preview_news/79593.asp
Lithuania: http://www.techpill.lt/index.php/naujienos/alta-galva-su-thermahelm/
Netherlands: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXcF2Nxf5kA
China: http://hi.baidu.com/baby%D0%A1%BB%D2%BB%D2/blog/item/af24e40868f4caa42fddd4fe.html
...and on...and on. Google advises there are articles on this invention in 173 countries and 141 languages. Hailypaige (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My last comment before others have their say. There is a lot of rubbish among those links. Seasoned Wikipedians will recognise a lot of them are blogs and article/press-release republishers, with very very little in the way of reliable referenceable material, which is exactly why I removed those links from the article in the first place. The fact that a product or company exists does not make them notable. The fact that they have lots of coverage in some of the sites listed above is because they have a product that is interesting or novel, and again that does not make them notable, just good at PR. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to boost their profile and promote their products and right now that's exactly what this article looks like - company sponsored spam. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolute rubbish. Wikipedians will likely not be fooled into backing you on this one. You have no real concept of logic in this regard whatsoever and really, really need some acuity on this topic. How on earth is a technology that is in the UK Trade & Investment's Global Entrepreneurs Programme marked as a Technology of Exceptional Potential not notable? In addition, being University-based means ALL - 100% - revenue goes to R&D. Thus, you cannot correctly call it a commercial product in the same vein as for-profit companies and truthfully, presence on Wikipedia is ZERO commercial benefit to the innovation when the Wiki article is totally buried several pages deep in a Google search. In any event, God forbid a rider find it here and choose a higher level of safety without pinching pennies on his life.
The above links point to vast Global journalistic interest in the one and only evolution-change in the redundancy of passive motorcycle helmets - that's why me and all my mates are wearing them. Why? Because ThermaHelm has brought us the first ACTIVE motorcycle helmet. Thus, the first real step-change in over 50 years. All other helmets are Passive/Dumb/sans anything but blunt technology to save lives. In fact, post-impact, they all work quickly to kill your brain cells by insulating your emissary capillaries so that your body cannot self-regulate its temperature.
If the cumulative Wiki community does not concur that this notable innovation is worthy of permeating the cognisance of intelligent bikers who reference Wikipedia, then feel free to remove. Hailypaige (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While some references are sketchy, I trust the Daily Mail and the Daily Tech as reputable news sources. I'm not sure though, but it's better to keep and article than to delete it. Bluefist talk 14:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete In six months, or a year, a reputable source or two might give us something to work with on this topic. Or ThermaHelm will be forgotten. Currently, it's premature. Clearly this new helmet has made a big splash on some blogs, but that only creates a lot of noise to sift through. Sandbagging this discussion with links to unreliable blogs, plus more copies of press releasable even after it was pointed out that press releases are unhelpful, makes this process more work than it ought to be. The Daily Mail is not a serious newspaper, and the Daily Tech article is a brief, fluffy blog post. If ThermaHelm pans out, it will get coverage in good sources and we can re-create the article then. Keeping it now just creates someplace for links to sketchy sources to accumulate, for somebody else to have to come along and delete. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep ~ There are verifiable evidence that the subject (ThermaHelm) has received significant attention, coverage and recognition by media, and not only in the UK but worldwide and in many languages. I think this is enough to support a claim of notability. However, the article about ThermaHelm requires to be expanded in a short time. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and each of its articles must be in an encyclopedic format. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: my suspicion that this article had been driven by commercial interests is made stronger by this post on the article's talk page by an editor who is being paid by the university to save the article. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brain cooling is a proven and recently approved medical salve. See Global, verifiable and non-bias news reports on the subject that the company has collected here: http://www.thermahelm.com/blog.html Hailypaige (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are already articles on the subjects of cortical cooling and therapeutic hypothermia. It remains that the most reputable (if you call it reputable and I don't) coverage of ThermaHelm is in the Daily Mail. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2011 (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 close. There was already an AfD open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Gamma. I have centralized all discussion there. This close is merely a procedural close to get all conversations at one place. I have copied the remarks left here to that thread. —C.Fred (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Gamma
- Alpha Gamma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable organization WuhWuzDat 15:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. NYCRuss ☎ 18:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'll say something different this time. There needs to be procedural keeps right down the line for this entire mass of highly disruptive drive by shootings of Alpha-BLANK-BLANK fraternity and sorority articles. This sort of wanton article destruction, apparently taken on a whim, judging by the lack of research and argument backing each nomination, should not be rewarded. Nor should anyone have to put three seconds into defending disruptive challenges such as these from deletion. This is an exercise in encyclopedia-wrecking, in my opinion, from a self-described "semi-retired" Wikipedia editor. I would hope that some administrator steps in shortly to rein in this ill-considered onslaught. Carrite (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Gamma Nu
- Alpha Gamma Nu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable organization WuhWuzDat 15:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is one supposed to think about 20 or so nominations, all of which coincidentally begin with ALPHA, without anything more than a simple cut-and-pasted 4 word "rationale" and no visible evidence that the slightest effort was made to separate the sheep from the goats? Pro-forma nomination gets a pro-forma defense, and all these should be ruled a procedural keep by the closing administrator unless valid indication that the NOMINATION had merit can be demonstrated by delete voters. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am with Carrite, except I can't assume bad faith when it could be just lack of WP:COMPETENCE. WWD can take his pick, for all I care; they are both critical flaws. You weren't to know, necessarily, but WWD does this routinely, most recently making a score of nominations each with only the words, "non notable former model". All but one of those were Kept, I believe. Anarchangel (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is one supposed to think about 20 or so nominations, all of which coincidentally begin with ALPHA, without anything more than a simple cut-and-pasted 4 word "rationale" and no visible evidence that the slightest effort was made to separate the sheep from the goats? Pro-forma nomination gets a pro-forma defense, and all these should be ruled a procedural keep by the closing administrator unless valid indication that the NOMINATION had merit can be demonstrated by delete voters. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. NYCRuss ☎ 18:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As a local fraternity (single chapter), it does not not appear to meet the criteria and general standards for notability of fraternities and sororities. —C.Fred (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a local club with 28 members and no outside coverage whatsoever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - 28 members at a single university does not qualify this as a notable organization. Single reference on article is to the listing of fraternaties on the campus. Hasteur (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, local clubs are not notable as a general rule, and no evidence has been given that this is an exception.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Old enough to qualify for notablity even as a single campus fraternityNaraht (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per reasoning of C.Fred above. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 01:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because of lack of the significant coverage in multiple sources required to show notability. Of the keep !votes so far, none seem valid. "Speedy keep" because of faults of the nominator became invalid as soon as the first good faith delete !vote came in. Keep because it's old enough to be notable is, well, just not how it works, age doesn't give automatic notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:54, 14 April 2011 (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 Procedural keep as bad-faith nomination. Carnildo (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Gamma Omega
- Alpha Gamma Omega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable organization WuhWuzDat 15:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A brief article concerning Alpha Gamma Omega, "Christian Fraternity starts CU chapter" appeared in the Rocky Mountain News on August 31, 1996. Chuck (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Alpha Gamma Omega is an active fraternity with many living and deceased alumni. There is no reason it should be deleted. The article contains factual information about the organization and fulfills all the the requirements wikipedia demands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylepetz (talk • contribs) 17:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. NYCRuss ☎ 18:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: and make nominator subject to wikipedia hazing rituals involving greased turkeys.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - No cited references. Tagged with the request for references. If in a month the references are not forthcoming, I will re-nominate the article as we are supposed to have researched and cited articles. Hasteur (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2011 (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. Salix (talk): 15:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Psi Omega
- Alpha Psi Omega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable organization WuhWuzDat 15:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. NYCRuss ☎ 18:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article has been requesting references since October 2009. IF the organization is as notable as claimed, supporters should be able to find references before the close of this AfD. Hasteur (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - References added and an OTRS requested for the History.Naraht (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google News search finds only passing mentions "so-and-so was a member of..." or inclusions in lists. Google Books finds a little information in specialty journals like "The Southern Speech Journal" and "The Speech Teacher". Not enough for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 550 chapters are enough for notability -- its a valid factor in judging an organization. Discussions in the specialty journals are exactly what one would expect to find and out to find fora specialized subject society. There is no requirement in Wikipedia that something be notable outside its field--if there were, out goes about 90% of the articles and we'd be a condensed encyclopedia , not an encyclopedia . Carrite is right about the nomination, which completely ignored deletion policy. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have notvoted for deletion on many pages on fraternities and sororities with one to five chapters. There is no way an article on an org with 550 chapters should be deleted. If somebody could show that number to be made up, then I would reconsider. Abductive (reasoning) 21:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I found that there are 1650 results for "Delta Psi Omega", and 13000 results(!) for "Alpha Psi Omega" in GBooks, including significant coverage in numerous books, see for example [43] [44]. I'm not saying those are particulary proving notability but among the thousands results I'm sure a good source can be found, additionally, I found that the claim of "little information in specialty journals " like "The Southern Speech Journal" and "The Speech Teacher". Not enough for notability." made by User:MelanieN is not accurate at all, because I actually checked those sources and they fit exactly into the definition of a reliable source AND significant coverage as per WP:GNG. Dragquennom (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:25, 22 April 2011 (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 RESULT: Speedy redirect, which is blatantly obvious since it's a redirect that was submitted and there is no evidence in the page history that the redirect was contested. J Greb (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Superman: Man of Steel (2012 Film)
- Superman: Man of Steel (2012 Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Already exists as Man of Steel. User refuses to accept redirect. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:34 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy redirect to Man of Steel (film project) which is what this page was doing anyway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.Seems to be a redirection now. No real reason to have a AFD if so. Although this userspace draft was for what it looks like when it's not a film project anymore. But with all the updating that you have to do I can see how it can be unnecessary. But when it comes being a redirection and being AFD'd at the same time, one or the other. Jhenderson 777 20:03, 11 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Third Palestinian Intifada
- Third Palestinian Intifada (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 created after being deleted per expired PROD. This article about a future event contains no sources (see WP:CRYSTAL) and is being used to promote a similarly unreferenced page in ro.wp.- Andrei (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral:Yes it is a future event, and so some people may do not give it the notability, for that reason i am neutral. However, about the sources, i do not know about English ones, but Al-Jazeera Net in Arabic have many articles about this event, just for example: [45] [46] [47] --aad_Dira (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This article is also part of the hype around the recently publicized Facebook page. Similar AfD on this subject last year as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Haaretz, The Huffington Post, Fox, Bloomberg, Ma'an..etc etc. It doesn't need its own Wikipedia article but there are plenty of sources out there talking about the event/page (not an actual Third Palestinian Intifada as the article is misleadingly called). I would have thought all of this could be summarized down to a few sentences to be added to articles like Nakba Day, 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests and probably a few others. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - this is part of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests and should be placed there as part of the protests in the Palestinian territories. Also required significant improvement. There were already "unity protests" and other protests in the Palestinian territories. Calls for a third Palestinian Intifada are part of that ongoing protest movement. Poyani (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Against - this page is very important for Millions of Palestinians.رائد 1991 (talk) 07:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Against - .رائد حموده (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. All hype and wishful thinking — Dhhhhhtttere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- 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 closing as moot. Article has been speedily deleted as unambiguous advertising by User:Peridon. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stolle Milk
- Stolle Milk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Extensive claims of medical benefits for a product, with the sources cited for that being apparently self-published or non-reliable. Article includes sales contacts for the product vendors, etc. Article is essentially promotional. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as it stands it is WP:SPAM and WP:WEASEL. Searching for sources does suggest that either Stolle Milk Biologics Incorporated and Hyper-immune milk might be notable enough to have their articles written, if properly sourced - frankieMR (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It slices! It dices! and even if it made julianne fries, I would say delete this spammy and non-notable subject matter. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable product with dubious, poorly sourced claims. --NellieBly (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. ...can be referred to as The Milk of Human Science, is a health related product based on improving the quality of standard milk. Stolle Milk increases the body's anti-inflammatory system, increased antibody function, and better overall athletic performance.... Today, SMBI is an integral part of Spencer Trask Holdings. Spencer Trask has provided financial services to entrepreneurs and companies that have helped shape history.... SMBI's advancements in milk-based technologies have been scientifically proven to enhance the health benefits of cow's milk..... For further information about how SMBI milk products can promote good health derived from nature, please contact us.... Stolle milk can be found on facebook, continually updating their new discoveries and influences around the world. So tagging. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:48, 14 April 2011 (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. Courcelles 07:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Sigma Pi
- Alpha Sigma Pi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable organization WuhWuzDat 15:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. NYCRuss ☎ 18:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unencyclopedic puffery that very thinly is sourced. Hasteur (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Single-chapter local sorority. Google search finds that the name is not unique; there have been and are several fraternities and professional organizations by the same name, all of which seem to be more notable than this one. --MelanieN (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fraternities with only one chapter in a single college, are almost never notable, & there's nothing to show that this one might be. True,this AfD is the product of a recklessly indiscriminate nomination--but by pure accident, a few of the nominated articles are indeed appropriate for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 18 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Kappa Delta Phi
- Alpha Kappa Delta Phi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable organization WuhWuzDat 15:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Alpha Kappa Delta Phi honored for commitment to women's health published January 19, 2011, The Oklahoma Daily. Chuck (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. NYCRuss ☎ 18:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Request for references was in November 2009. If the organization is as notable as it is claimed to be, reliable sources should be able to be found before the closure of the AfD. Hasteur (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - References added.Naraht (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep National sorority, appears notable. --MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2011 (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 Procedural keep as bad-faith nomination. Carnildo (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Kappa Lambda
- Alpha Kappa Lambda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable organization WuhWuzDat 15:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above comment. NYCRuss ☎ 18:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Extremely Weak Keep - There are no sources for the article, no request for sources has been made. If the organization is as notable as claimed, sources should be found in a month. Should it not, I'll re-nominate Hasteur (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2011 (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 Result was keep. Although it is true that any contested, unsourced information could be removed, the result stub could still be saved from deletion by demonstration of existing sources, and the sources provided during the AfD have not been contested. Rlendog (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Lambda Omega
- Alpha Lambda Omega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable organization WuhWuzDat 15:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - References request has been on the article since January 2008. If references could not be found in that point there's not a lot we can do. Hasteur (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A quick Google has revealed several news articles and several books (that are not yearbooks) which could be used for referencing. Just because the unreferenced cleanup tag has been there for a while does not mean that those sources do not exist, just that no one's cared enough to go looking. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 01:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And conversely, Wikipedia works on articles which are sourced. Raising the unsourced argument is a shortcut for removing the unsourced items and then nominating for deletion. Still not an argument for keeping. Hasteur (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, yes it is. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean you should disparage my opinion. The lack or nonexistance of reliable secondary sources is a key indicator of lack of notability, which would mean that an article should be deleted. The existence of aforementioned sources indicates that the article does in fact have the notability, and "sourcability", necessary to merit an article. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 17:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And conversely, Wikipedia works on articles which are sourced. Raising the unsourced argument is a shortcut for removing the unsourced items and then nominating for deletion. Still not an argument for keeping. Hasteur (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep although 14 chapters is sometimes borderline for a fraternity, it exists in several different states. I think we'd need some serious attempt at WP:BEFORE before concluding there are no sources available. It's established that the criterion is sourceable, not just unsourced. This is one of a group of indiscriminately reckless nominations,; although a few of them turn out to be appropriate for deletion, I do not think we should delete anything borderline nominated as part of this group. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 18 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Sigma Rho
- Alpha Sigma Rho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
unreferenced pure unadulterated spam on non notable organization. WuhWuzDat 15:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A little meat to this nomination, at least. Carrite (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete on the merits - there are no sources, it's a recently formed organization (1998), and it reads as promotional. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- no independent sourcing indicating notability, and current version is very promotional. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE - Article's references are lacking, not encyclopedic Hasteur (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While I could find plenty of news articles about the Alpha Sigma Rho fraternity active during the 1930s, equivalent, reliable, secondary sources about the current organization are nowhere to be found. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 01:53, 14 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arts Talk with the Johnson Brothers
- Arts Talk with the Johnson Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable online radio program lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Although host is notable, notability is not inherited. Fails WP:GNG. ttonyb (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure the host is notable either, all the links in his article seem to be primary sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No actual substantive third-party coverage, fails WP:GNG. Also appears to be part of a WP:COATRACK including the autobiography article on the host. (Almost an A7, but claiming to have interviewed Cousin Oliver might be a claim of importance.) --Kinu t/c 19:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I created this page and do not have a problem with you deleting it. I was not aware of WP:COATRACK until you brought it up in this link but that was not the intention of submitting it. I do agree regarding notability as this program does not specialize in interviewing just 'known' actors. This program was started to allow for focus on visual artists, stage actors, and professional educators in those fields as well as some known actors, yes we interviewed Cousin Oliver (Robbie Rist) and even actor Keith Coogan with more lined up. So at some point I would hope it has the notability required but agree right now it is lacking. User: Duaneivan —Preceding undated comment added 23:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Speedy Delete The creator and really only editor who has added content to the article has agreed it is not notable and should be deleted. Given the editors comments, however, I'd suspect they would want it userfied so they could continue to work on it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yaksar, yes I would like to have it userfied so I can continue to work on it. How do we make that a happen? User: Duaneivan —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 13 April 2011 (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. Quarl (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SDK carbine
- SDK carbine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No coverage in reliable secondary sources. Google hits for this term seem to produce essentially the same text or concepts as this article, either due to mirrors or adaptations of this text. It's likely the information originates from weapon details in a computer game or work of fiction. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - last AfD closed as Delete, some of that is worth reading over as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: recreation of a deleted article without any improvements of previous concerns. No references, possibly a hoax, even if it's real, it's so obscure that it fails notability. There are no reliable or verifiable sources that I can find. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the original Afd. Article should never have been recreated without the addition of WP:RS. Anotherclown (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and complete lack of sources. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, per reasons above.--Müdigkeit (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2011 (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 2010–11 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team. Insufficient reliable secondary sources to establish standalone article. Jayjg (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tar Heel Blue Steel
- Tar Heel Blue Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a tough one. This is basically a Neologism. In the article all but one of the sources are primary sources. As per WP:NEO, secondary sources are needed to show notability of a neologism.
The one secondary source (ESPN) is definitely reliable, but it's much more about the players than about the term, IMHO. Yes the term is used, but it's not really the topic of the article. And that's the only secondary source given. With only the one secondary source given, and it being a weak one on the term IMHO, I just do not see this meeting the notability criteria as it is. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - me, neither. - Sitush (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a textbook WP:NEO issue. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with 2010–11 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team. This is an interesting side storyline for this year's UNC basketball team, but doesn't warrant its own article. There is a little news coverage as an quirky human interest story, but no evidence that this is a tradition that will last more than 1-2 years tops. I think there is some good content in the article that would be a nice section of the yearly season page, but really don't see this as notable enough for its own article. Rikster2 (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have personally added several sites that reference blue steel as the walk-ons of UNC mens basketball which are all from third party sites. If more references are needed please make it known before any deletion takes placeCoreyjweb (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the WP:NEO link that a couple of us have used. References that use the term are not enough. What is needed are references about the term. And the point of this debate in part is that such references likely do not exist. If you can find good sources that are about the term, then you are well on your way to showing us incorrect with this debate. But just terms that use it are not enough. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article I most recently added directly references the first popular use of the term as well as the background of each individual team member. It brings up how Carolina has always had a tradition of walk-ons in a supporting role, and this years students brought the term and the popularity to the cult stars.Coreyjweb (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you mean this link? The problem is the same as with the ESPN article. The linked article is really about the people, not the term. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Rikster. Does not pass notability thresholds for a stand alone article. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Rikster seems to get it right. If this develops further, and better/more sources regarding the group become available in the future, it can be split out at a later date; but, there just doesn't seem to be enough stand-alone encyclopedic information here. Seems to be more an interesting footnote to the 2010-11 season. — Ched : ? 13:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Agree with Rikster. Ncjon (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Wasn't there already an AfD on this, perhaps with a different spelling? Anyway, Delete or Redirect. Abductive (reasoning) 21:14, 21 April 2011 (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. Courcelles 07:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17 (Mandy Moore song)
- 17 (Mandy Moore song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NSONGS. Even Discogs and Eil have no entries on the song/single. The cover art seems like a fan cover too. Novice7 (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Adabow (talk · contribs) 13:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't look like the article will grow much beyond this. Not notable.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also, article creator (User:Parys) is a blocked sockpuppet of user known to create hoax music-related articles - I strongly suspect that this is another one. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the song's album, Mandy Moore (album). Rlendog (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Adabow. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Rlendog. Plausible search term. Jenks24 (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: whether deleted or redirected, File:MandyMoorecover17.JPG will need to be deleted as it is non-free. Jenks24 (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2011 (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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
White Sox – Cubs rivalry game summary
- White Sox – Cubs rivalry game summary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of statistics. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think this is "indiscriminate," since it is very specific as to its scope. To the extent that this list expands on the already fairly long White Sox – Cubs rivalry, I am not sure it is inappropriate. Rlendog (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Definitely not indiscriminate, it's very specific. Possibly too much detail, but certainly no worse than the 162-game logs being kept for individual team seasons. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, not indiscriminate. I typed that out of habit mostly. It's still not enough for a basis of an article, and it's an excessive listing of statistics without enough text to explain its importance, as per WP:NOTSTATS. We aren't Baseball Reference. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#STATS. Notability of the stats has not been established per WP:GNG. 01:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
White Sox – Cubs rivalry game summary
- White Sox – Cubs rivalry game summary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of statistics. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think this is "indiscriminate," since it is very specific as to its scope. To the extent that this list expands on the already fairly long White Sox – Cubs rivalry, I am not sure it is inappropriate. Rlendog (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Definitely not indiscriminate, it's very specific. Possibly too much detail, but certainly no worse than the 162-game logs being kept for individual team seasons. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, not indiscriminate. I typed that out of habit mostly. It's still not enough for a basis of an article, and it's an excessive listing of statistics without enough text to explain its importance, as per WP:NOTSTATS. We aren't Baseball Reference. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#STATS. Notability of the stats has not been established per WP:GNG. 01:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- 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. postdlf (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Muscle memory (definition)
- Muscle memory (definition) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is not an appropriate encyclopedia article. It provides a very brief, unreferenced, overview of two closely related topics that use the term "muscle memory". Our policies and guidelines make clear that we have one article per topic. Powers T 12:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—Unclear why we need a separate article to define a topic that is already covered in greater detail on Muscle memory.—RJH (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete content fork which is unnecessary. PlusPlusDave (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I do not see the need for this definition article when Muscle memory adequately defines the term. Mabiller (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Query: What do you guys think about Muscle memory (strength training)? Powers T 15:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be considered for a merge with Muscle memory#Strength training and adaptations, or be adapted as a main article for that section.—RJH (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The parts of section Muscle memory#Strength training and adaptations dealing with strength training seem out of place, as they describe intramuscular (local) phenomena dealing with muscular strength efficiency, instead of changes thought to take place in the brain dealing with skills. The heading of this section was changed recently (after this AfD was opened), adding emphasis to the strength aspect. --Lambiam 12:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be considered for a merge with Muscle memory#Strength training and adaptations, or be adapted as a main article for that section.—RJH (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This page appears to be a highly-nonstandard attempt at creating a disambiguation page for distinguishing between the more common popular meaning of the term "muscle memory" and the somewhat idiosyncratic and neologistic one of "muscle memory (strength training)" (of which I'm not convinced it is notable), created by the same user as the article under discussion. If the latter article is to be kept, a hatnote at Muscle memory should suffice. --Lambiam 12:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge I work in the muscle memory field, and I think a clearification is necessary. It is NOT correct as in the current entry Muscle memory that muscle memory is simply the non-technical term for procedural memory, see e.g. the Staron et al. reference, se also arguments from User:ArphaxadHunter in a dirscussion comment to Muscle memory from 2008 where he exactly imply muscle plasticity. Or do a websearch where you will see how the term muscle memory is used rather frequently (more frequently?) for strenght training related observations, for which there is an explanation not related to motor learning as referenced here, if you are not convinced, read the papers! It is not idiosyncratic nor neologistic. The definition article is referenced to some of the best peer reviewed journals, and to two non overlapping research groups (ref 2 and 3). A text similar to the one some of you want to delete have to be included somewhere simply to make it correct. If the changes are done as I am suggesting by creating three articles or by merging the articles or by a disambiguion page I have no strong opinions, I am not that experienced in the Wikipedia technicalities. The important thing is that the term muscle memory describes a phenomenon, as outlined Muscle memory (definition). There are, however, two documented biological explanations for this phenomenon, Muscle memory (motor learning), Muscle memory (strength training) these explanations are not mutually exclusive. If someone more experienced in Wikipedia editing can merge the three articles now related to muscle memory that would be fine User:Muskel —Preceding undated comment added 00:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- You forgot to reveal that you are the creator of this article (as well as Muscle memory (strength training)). I don't understand your recommendation. There is nothing of substance in this article that is not already in Muscle memory (strength training), so merging this article to there is a void action, and surely you don't want Muscle memory (definition) to be a page that simply redirects to Muscle memory (strength training). As I see it the term "muscle memory" is in use for two entirely unrelated phenomena for which it does not make sense to propose that they be treated in Wikipedia as a single phenomenon with a single definition and two different not mutually exclusive biological explanations. These unrelated phenomena are best dealt with in separate articles. The pop science term for motor learning is by far the more common use of the term. --Lambiam 13:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per RJH. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ascertia
- Ascertia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article has been recreated with a significant number of citations added. However carefully checking the current 22 citations shows most of these are the company's promotional material, a few product review sites (which are in the business of reviewing everything), sites that no longer work or forum discussions. The article says what the company is, but makes no clear or unambiguous claim to notability with associated reliable sources that would satisfy WP:ORG. The list of Partners is ambiguous as frequently such schemes are little more than paying the fee to join or paying the sales commission from the partner's website. Fæ (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree with nominator's assessment of existing refs. Google News, Books and Scholar found some mentions, but i saw no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. --Qwfp (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obvious spamvert, next to no independent coverage, and in the event this company is shown to be notable it needs fundamentally rewriting to not look like a sales pitch. On a wider issue, whilst I don't normally question the motive of the article author, I've looked at the article history and the contributions seems to consist exclusively of promotion of this company, including one article what was deleted by AfD and recreated with no apparent explanation, and dubious external links to Ascertia-related products on other pages. Unless someone gives a good case to act differently, I'm inclined to remove these external links and G4 speedy delete the recreated page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Neville-Smith (talk • contribs) 12:15, 11 April 2011
- Delete and salt. Yet another software software vendor. Good to know that their software has software in it. Article is referenced only to tech spamblogs and internally generated materials, and consists entirely of a self-congratulatory company history and product list. No showing that this business has had significant effects on history, culture, or technology of the kind that make for long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: WP:HASREFS I have removed many references pointing to the company home address and added few independant references Mwahaj —Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Sorry, still can't see much in the way of significant independent third-party coverage. A lot of these references are clear reprints of press releases (not independent) or forum posts (not reliable sources), and a couple of articles mentioning Ascertia as a partner (not significant coverage). Only reference that seems to be close to qualifying is the tentenreviews article, but we'd need a lot more than that single source to qualify for notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added another external link where Ascertia is discussed in Rutgers university Mwahaj
- Delete - as per nom - frankieMR (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2011 (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 nomination withdrawn. Closing over outstanding delete !vote per WP:IAR. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A. T. Powers
- A. T. Powers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability issues. Being a "leading figure" is not a strong enough claim. Sole source of references is a book written by the article's creator. Normally a COI can be edited around, but in this case, you wouldn't have anything left and the individual still wouldn't pass WP:V or WP:N. Definitely WP:OR since the only source is the creator. Dennis Brown (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (Author's comment): He was president of the American Baptist Association from 1957-1959; that establishes "notability." Billy Hathorn (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have a solid 3rd party source to demonstrate that, I would be happy to withdraw based on that singular claim. The problem is that I was not able to find anything (outside your book or 1st party) that demonstrates that. If true, surely some major paper or organization that passes WP:RS would have something. I'm very concerned that several articles only have your book as the sole source. While that would be fine for some secondary sourcing, I'm confident it shouldn't be used as the sole or primary source of demonstrating or verifying notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you would have told me, I would done this a bit earlier. See below.
- If you have a solid 3rd party source to demonstrate that, I would be happy to withdraw based on that singular claim. The problem is that I was not able to find anything (outside your book or 1st party) that demonstrates that. If true, surely some major paper or organization that passes WP:RS would have something. I'm very concerned that several articles only have your book as the sole source. While that would be fine for some secondary sourcing, I'm confident it shouldn't be used as the sole or primary source of demonstrating or verifying notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative keep -- president of ABA would appear to demonstrate notability, but I'm really not inclined to dig through all the Austin Powers hits to find sourcing for this gentleman. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The issue at hand is that no verifiable sources can be found. The only source for the entire article is a book that itself is not notable (per WP:BOOK) and would not be qualified as a reliable source. This isn't an issue of insufficient verification, it is an issue of ZERO verification for biographical article. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete article, merge relevant details (if any) to American Baptist Association. Fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR and lacks RS. No sources for "Austin Toliver Powers" in google books, google scholar, or google news archive. The only "A. T. Powers" in google scholar are unrelated scientists who appear to be living. The two books (monographs) about him was published by Bogard Press, which was/is part of his organization. If this person was notable there should be sources, but there aren't. The bulk of the article is made up from a local history publication authored by the creator of the article. Simply put, delete per article's failure to "pass WP:V or WP:N." HHaeyyn89 (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your search skills are really subpar, maybe an adult education class would help a little. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that per our licensing, what you're really probably asking for is that the article be merged, left as a redirect, with the history kept for attribution purposes. We can't delete one article and then reuse the content in another article without significant attribution hoops. Jclemens (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. President of an association of 2,000 churches seems notable enough to me. And I do wish that people would stop quoting internet searches to prove why someone who was prominent in the 1950s isn't notable! Just have a quick think about why that might not be very useful! The fact he existed is verifiable. His notability is clear. Which guidelines or policies does this article not meet? Sadly the verifiability policy is frequently misunderstood: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation [italics mine]. Not every single item in the article, as some people seem to believe. Which material in this article is controversial? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR A link was added, http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00617FA385C127A93C5AB178DD85F438585F9, that establishes notability. Unfortunately, the link is behind a paywall that requires $3.95 to verify. I take the addition by Billy Hathorn in good faith as accurate, and while difficult to verify, still passes WP:V because it IS available to verify. As for notability, being President of the American Baptist Association would qualify as notable by any reasonable measure, so I withdraw the nomination, and ask an admin to close as speedy keep at their earliest convenience. No other !votes needed. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't WP:SPEEDYKEEP an article while there are outstanding delete !votes -- a nominator's withdrawal does not obviate the discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom still withdraw You are correct, however, it still should be closed without prejudice (someone else can AFD if they choose) as a nominator withdrawal, per WP:AFD. I had forgotten someone did say delete, so yes, it can't be speedy kept, only closed as withdrawn. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2011 (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. joe deckertalk to me 15:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Akeans
- Akeans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable. Google hits show nothing other than that of the corporate website of the company itself and a LinkedIn site. hmssolent\Let's convene 08:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Article fails to assert a basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. Furthermore, I find it unsurprising that the company undertakes search engine optimization. MER-C 08:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - no reliable 3rd party references. no significant coverage. non-notable. Dialectric (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2011 (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. joe deckertalk to me 15:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gherasim Rusu-Togan
- Gherasim Rusu-Togan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Other than a mention in some internet review that is itself unquotable (here) and a quote to one of his books on a slightly more reliable one, and two pompous articles in an obscure subprovincial newspaper, there are no mentionable sources for this article, which looks like a vanity page. Not one review in any Romanian literary magazine, in what the article says were decades of activity. Fails WP:AUTHOR, surely. Dahn (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Dahn (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Dahn (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm not really seeing the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" mandated by WP:GNG; the subject seems to be of decidedly peripheral importance. Should his purported membership in the Writers' Union be raised as an indicator of notability, I'd just like to point out that it has been noted that membership is no big deal, and no substantive factor toward a writer's notability. - Biruitorul Talk 15:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete don't think he is notable at all. Nergaal (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2011 (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; those arguing for "keep" have been unable to rebut those arguing for "delete" (although, take note Barkeep - a reliable source does not have to be about the subject, it just has to cover it in significant detail). Kudos to User:A Stop at Willoughby for his detailed and thoughtful rationale. Ironholds (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frankie Krainz
- Frankie Krainz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Failed PROD. Relisting under WP:NPASR. Article does not meet notability guideline under WP:BIO, particularly those outlined under WP:CREATIVE. The subject of the article is mentioned in a variety of 3rd party source in reference to the projects he has been associated with, but has not been the subject of any in depth coverage himself. Barkeep Chat | $ 13:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep – Sparse article that needs more content, but it has a couple of references. ttonyb (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At least one of the two main references do not support notability. The article from presentmagazine.com interviews Krainze about the movie Stuck!. Krainze is not the subject of the article, the film is. The other, nextmodelmen.typepad.com reference, I am unable to view the content because it it blocked from my view, but it appears to be a modeling blog, or in its own description a "blogazine." I need to view first before judging, but I would like to know if this is a reliable source.Barkeep Chat | $ 15:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 18:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: morningsun article points to notability, barely.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Morning Sun article is local coverage from the article subject's hometown. Barkeep Chat | $ 04:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Due to concerns voiced at my talk page over my possibly premature/incorrect closure, I've reverted the keep closure and relisted the debate for a third time. Acather96 (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. I've looked at the references again and this has been a very difficult decision to make, but we have to reach a consensus so I don't think this subject is truly notable on the face of the type and quality of the existing sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a borderline case, but I can't find much of anything that would establish Krainz as notable under WP:N or even WP:CREATIVE. His play, "Goodbye, Kansas," and the festival at which it's being performed have garnered some coverage (Kansas City Star, NPR), and I found a couple of reviews of "Stuck!" but little to nothing about Krainz himself. Unlike Barkeep, I would say the interview in Present Magazine counts towards significant coverage. But the Morning Sun article doesn't, in my opinion, because it's just a human interest story in a small, local paper. In short, these sources are not enough. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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 under CSD G3 (blatant hoax). Hut 8.5 15:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Geethgajan Keith Gauthum
- Geethgajan Keith Gauthum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Blatant hoax, but declined CSD-G3. Much of the text is from Xavi, with Barcelona substituted with Real Madrid. 19 years old but has been playing for Real Madrid for 13 years? Does not appear in any news articles or promotional material despite a claimed 38 goals in 53 appearances for the team. Does not appear in the Sri Lankan team rosta here. Recommend speedy delete. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 06:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody touching this one? Okay here's some evidence:
- The article looks a lot like that of Barcelona player Xavi's
- It says that "Geethgajan Keith Gauthum" is pronounced shavee (which is how Xavi is pronounced)
- Apparently Geethgajan Keith Gauthum plays as number 18 for Real Madrid... Real Madrid seem to think their number 18 is Raúl Albiol
- Geethgajan was allegedly named man of the match in the 2009 Champions League Final when he helped Real Madrid beat Manchester United. Real Madrid were actually knocked out at the first knockout round of the 2008-09 Champions League and the final was played between Barcelona and Manchester United. Xavi was named man of the match.
This article is deliberately misleading. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete blatant hoax. 10 seconds reading the article would be enough for anyone who knows anything at all about football and for those that don't, 20 seconds research would prove beyond doubt that 90% of the article is verifiable hoax.--ClubOranjeT 14:09, 12 April 2011 (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. The article has already been moved to the correctly capitalized version of the name, The Fox Experience. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fox experience
- The fox experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Musician doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Of the three references given, one is mainly about the song, one appears to be a promotional announcement for WFAN radio, and one doesn't exist. At best, he appears to be only known for one thing, and that appears to be only marginally notable. Contested PROD. NellieBly (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The song and songwriter was written about in The Associated Press, which was then picked up by more than 92 newspapers in the United States, written about separately by the NY Daily News, featured on The Today Show on NBC, a story was done on the writer by CBS and Long Island 12 News, talked about on SportsCenter, and performed on the most listened to morning show in the entire country. How you can even try to argue that it's not notable is obsurd. And as far as the references...all 3 are about the song, and the WFAN reference not only mentions the song, but includes audio of the song being performed live, documents the day it was first peformed (just like Wikipedia requests), AND has a picture of the performers of the song. How in the world is that promotional for WFAN? Once again, this is a biographical article on a song and a songwriter that has become a New York phenomenon. Loper28 (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, the subject is a WP:BLP1E: as of now he is only known for one thing, and that a fleeting media sensation. --NellieBly (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, he is also known for being the writer and producer of the "Mac & Tierney" song on ESPN Radio. Making that now 2 songs that have gotten an enormous amount of airplay. Once again, you are incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loper28 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can Atnoine Dodson be allowed to have a wikipedia page and Matt Fox is not? Matt Fox was at least played on the radio and is a real artist, not a "fleeting media sensation" like Antoine Dodson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.196.192.7 (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this article is kept, it must be renamed to The Fox Experience. Bazonka (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to do that, but can't figure out. If you can help change the title, that'd be great. Thank you! Loper28 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:43, 11 April 2011 (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 to keep the content, but it's unclear whether to merge it to shampoo or leave it as a standalone article. A merge discussion can take place on the article's talk page, if desired. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No poo
- No poo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biased, unsourced, and not notable, with little chance of improving on these through verifiable sources. Torca (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm seeing at least two solid, reliable sources there, msnbc and NPR. A quick google suggests that the LA Times, Chicago Tribune, NY Times, and NY Post have also discussed the issue (can't verify the NY Times article since I've used up my pageviews for the month, ugh.) It's clearly a notable topic, and bias is improved through editing, not deletion. Kate (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it me, or is this a dictionary definition that is heavily padded with original research? Withholding on !voting for a bit. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Keep Ok, with a little hesitation, I have to say keep. Reliable sources aren't the easiest to find, but they do exist (I added two, including glamour mag and NPR), and this is a somewhat notable "movement". The article needs work, surely, but the subject matter *does* appear to be notable. WP:OR and other issues are reasons to edit, not delete. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article is full of original research, in the form of claims that are not found in the two reliable sources cited in the article (NPR, MSNBC, one a reference, one a link). It is also a content fork. The blogs, Instructibles, and Wikihow do not qualify as reliable sources and should be removed. Not every notion which has two references needs to be a stand-alone encyclopedia article. Anything which is reliably sourced here could be in the "no-poo" section already present in Shampoo. The table after table of original research or information coming from blogs or Wikihow should go. (Maybe this idea is why there seem to be more people going around with stinky hair these days). Edison (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Shampoo, and merge reliable content. There is enough coverage to say that is not WP:MADEUP, but there hasn't been enough impact, neither has enough material been produced to fork from the existing section - frankieMR (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Shampoo. I don't think this is notable enough to warrant its own article.Mabiller (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any useful, referenced content to Shampoo per above and possibly redirect, although if kept, is this really the best name for this article? Much as I enjoy lavatorial humour... Bob talk 18:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The name of the article is the name of the movement. Wouldn't be in favor of a merge simply because one is a product, the other is a movement, not the cleanest of merges. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The best sources don't seem to use this term as the name of the movement. Barring that issue, I think we have enough sources and a merge to shampoo would probably result in the loss of sourced information. So keep. Hobit (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2011 (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 NOMINATION WITHDRAWN. WWGB (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lazarus Rising: A Personal and Political Autobiography
- Lazarus Rising: A Personal and Political Autobiography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. The book fails all criteria at WP:NBOOK. John Howard is not so historically significant that anything he writes is automatically notable. Contested prod. WWGB (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, it meets category 3, 4 and 5. Secondly, Howard is notable. He is Australia's second longest serving Prime Minister. This a notable bestselling book. Whatever your personal opinion is keep it out. Is The Latham Diaries a notable book?Jarrodaus11 (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Fits category 3, 4, 5.
- 3.The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
- 4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country
- 5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes Jarrodaus11 (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything that Howard writes in the future will be automatically considered notable, due to his "exceptional significance"? WWGB (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be judged if Howard writes something in future. Besides, that is totally irrelavent to this. Jarrodaus11 (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything that Howard writes in the future will be automatically considered notable, due to his "exceptional significance"? WWGB (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep passes NBOOK #1. See for example [48], [49] and it was a #1 non fiction bestseller. Lionel (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have no time for John Howard, but it is clear that this book is notable. Political books from the left are much more likely to sell well. This one from the right has sold very well indeed and been well noticed by reviewers. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This book has already been set as reading material for VCE Australian Politics Resources 2012–2016 for UNIT 3: EVALUATING AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRACY; Area of Study 1: Australian democracy, by the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority --Whiteguru (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
St Julian's Road
- St Julian's Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete as non-notable. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It hosted IFA Premiership football (or Irish Premier League as it was then). All the current stadia of that league have entries and notability is not temporary so this seems to pass muster. The article is admittedly in a terrible state right now but it could be improved fairly easily. I'll have a go myself later as the topic seems notable enough. Keresaspa (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 02:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - what exactly is "non-notable" about it?! This stadium has hosted the top level of football in Ireland, and has also received quite a bit of coverage, either of which would be enough to satisfy me. GiantSnowman 02:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If a football stadium was notable whilst it was in use, it stays notable after it close. At the very worst, it should be merged into the article about the football club. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Hosted IFA Premiership football, which is the highest level in Northern Ireland. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 17:26, 13 April 2011 (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. Clearly notable (non-admin closure) Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 02:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Butcher Boy (folk song)
- The Butcher Boy (folk song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability Nightenbelle (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This song is well-attested in multiple places, as a Google Books search shows (WP:BEFORE a one word nomination?): "widely popular", "enormous circulation", "very popular ballad", etc. See for example "The Viking book of folk ballads of the English-speaking world", "Tales and Songs of Southern Illinois", "Ballads and sea songs from Nova Scotia", as well as the versions by Baez, O'Connor, etc. AllyD (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow me to add: the nominator should read WP:JNN. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. As AllyD points out, this is a well-known, well-documented traditional song, and the nominator makes no case whatever for deletion. Just in case anybody wants more evidence of prominence, [50]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of liberal publications in the United Kingdom
- List of liberal publications in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced POV article. Delete as per the same rationale in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of right-wing publications in the United Kingdom (2nd nomination). Political labeling of mainstream publications is extremely problematic and POV. First of all, what is liberal? Classical liberal or welfare liberal? Economic liberal or fiscal liberal? Second of all, it is value-judgement and varies depending upon the political orientation of the agent making the judgement. Reference Desker (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Having looked at this article, this has even more problems. The term "liberal" is open to even more dispute than "right-wing" with some considering it left-wing, some considering it economic freedom, and some personal freedom. And whilst the right-wing publications at least had a clearly identifiable list of nasty publications done by fringe fascist groups, there's only two publications in this list that unambiguously self-define as liberal (Liberator and The Liberal). I would still be happy to consider an article about perceived political affiliations in the UK based on consensus in reliable sources, but the affiliations are too subjective to be presented as fact. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I think the decision to split the List of Newspapers... list by ideology was ill-advised. There are inherent problems with inclusion parameters. Carrite (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The topic lacks sources and is too relative and subjective. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NxtGen
- NxtGen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Musician only notable for producing a (rather good) political rap. The only part of WP:NMUSIC Donnelly passes is #10, as Donnelly is only really notable in relation to the rap (see both Grauniad sources, both about the rap). Suggest using the sources in relation to the Andrew Lansley article and/or, if ever notable, the proposed NHS reforms. Sceptre (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or optionally merge into an appropriate target (e.g., an article about the proposed NHS reforms). As it stands, the only claim to notability appears to be the brief, recent coverage about this particular video, but said coverage might fall under WP:NOTNEWS and/or make this a WP:BLP1E. It is perhaps crystal balling to assume that the individual himself will have any lasting encyclopedic notability, and there is very little actual content on which to justify the existence of a WP:BLP at this time. --Kinu t/c 02:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non notable artist, which is known for a single event. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 02:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lacks notablity. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2011 (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. If someone wants to userfy or incubate it, just ask me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Archive eXchange Format
- Archive eXchange Format (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find any significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources to indicate notability. The article as it stands is promotionally written and deals with a subject just unveiled to the public today. 32 hits on Google suggest that this article is perhaps the most attention given to the subject on the internet. It is not our purpose to be used to promote products such as this. My prod was bizarrely removed without any comment on the article's merit. ThemFromSpace 01:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete According to the article, it was launched at a tradeshow, TODAY. That it hasn't received any signficant coverage by reliable sources, or any coverage of any kind, should not come as a surprise to anyone. You can't verify that which does not exist. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep Article is well referenced. Perhaps move to a appropriate location until very notable? Software however is not particullarly groundbreaking.01001010101010010101001 (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are scattered external links in the first section, the rest of the article is not referenced at all and none of the external links provide indication of notability. ThemFromSpace 03:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As Themfromspace stated, it is actually not referenced well at all. It is long, it is detailed, as I would expect it to be when the creators of the software also create the article. The article was created a few hours after it hit the tradeshow, there is no way any independent person could possible know that much about the software without it being a COI. That alone isn't a reason to delete, but the notability (or lack thereof) is. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now. I wouldn't have written this yet, but as it was launched at a fairly significant show I'd regard it as premature to claim that it's already clear that this is non-notable. If no 3rd parties have picked up on it in a month, then I'd be much more inclined to delete it, but not today. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You miss the point and have the policy on it's head. No one has to prove it is non-notable for it to be deleted. The burden of proof is to demonstrate it IS notable. In the event that it can not be demonstrated through verification by reliable sources that it IS notable, then the policy clearly says to delete. Once 3rd parties that pass WP:RS have covered it (in a month, in year, or never) THEN it will have met the criteria for inclusion. If we read the policy the way you are, Wikipedia would be full of articles on all the newest products the day they release a press release. That is clearly not what Wikipedia is Dennis Brown (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The format is clearly an attempt to become a notable product within a very obviously important niche (archiving is already a big problem and is desperate for solutions). If it is accepted as such, it will just as obviously become notable as WP:RS will discuss it. Yet if it fails to attract industry acceptance, it will go the way of many other failed protocols. The question is not whether the tech press pick up on it the day of its announcement (they obviously either won't yet, or will merely be reprinting press releases), but whether the SMPTE et al decides to back it for use or not. That's not a decision that will have any clear outcome in the length of an AfD. As I said, I wouldn't have written this today, but once written it's foolish to make work for WP by deleting it, only for us to have to recreate the same content in the very near future. As AXF is already a product of a working group of the SMPTE itself, the likelihood is that they're going to go with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are arguing why you think the protocol is important. That is not a criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia. Using your own words "The format is clearly an attempt to become a notable product". Using Wikipedia to become notable is not within the scope of Wikipedia's goals. Sorry, but this is a textbook case of what Wikipedia is not. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The format is clearly an attempt to become a notable product within a very obviously important niche (archiving is already a big problem and is desperate for solutions). If it is accepted as such, it will just as obviously become notable as WP:RS will discuss it. Yet if it fails to attract industry acceptance, it will go the way of many other failed protocols. The question is not whether the tech press pick up on it the day of its announcement (they obviously either won't yet, or will merely be reprinting press releases), but whether the SMPTE et al decides to back it for use or not. That's not a decision that will have any clear outcome in the length of an AfD. As I said, I wouldn't have written this today, but once written it's foolish to make work for WP by deleting it, only for us to have to recreate the same content in the very near future. As AXF is already a product of a working group of the SMPTE itself, the likelihood is that they're going to go with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You miss the point and have the policy on it's head. No one has to prove it is non-notable for it to be deleted. The burden of proof is to demonstrate it IS notable. In the event that it can not be demonstrated through verification by reliable sources that it IS notable, then the policy clearly says to delete. Once 3rd parties that pass WP:RS have covered it (in a month, in year, or never) THEN it will have met the criteria for inclusion. If we read the policy the way you are, Wikipedia would be full of articles on all the newest products the day they release a press release. That is clearly not what Wikipedia is Dennis Brown (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate/Userfy - When this article gains some real Independent reliable sources that can attest to it's notability it can live in main space. Until then the article doesn't yet qualify and can live in Userspace or the Incubator. Hasteur (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sounds like a notable file format. Found one reliable source so far reviewing it. http://sportsvideo.org/main/blog/2011/04/10/front-porch-looks-to-standardize-digital-storage-with-revamped-axf/ Dream Focus 04:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not an independent source. A blog posting on a product of one of its sponsors really can't be considered enough to show notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagging for Rescue Dream Focus 04:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [Strong] delete: unsourced article on an apparently obscure, and at this stage largely theoretical, file system. No substantive reliable third party sourcing identifiable through Google News/Books/Scholar (blog posts being neither particularly substantial nor particularly reliable), no apparent evidence that it has been widely implemented. If, at some later stage, it achieves widespread and/or notable adoption, and thus coverage, we can recreate the article -- for the time being (and probably some years to come) WP:CRYSTAL would seem to apply. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Upgrading to 'strong delete' per Dennis Brown's points below (both the COI & the fact that the article being written only two hours after announcement aggravates the WP:CRYSTAL issue.)
- Keep promising file format, nicely written article, nothing gained by deleting. Our m:Vision is to help share all the worlds knowlege, and that includes new innovations that havent yet been written about in elite sources. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That mission statement is from Meta, not Wikipedia itself, and is still used out of context. You might also want to read up on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. "Going to be" is not the same as "is notable", and the guidelines here draw a very clear line between the two. That is why notability and verification guidelines exist. Once the subject matter has been covered significantly by reliable sources, no one would have a problem with the article being here. At this time, it hasn't, probably since the article was created two hours after it was announced at a trade show, obviously with COI. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Alright, for this article to be kept, since there's no sort of inherent notability for container formats, this has to at least pass the GNG. As of yet, there have been no independent and reliable sources shown that have significant coverage. Sounds like it's notable, article is well written, or references probably exist are not valid arguments to keep. Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The guidelines are a suggestion, not absolute law like policy. You use common sense and when necessary ignore all rules. If a rule interferes with improving Wikipedia, you ignore it. Doe it make the Wikipedia better to list every file format there is? Does it make it a more complete encyclopedia? I'd say so. Dream Focus 08:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V is policy: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." And you have given no reason whatsoever why it would be "common sense" to WP:IAR and keep what is (given the timing of its creation, and its WP:SPA creator) a rather obvious piece of WP:COI self-promotion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate Wikipedia:Article Incubator is the ideal resolution for this AfD. If this format gains acceptance, the article can come back, or if not, it will linger in the incubation process. My thanks go to Hasteur (talk, who mentioned incubation above. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is incubation an appropriate resolution for a topic where there hasn't been time for (reliable third-party) sources to have even been written (assuming they ever are)? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubation can provide time for reliable third-party sources to be written and added to the article. Deletion makes it much harder to get that done. If there are no good sources added, then the article will languish in the incubation stage. It seems to me that such a future is likely, but there is no need to predict the future WP:CHRYSTAL, just wait to see what happens.
- The problem being that such reliable third party sources will likely take several months (and possibly even years) to eventuate. For example, NTFS was introduced in 1993, but its article has only a single source (from 1994) from earlier than 1998. And I'd point out that AXF has only been announced -- it hasn't even been released (as functioning software) yet. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubation can provide time for reliable third-party sources to be written and added to the article. Deletion makes it much harder to get that done. If there are no good sources added, then the article will languish in the incubation stage. It seems to me that such a future is likely, but there is no need to predict the future WP:CHRYSTAL, just wait to see what happens.
- Mainstream news sites don't talk about file formats. Does anyone know how to search through reliable sources that cover things like this? For Anime and Manga, Google news didn't pick up things, so they developed a special search to go through reliable sources for it. Anything like that for technology or computer related things? Dream Focus 14:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream Focus: news reports are generally the only reliable sources for a topic as new as this is -- so LibStar is being perfectly reasonable in relying on news coverage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are reliable sources that don't appear in that. Not every magazine appears in Google news search for instance. Also some websites are considered reliable sources. Isn't there a list of them somewhere for technological and software matters? Dream Focus 15:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem here is that the article was created literally just two hours after the product was announced at a trade show. There just isn't any way it would notable so fast. It has yet to be determined if this will be just another format, or something that makes enough of a different to be adopted and 'notable'. I like saving articles whenever possible, but this was just premature. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And generally magazines would not cover the mere announcement of something as esoteric as an (at this stage largely theoretical) archival format. They would wait until there's actually a practical implementation to review. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are reliable sources that don't appear in that. Not every magazine appears in Google news search for instance. Also some websites are considered reliable sources. Isn't there a list of them somewhere for technological and software matters? Dream Focus 15:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream Focus: news reports are generally the only reliable sources for a topic as new as this is -- so LibStar is being perfectly reasonable in relying on news coverage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete No significant independent coverage from multiple reliable and independent sources to show any notability. That combined with the obvious COI and advertising issues here makes this pretty clear.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as WP:CSD#C11 unambiguous promotion or WP:CSD#C12 unambiguous copyright infringement; article creator may pick one or both. ;-) In either case, no prior good version to revert to. If Bcampano (talk · contribs) is the creator of the file format, then this is blatantly WP:COI promotion of his own work. And whether this user is the creator or not, the article is blatant cut-and-paste from http://www.openaxf.org/technical-details.php which contains no license, and the article creator gives no indication of permission to reuse. (And if one assumes the article creator wrote the website and is licensing it by posting it here, then it's back to speedy for WP:SPAM again.) Failing all that, Userfy or Delete as the article would have to be rewritten (for copyright reasons) and probably remain a long-term stub; it has no sources (let alone ones that establish notability); it is about a new thing just released in the last 2 weeks; the very few sources mentioned in AfD seem to be close to subject-sourced pass-throughs; and the claims of potential notability in this AfD seem to be WP:CRYSTAL. It's worth pointing out that even well-known organizations, that issue notable standards, also issue a lot of non-notable standards. --Closeapple (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to incubator Doesn't meet our notability guidelines, but might reasonably be expected to do so shortly. Userfication is a reasonable action for such situations. Hobit (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found one reference which look independant tvtechnology.com. That reference does say the format is in development, so it might be too soon for a wikipedia article. Would userfying the article be a solution?--Salix (talk): 20:35, 22 April 2011 (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) 20:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Radio BGM
- Radio BGM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hospital Radio station that appears to not broadcast outside the hospital Simply merging with The Hospital does not appear to be an option as We dont have an article for it. Fails WP:GNG The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 00:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, We do have plans to broadcast outside the hospital, however i am not aware that the hospital has a wikipedia page. If possible we could merge the Radio BGM article with the hospital's article. Kinds Regards Liam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.60.128 (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion: The best way to make a merge to the hospital page possible will be to create an article on the hospital. It doesn't have to be detailed - a few sentences saying what it is and where it is should be sufficient for a stub. Bear in mind that not all of the information in the radio BGM article might be suitable for a merge, but I'm sure the article on the hospital could at least say that the station exists. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nonnotable unlicensed broadcaster, with service area limited to one hospital. Fails WP:ORG. No independent and reliable sources are presented, so we do not have to keep this article indefinitely waiting for someone to create an article about the hospital. If there were an article on the hospital, anthing beyond a sentence or 2 would be undue weight, in any event. Edison (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability inherited from the hostpital. Szzuk (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2011 (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Phoenix Rising (Deströyer 666 album)
- Phoenix Rising (Deströyer 666 album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:NALBUMS. never charted and nothing in gnews [52]. LibStar (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2011 (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. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stunts (album)
- Stunts (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails notability criteria for albums. Independent released albums are generally not notable and no source contradicts this. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 23:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Independently released albums are very often notable - I find that a curious deletion rationale. This one certainly is - coverage includes an Allmusic review, SPIN, Billboard, SF Weekly, Los Angeles Times.--Michig (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as just a track listing (WP:NALBUMS) Bob House 884 (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Comment- That's a rationale for additional sourced content, not deletion. Dru of Id (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." Bob House 884 (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you meant to vote 'Merge'? Dru of Id (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I would !vote merge if there was any sourced, encyclopedic content of value which would be lost if the article were deleted. This page is literally just a track listing which anybody could find on google within a minute, so I don't think its worth wasting time formally going through the process of a merge. Bob House 884 (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you meant to vote 'Merge'? Dru of Id (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." Bob House 884 (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - the AllMusic review can usually suffice for basic notability in an album article. The whole thing does need to be expanded, but I also find the nominator's rationale about independent releases curious. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The Allmusic review plus the other sources provided by Michig argue for notability, and provide a basis for expansion. I too do not understand which guideline makes independent albums generally non-notable. Rlendog (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2011 (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 Result was redirect. Rlendog (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dragon Rider (song)
- Dragon Rider (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails notability as per WP:NSONG. Internet searches using Chinese name shows up blogs, lyrics, videos or download sites. There are no reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of the song and no claim of notability as the content appear to be original research. Michaela den (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep of the history, but REDIRECT to the related album. Lacks sources, but I don't know how to reasonably search in Chinese. The page does accurately describe the video and if someone can source it then they can just revert the redirect. -MrFizyx (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:20, 11 April 2011 (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. Courcelles 07:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ye Qu
- Ye Qu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails notability as per WP:NSONG. Internet searches using Chinese name shows up blogs, lyrics, videos or download sites. There are no reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of the song and no claim of notability as the content appear to be original research. Michaela den (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not appear to be notable. Seems to be nothing more than an album track. Fixer23 (talk) 04:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:19, 11 April 2011 (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.
Aron "Deuce" Erlichman
The result was Redirect. Jayron32 04:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Aron "Deuce" Erlichman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not enough notability is presented for a solo artist (ex. no sources for his solo effort); since most of the article's content is with Hollywood Undead, it should redirected to that page Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 09:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pages has been redirected to Aron Erlichman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I agree, however it has now been changed. I don't know who did the article previously, but it was shocking and should have just been redirected to HU's page. However, it now specifies his solo career with only a minor section of his efforts in HU. Would notability from 10thstreet entertainment (check their website - clients - deuce) be enough to keep this page up and running? Deuce was also voted one of Eminem's favourite upcoming artists a little while back, however I can not provide a source for this... Deuce also performed alongside Blink-182, Eminem, Kiss, Rise Against and many other artists at the Epicenter festival in CA. I can provide sources for this. --BlueAsBlood (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deuce is well known for his notable performance with Hollywood Undead but is soon to release a solo album is also known for suing AMO Records, the dispute between Deuce and Hollywood Undead and also (as mentioned by BlueAsBlood) for playing alongside Eminem, 30 Seconds to Mars and Kiss. I will go through and write a history (with references) later. --User:JustAnotherBlaah (talk) 6:25, 28 March 2011 (NZT)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is not much detail about the events occurring with this artist's band. One can think these would be assumptions a of person about the band. We want to confirm that the artist has received significant coverage from reliable sources, like other news outlets, to keep an article for the him. So far, nothing is sourced but with only one piece of information (all the biographical info are not sourced anywhere) and the only notability that is presented is that he was in the band Hollywood Undead. It would be best to redirect this article to the band's article. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 05:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to closing admin Please note there was a cut and paste move of this article from Aron "Deuce" Erlichman [53] to Aron Erlichman[54], and therefore if anything is kept the histories will need to be merged. Edgepedia (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just applied the deletion template to the second article. Edgepedia (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notable sources/references
I've tried my best to find as many references to everything said that I could. I have removed a lot of biased information (regarding the HU - Deuce fued) and have tried my best to include as much information as possible about the artist. Is there ANYTHING I can do to help keep this page up? Do tweets from Deuce himself count as relliable sources, if mentioned that "Deuce stated on (date) that 'blah blah blah' suggesting..."[1] something like that? --BlueAsBlood (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tweets can be considered as a primary source but one cannot be too dependent on a Twitter page. Anyone can make things up and claim anything to be true through their Twitter. I highly suggest to accompany a reliable source with the tweet; It would be best to have the source able verify the specific Tweet. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 00:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So far, the article has had very little improvement. The sources uses Wikipedia links (which does not really help the article at all), one dead link that leads to a forum posting, and the rest are just YouTube videos (an interview one is good, but the other one is not helpful). So far, I still nominate its redirection to Hollywood Undead because the notability of the artist as a solo artist has yet to be established. His notable work was with Hollywood Undead, even he became a former member of the band. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 04:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notable sources/references
Not sure if I'm doing this correctly, new to this type of deal, but my name is Brent and I'm the News Director for a North Georgia Radio station, and co-host of "Jacked Up Radio" on 93.1 JACK-FM. It was brought to my attention by a number of fans of Aron's that this page is being considered for deletion and needs more credible(?)content and sources. I wanted to inform you we are actually conducting a new interview (we have done previous ones in the past) with him about his new signing with 10st street, upcoming album, and live appearances. The interview will tentatively be released online no later than Sunday uncut, before being aired on Saturday April 16th. We feel this is an important artist to spotlight and also concur he has earned a place on wikipedia. The link to the interview will be provided and linked here sometime on Sunday, April 10th. Thank you for your consideration, and apologies if this comment was not submitted appropriately. Also, if there is any need for verification of my credentials that can be provided. Thanks. RE-EDIT: Final note- as for contents of this article, especially concerning details of the Hollywood Undead departure, past conversations and our previously done interviews have Deuce confirming the majority of what is contained in this disputed article. Jackedupradio (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackedupradio (talk • contribs) 22:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The press from the controversy with him leaving the band plus an upcoming album with another act is enough for me. At the cusp of demonstrating multiple bands and I think some time should be allotted (perhaps 6 months) to see if what happens. The controversy from leaving the band is beyond what should be included in the Hollywood Undead article. Royalbroil 00:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Hollywood Undead The sources in the article are all unreliable. 1 is a commercial site that does not mention Erlichman. 2, 7, and 8 are user uploads to YouTube. 3 is a dead link, and by its url appears to be a forum. 4 is Wikipedia. 5 is from a college newspaper that does not mention Erlichman. 6 is from a file-hosting site, MediaFire. 9 is a local radio publication. 10 and 11 are from the tabloid newspaper New York Post, which cannot be used to establish notability. Because there are no reliable sources with significant coverage of Erlichman and because notability is not established, I propose that this article be redirected to Hollywood Undead, Erichman's band. Goodvac (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We still do not see any improvement by changing the sources the editors have used. I still highly suggest that the article be redirected to Hollywood Undead. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 08:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/redirect to Hollywood Undead. The fact that a user's best attempts at sourcing this article have only led to its reliance on unreliable sources shows that he isn't ready for an article at this point. BLPs should not be poorly cited likely this. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:55, 23 April 2011 (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Artecombo
- Artecombo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined CSD. Fails GNG, in my opinion. Strikerforce (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are some results from google news, [[55]] but I don't speak the language, no idea if they establish notability. Monty845 03:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Strikerforce, avoid to make such arguments when starting a AfD, see WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 06:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2010/09/04/899989-Montpezat-de-Quercy-Le-quintette-ArteCombo-fait-son-cinema-ce-soir.html is a good mention, the others I would class as mentions - http://www.viafrance.com/evenements/artecombo-spectacle-caravane-gazelle-613105.aspx being an advert for a performance of their commissioned work Caravane Gazelle. It's not always easy with groups like this that cross over. I'm not quite sure whether ArteCombo are notable or not by WP standards yet. Commissioning a work from Olivier Calmel (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivier_Calmel) indicates to me that they have a standing in the musical world - you don't start commissioning when you're on the bottom rung. The criteria in WP:BAND might be met under "Has won or placed in a major music competition". Peridon (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment http://ifiv-marseille.blogspot.com/p/vendredi-25-fevrier-2011.html is verification of that placement. Althought this says 'blogspot' it's the same as http://ifiv.org/, the Institut Francais des Instrument a Vent's website. Edgepedia (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:17, 11 April 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AURA (A.I.)
- AURA (A.I.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable software or system, preliminary research on the web pointed out to few relevant sources and the article itself resumes to one paragraph. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 05:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unreferenced, no indication of the notability of this software. Dialectric (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unsourced and not notable per WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fa Ru Xue
- Fa Ru Xue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This song does not meet the general notability guideline as per WP:NSONG. Internet searches using Chinese name only shows up blogs, lyrics, videos or download sites. There are no reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of the song. It has been redirected to the album page but reversed as there's some claim of notability ie nomination at the Golden Melody Award, Taiwan, but this one piece of notable information can be incoporated in the album page. Michaela den (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NSONG, nomination to an award does not satisfy requirements. Further, article can easily be incorporated into main article about the album. LK (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete appears to be an album track of no notability other than what an editor perceived to be interesting facts which are entirely unsourced anyway. Most probably originial research that shouldn't even be incorporated into the album article if redirected. Fixer23 (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:13, 11 April 2011 (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 Thorp T-211. Redirecting per WP:NSUPER, consider this a keep close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thorp Aero
- Thorp Aero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Permanent stub article with no sources and no meaningful history. It should be deleted and redirected to Thorp T-211. -- Selket Talk 20:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- article should be sourced and expanded. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the company is noteable as it has been written up in many paper publications and should be in many years of Jane's All The World's Aircraft. It definintely needs expanding and referencing, though. - Ahunt (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Didn't take looking very hard to discover the subject matter is notable. Much of the material is pre-internet, so finding links won't be as easy as a recent company, but Wikipedia isn't about easy, it is about facts that are verifiable, about subjects that are notable. Needs work, sure, but passes the criteria for inclusion with flying colors. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. According to this book, the company built six aircraft. I'm not sure that's notable. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 18:23, 13 April 2011 (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 Terry Dowling. Consensus is to merge, but the content is currently unsourced and thus unsuitable for merging. Closing as redirect to allow a merger from the article history if somebody also adds sources in the course of the merger. Sandstein 06:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An Intimate Knowledge of the Night
- An Intimate Knowledge of the Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Amazon.com and Worldcat show no professional reviews. Worldcat shows only 30 libraries worldwide holding the book (25 in Australia, home country of the author). The only minor evidence of notability I could find is that one of the stories in the book ("Flashmen") also appeared in the collection The Year's Best Australian Science Fiction and Fantasy. This isn't enough to justify notability of the book however (especially as that story also first appeared in a separate magazine) as that wasn't a judged book but rather just a typical yearly publishers collection. No mentions in Google Scholar other than the aforementioned collection. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, to clarify, I don't believe that the author meets the special criteria carved out in WP:NBOOK #5: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." The only way I could see it meeting this requirement would be if Dowling is routinely taught in literature courses in Austalia; I'm not even sure how one would prove that. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- merge Not independently notable. I too have been unable to find reviews. (I declined a imminent PROD to give myself time to check ). The only reliable way of making reasonably certain there are no reviews is to check both of the two professional indexes, Book Review Digest and Book Review Index, It is unfortunately necessary to check both of them, and though most large public libraries have them they are often not accessible outside the library. I recognize that many Wikipedians do not have convenient access, but I suggest that all libraries now have internet of chat references services that ought to be able and willing to answer question like these. Until people get used to doing it I shall probably have to check all book articles that come here, . There are no other comprehensive sources, but there are sources that will often find reviews: . For popular works, reviews can often be found in Google News Archive., and for academic books, reviews included in the many J-STOR journals are listed in WorldCat. As an extremely unfortunate indexing decision, Google Scholar has a current policy of not usually including book reviews, except if they have been cited by articles it otherwise includes. -- :As for being an author all of whose works should be included, I agree he's not at that point yet. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:08, 11 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sherry Maan
- Sherry Maan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable musician, contested PROD, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Jezhotwells (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The one source present in the article sums up to what I found myself, which does not by itself rise to WP:GNG. --joe deckertalk to me 14:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. I tried hard but like Joe Decker, the one reference in the article is all I could find. GcSwRhIc (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 1 gnews hit means fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails GNG. PlusPlusDave (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last Days of the Coliseum
- Last Days of the Coliseum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
TV documentary of no obvious notability, appears to have been posted by the director. No third party sources. Declined prod. Hairhorn (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A way to deal with COI is to request that a user with perceived conflict refrain from addition eddits, leaving the article then to be improved (or not) through regular editing by others. This said, and having found sources, I have myself begun expansion, cleanup, and sourcing. I'll report back. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the improved version and allow its continued edting. What began as a shakey article, from a newcomer with no understanding of article format and sourcing,[56] has since been cleaned up, improved, expanded, and sourced.[57] Not too bad for a documentary film five years in the making that debuted only 5 months ago. I see that the author has been cautioned about COI [58] and has made no additional edits to the article since that caution.[59] I feel it serves the project to have this one stay and be further improved through regular editing as the film now has DVD release and a wider audience. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The version I just read seems to be cited properly and edges passed the bar for notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The sources now included in the article are enough to demonstrate notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Victims Of Desire
- The Victims Of Desire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:BK; no reliable 3rd party references; no reviews; searching online databases like WorldCat doesn't show any hits Tassedethe (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Can't find any independent sources that would pass as reliable sources even mentioning the book in passing. The book exists, yes, but no one seems to have noticed it. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2011 (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 on the merits. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Omega Epsilon
- Alpha Omega Epsilon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable organization WuhWuzDat 01:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable organization. This is a legitimate sorority for engineering women, present at many universities known for their engineering colleges. The page is in the process of having citations and edits done to it to make it read more like an encyclopedic article.
- Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above comment. NYCRuss ☎ 12:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Even though the nomination is half-assed, smacks of bad faith and lacks any kind of research, I didn't find anything that would enforce the notability factor of this organization, the article does not cite any sources, it is written like an essay (most of it without wikified text) and I've searched throughout the internet and could not find anything rather than what this organization is all about (a organization for women empowerment on the engineering and technical sciences field), and further research always provides Baird's manuals or national list of these kind of organization. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 19:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Numerous entries in various who's who volumes speaks of at least a nominal basis for notability. Chapters exist at various notable universities (Georgia Tech, USC, Virginia Tech, Michigan, Syracuse, Clemson, Wisconsin, &c.), so I believe an article is appropriate content for Wikipedia. Clearly the current content needs better citation.—RJH (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unreferenced puffery that smacks of information in a pamphlet handed out at orientation. Notability is questionable. Hasteur (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - While the organization may be notable, I can't seem to find any reliable secondary sources. Consider: no news articles, no books other than yearbooks, and all of the regular search results that are relevant are primary sources (eg. the national organization's website; chapter websites; etc.) Should be deleted due to the lack of reliable secondary sources. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 17:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a college fraternity with 25 chapters is presumably notable, just as any other national level organization. This is one of a series of bad faith nominations and it amazes me that anytone would defend them. the article needs some pruning, but that;s not a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 22:03, 17 April 2011 (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 Procedural keep as bad-faith nomination. Carnildo (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Phi Delta
- Alpha Phi Delta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable organization WuhWuzDat 00:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above comment. NYCRuss ☎ 13:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as the organization is clearly notable. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (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. I'm ignoring both the nom, and the keep votes based on nothing more than the nature of the nomination. Striking all that, we have a delete consensus. Courcelles 07:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Phi Gamma
- Alpha Phi Gamma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable organization WuhWuzDat 00:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no evidence of notability given. Now APG, the national journalism fraternity, might be notable enough for an article... http://www.scj.us/back2.shtml --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The national journalism fraternity of the same name, organized in 1919, also needs an article. This needs to be a procedural KEEP here, however. Admittedly this group, organized in 1994, would be the hardest to defend on notability grounds. We should not be encouraging drive-by article slaughters. Carrite (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep along with all of the other cut and paste noms. RasputinAXP 03:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as per above comment. NYCRuss ☎ 12:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article's references are not in presence and reads like a brochure handed out during orientation. Hasteur (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per SarekOfVulcan above. The journalism fraternity much more merits an article. This APG doesn't seem to have any reliable secondary sources to be found. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 01:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Absolutely no coverage of this smallish sorority found. It's apparently much less notable than the journalism fraternity of the same name. --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the number of chapters is borderline, but it's in several states. As I argued above, borderline articles should not be deleted on the basis of this reckless nomination. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If kept, the name should be changed to Alpha Phi Gamma (sorority) to distinguish it from the journalism fraternity- which, although it does not currently have an article, would certainly qualify for one. --MelanieN (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2011 (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. The most compelling arguments were "All Google news hits refer either to an older sorority in the 1930s or to a KKK-front fraternity in the 1920s", and "this sorority is only found in one US state, and has no secondary sources whatsoever". Arguments such as "not notable"/"notable", without supporting argumentation, were discounted, as were ad hominem arguments and arguments made on purely procedural grounds. Jayjg (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Pi Sigma
- Alpha Pi Sigma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable organization WuhWuzDat 00:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above comment. NYCRuss ☎ 12:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources in evidence, reads like the pamphlet that is handed out during orientation. Hasteur (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While this may be something that is obvious to some via popular awareness, it should be noted that there is no easy to obtain evidence to support notability. The article comes entirely from the webpage and the correct way to counter arguments is evidence.Tetron76 (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there are issues with the article. I am not sure if being a Latino Sorority makes the Sorority notable on grounds other than WP:GNG but if not there are issues as concerns finding references from google news archives there appears to have been previous sororities of this name from the one [60] with quite a checkered history.Tetron76 (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All Google news hits refer either to an older sorority in the 1930s or to a KKK-front fraternity in the 1920s. --MelanieN (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the number of chapters is borderline,But, as I argued above, borderline articles should not be deleted on the basis of this reckless nomination. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, disregarding any irregularities with the nomination (as should always be the case), this sorority is only found in one US state, and has no secondary sources whatsoever. Abductive (reasoning) 21:19, 21 April 2011 (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. If she wins and/or other sources are found let me know. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cindy Duncan McMillan
- Cindy Duncan McMillan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable unelected local politician lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As an unelected political candidate, she fails WP:POLITICIAN and no other convincing claim to notability is made. Cullen328 (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice against recreation on May 3 if she wins. Bearcat (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:57, 11 April 2011 (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. Courcelles 07:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Psi Lambda
- Alpha Psi Lambda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable organization WuhWuzDat 00:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is one supposed to think about 20 or so nominations, all of which coincidentally begin with ALPHA, without anything more than a simple cut-and-pasted 4 word "rationale" and no visible evidence that the slightest effort was made to separate the sheep from the goats? Pro-forma nomination gets a pro-forma defense, and all these should be ruled a procedural keep by the closing administrator unless valid indication that the NOMINATION had merit can be demonstrated by delete voters. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above comment. NYCRuss ☎ 12:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article needs a lot of work, but it is a keeper.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article has been lacking sources since July 2007. Article has not gained said sources. Perhaps the pro-forma supporters will find the necessary sources before the delete ends. Hasteur (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This national Latino-interest Fraternity is still active in many campuses around the country. Members are in the process of updating this page. Please refer to www.alphapsilambda.net for more information about this active organization. ☎ 10:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC) --[reply]
- You are aware that we can't use the organization's own website to demonstrate the notability and fill in the information necessary per WP:PRIMARY? Hasteur (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems notable enough; national fraternity; sources available [61] [62] [63]. --MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the first and third of the sources offered by MelanieN. --joe deckertalk to me 00:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a major organization on a national scale, The nom should indeed have been closed and not reopened, for it is very much an example of the recklessness of the nomination. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 19 April 2011 (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 Procedural keep as bad-faith nomination. Carnildo (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Sigma Alpha
- Alpha Sigma Alpha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable organization WuhWuzDat 00:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is one supposed to think about 20 or so nominations, all of which coincidentally begin with ALPHA, without anything more than a simple cut-and-pasted 4 word "rationale" and no visible evidence that the slightest effort was made to separate the sheep from the goats? Pro-forma nomination gets a pro-forma defense, and all these should be ruled a procedural keep by the closing administrator unless valid indication that the NOMINATION had merit can be demonstrated by delete voters. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above comment. NYCRuss ☎ 12:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable organization, no maintenance templates in place before nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (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 for now. If someone wants to work on this let me know and I'll be glad to userfy or incubate it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gary_L._Keady
- Gary L. Keady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable as per WP:BIO, Google returns nothing that establishes notability and four of the first five results are Wikipedia pages. Two of the three references are currently Wikipedia articles, and the only non-Wikipedia reference is an article about Australia's National Rugby League, and doesn't mention Gary L. Keady or anything relevant to him in any way. SudoGhost (talk) 06:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The AfD is malformed, although WP doesn't care about underline, google does. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 21:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome to Wikipedia! Be bold in editing! Killiondude (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why is it so difficult to find out about Australians with a g-search? Which best database for Australian news coverage?? It seems he can be more easily found (at least north of the equator) if one leaves out the "L".[64][65] He did receive the one nomination by the Australian Film Institute in 1989 for Best Achievement in Costume Design for Sons of Steel.[66] But it's gonna take a lot of digging to support even a part of this BLP. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article is a mass of COI OR. As it stands IMO this mustly unsourced BLP should be deleted. It can be replaced with a redirect to his film till sources about him emerge. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
Poorly sourced and seems to fail wp:bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplepox01 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 11 April 2011 (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 on the merits. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Sigma Kappa
- Alpha Sigma Kappa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable organization WuhWuzDat 00:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - So because we are "non notable" we need to be deleted? I'm sorry if I don't completely understand the rational behind this. The organization has been around for well over 20 years and is still fully active. alpha-sigma-kappa.org is out of date, but we are working to fix that. I am more than willing to work with others who are well versed in Wikipedia to clean this page up and make it fit within the guidelines better. Page Owner Ask bm001 (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)ask_bm001[reply]
- Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above comment. NYCRuss ☎ 12:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unsourced minor sorority. No major claims of notability which hold this out as a group that warrants inclusion in WP. Hasteur (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, random non-notable sorority; unreferenced. As I have cast a good-faith delete !vote, this is no longer eligible for speedy keep. Stifle (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletesince I can't find any Google News or Google Books coverage of this sororitiy (although I do find coverage of an earlier sorority in the1930s-1950s). I would love to keep this article since it is a national organization with multiple chapters but I just can't find the sourcing required. To Ask bm001: here is where you can find out what we are talking about: Wikipedia's criteria explain how anything or anybody has to meet "notability" criteria to have an article here. That has nothing to do about whether it exists or not, or whether it is a good thing or not; it is simply a requirement that outside, independent reliable sources have taken note of it and written about it. That's what I was looking for and didn't find. If we can find some truly independent sourcing about this organization, I will be glad to help you add it to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the number of chapters is borderline, but it's in several states. As I argued above, borderline articles should not be deleted on the basis of this reckless nomination. This is not a "random" organization, but one specifically devoted to the special situation of women in science. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 19 April 2011 (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 Procedural keep as bad-faith nomination. Carnildo (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Sigma Phi
- Alpha Sigma Phi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable organization WuhWuzDat 00:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above comment. NYCRuss ☎ 12:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Significant coverage and notability based on membership. References have succombed to recent link rot, but should be able to be resolved. Hasteur (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (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 Procedural keep as bad-faith nomination. Carnildo (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Xi Delta
- Alpha Xi Delta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable organization WuhWuzDat 00:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith as you would want good faith to be assumed on your contributions and nominations. Hasteur (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is one supposed to think about 20 or so nominations, all of which coincidentally begin with ALPHA, without anything more than a simple cut-and-pasted 4 word "rationale" and no visible evidence that the slightest effort was made to separate the sheep from the goats? Pro-forma nomination gets a pro-forma defense, and all these should be ruled a procedural keep by the closing administrator unless valid indication that the NOMINATION had merit can be demonstrated by delete voters. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- the Scholar link above makes it fairly obvious that there is sufficient notability for an article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above comments. NYCRuss ☎ 12:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is an organization worthy of recognition. Many people who are affiliated look to this source to stay updated on the past or present of Alpha Xi Delta. User: natascha.saylor
- Strong keep. Major national sorority. —C.Fred (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (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 Procedural keep as bad-faith nomination. Carnildo (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Zeta
- Alpha Zeta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable oganization WuhWuzDat 00:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google News archive turns up a number of articles about their activities, I think that satisfies WP:ORG. The coverage goes back 100 years or so[67][68], so I'm fairly sure notability has been satisfied. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above comments. NYCRuss ☎ 12:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and source♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the above. Clearly a notable organization, given its history. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- REWRITE - No references. Only links are external links to a chapter and the overall organization websites. Supporters are encouraged to improve sourcing on this prior to annother visit to AfD. Hasteur (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (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 Procedural keep as bad-faith nomination. Carnildo (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Gamma
- Alpha Gamma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable oganization WuhWuzDat 00:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:N and WP:ORG. National fraternity from the 19th century with 21+ chapters in a number of different states. Listed in Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities, the authoritative encyclopedia for fraternities. That the fraternity is no longer active is immaterial: notability is forever--GrapedApe (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)duplicate vote stricken. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following two comments were left at a duplicate discussion thread, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Gamma (2nd nomination).
- Keep as this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. NYCRuss ☎ 18:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'll say something different this time. There needs to be procedural keeps right down the line for this entire mass of highly disruptive drive by shootings of Alpha-BLANK-BLANK fraternity and sorority articles. This sort of wanton article destruction, apparently taken on a whim, judging by the lack of research and argument backing each nomination, should not be rewarded. Nor should anyone have to put three seconds into defending disruptive challenges such as these from deletion. This is an exercise in encyclopedia-wrecking, in my opinion, from a self-described "semi-retired" Wikipedia editor. I would hope that some administrator steps in shortly to rein in this ill-considered onslaught. Carrite (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
End of copied comments. The second thread has been closed as a duplicate. —C.Fred (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- REWRITE - Article consists of very carefully worded paraphrases from 2 paragraphs in the only source for the article. Supporters are strongly reminded that we need multiple reliable sources so as to prevent questions of copyright infringement. Hasteur (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Morbid Saint
- Morbid Saint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Fails WP:MUSIC: no charting, does not have significant independent coverage. Prod was removed by IP without comment. Onthegogo (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:BAND, signed on a major label. The external links show that there is significant coverage about them thus passing WP:BAND#1109.64.96.169 . I added a source with them as the subject. (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as with WP:BAND - MS are a credible underground metal act with a 20+ year history and multiple reissues of their debut, plus it is being re-released yet again on Relapse Records with extra, new tracks. Why can't we just add some more references instead of just purging? Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Avram_C._Freedberg
- Avram_C._Freedberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't feel the page meets notability standards. Rather, in my view, it seems to clearly meet the definition of what is not notable per WP:CRIME and WP:CREATIVE Kozitt (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Kozitt (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I dePRODDED this to prevent autodeletion. Meets GNG easily. Coverage runs for thirty years including an editorial in the New York Times. More people need to add Category:All articles proposed for deletion and Category:Proposed deletion to their watchlist. All it takes to lose an article without debate is one person to add the tag and it gets auto-deleted after a few days. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm all for keeping pages that have something to offer, and I think that the improvements you've made to the page are good. However, I still don't feel that this individual is notable, even if there's spotty coverage over a period of time. The corporate information is already included on each company's page. WP:CRIME and WP:CREATIVE are on point on this issue. Continuing to consider businesspeople as noteworthy simply by virtue of their owning or contributing to a company turns Wikipedia into LinkedIn. Kozitt (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2011 (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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will Bowes
- Will Bowes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability not established with verifiable, third party source. Main film cited list's actor as "party goer", guest roles on TV series but nothing indicating notability. Awards cited seem to be from non-notable events. Article has been cut and pasted from IMDB and apparently edited by subject at some point. SeaphotoTalk 02:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The old "cut-n-paste" issue is now moot, as it has been dealt with through regular editing. The article was first created in 2007 by User:Themagicplum, and it seems that it was worked on by established users until User:Willsbowes made six edits in late 2008, after which time it was again under the attention of established ditors, with User:Willsbowes not making any additional in the following 2+ years. Article is now being edited and I will report back after more work. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That two issues down, but I still question the notability of the subject at this time. Major awards would provide the foundation for notability, but I couldn't find very much on those cited. If you can find more I am open to withdrawing the nomination for deletion. I appreciate your work. SeaphotoTalk 18:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non notable. I was only able to find credit listings for him, not any article that features him, not even passing mentions. The award from the California Film Festival doesn't seems too notable, but I'm not familiar with the festival whatsoever. Also the page given for the Los Angeles Movie Awards honorable mention doesn't list him or his short film anywhere - frankieMR (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2011 (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. There's no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but I don't find the two "keep" !votes very convincing and I see no point in another relist. The issue of merging and where to merge can be discussed on the article's talk page and as Shooterwalker says, we can always revisit this issue later. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wings (1996 video game)
- Wings (1996 video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable freeware game - although the game looks neat, there appear to be no reliable secondary sources. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep one of number of 2D cave flying shooters from late 1990s. I found a short reference, now in article. MKFI (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I could do with some more info on the scope of this reference. If it's short, this may mean merging the information to a boarder topic (a "List of..." article for example) Marasmusine (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a fairly short review, part of a "monthly editors picks of free/shareware games from our BBS" article. More than a passing reference, but not very thorough (hence the "weak" keep). The article is not available online as far as I know, the magazine online archives only go back to 2003. A merge would be quite acceptable, but I do not know if there is a suitable article to merge to. This game is one of a number of 2D cave flying shooters which reached some popularity in late 1990s. MKFI (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, normally this would be merged into the developer/publisher article. At present I can only suggest List of freeware video games (which is what I did with Gate 88). Is it the kind of "2D cave flying shooter" that is sometimes called a "Thrust-clone"? There's another 90s example with borderline notability called Gravity Force (and I think another called Bratwurst.) There may be the seed of a catch-all article there. Marasmusine (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, these borrow pretty heavily from Thrust, and Gravity Force belongs to the same genre. The finnish term for the genre is "luolalentely" (no article, but mentioned in fi:Videopelilajityypit (Video game genres), the english equivalent seems to be "cave flyers" [69]. Some other games in the genre: [70] (in finnish). MKFI (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, normally this would be merged into the developer/publisher article. At present I can only suggest List of freeware video games (which is what I did with Gate 88). Is it the kind of "2D cave flying shooter" that is sometimes called a "Thrust-clone"? There's another 90s example with borderline notability called Gravity Force (and I think another called Bratwurst.) There may be the seed of a catch-all article there. Marasmusine (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a fairly short review, part of a "monthly editors picks of free/shareware games from our BBS" article. More than a passing reference, but not very thorough (hence the "weak" keep). The article is not available online as far as I know, the magazine online archives only go back to 2003. A merge would be quite acceptable, but I do not know if there is a suitable article to merge to. This game is one of a number of 2D cave flying shooters which reached some popularity in late 1990s. MKFI (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: might have potential. No prejudice against revisiting this later if there's nothing reliable to say. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2011 (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. I,m sorry Qb27 but there are apparently no sources that demonstrate notability. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Wallert
- Charles Wallert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was deleted per a proposed deletion last year and was recently recreated. The tone is strongly promotional with little substance, and I have not seen any nontrivial coverage in reliable sources that would indicate that he meets WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. VQuakr (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article should be kept. All the information is easily crossed referenced with song titles, artists & events from other websites as well as many other articles & publications. A simple search would prove this beyond any doubt. Here is a person with 35 years of music work. Just the fact that he has served as president of the Society of Singers, Chapter East is extremely noteworthy. The Community work is also verifiable. In closing, one person cannot arbitrarily dismiss an extensive body of work without bothering to take the time to do the research. Independent verification supports overwhelmingly in favor of keeping this article!— Qb27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete gnews reveals no extensive coverage. LibStar (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:SPAM and no nontrivial coverage of subject (these three links are the best I could find 1 2 3). I couldn't listen to the interview, though - frankieMR (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Golden Fire II
- Golden Fire II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not satisfy general notability for inclusion. Muhandes (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it exists, but that's about all we can say for it. Marasmusine (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a few sources that can verify that it exists... but nothing to WP:verify notability. Need more significant coverage. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Art of Problem Solving Foundation
- Art of Problem Solving Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This company does not meet the rules and policies for having it's own article (WP:ORG) Mtking (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps you could be more explicit about the reasons for deletion please. Dmcq (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a spin off article from the already deleted article "Art of Problem Solving"; see WP:Articles for deletion/Art of Problem Solving. Probably should have been bundled. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no references.--Salix (talk): 06:04, 14 April 2011 (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. joe deckertalk to me 15:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Futuropolis
- Futuropolis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The PROD was removed without explanation. Seems to be a hoax, and I wasn't able to find any sources discussing it. Violates WP:CRYSTAL on the very off-chance it is true. — anndelion ※ 00:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete can't find any sources about Futuropolis and Christopher Miller, much less a projected 2015 date. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TOOSOON#Films. Phil Lord (producer) and Chris Miller (director) are the team behind Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (film), and there are sites that speak about a animated Sony film to be called Futuropolis,[71] including Variety However, there is simply not enough yet from which to even consider an article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:11, 12 April 2011 (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. The nominator's concerns appear to be addressed. No prejudice against a speedy renomination if someone has other concerns. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of creatures in Walking with Prehistoric Life
- List of creatures in Walking with Prehistoric Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
empty list WuhWuzDat 14:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I move to my subpage and I'll create the list. --CamoBeast (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2011 (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. J04n(talk page) 22:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marques de Caceres
- Marques de Caceres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indications of notability for this particular winery. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as in 2004, Wine Enthusiast called this the number one producer of Rioja sold in the United States. That's a claim of notability, and reliable sources are available. Improve through normal editing rather than deleting. Cullen328 (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Here's a more lengthy quote from Wine Enthusiast: "Marques de Caceres is the number one brand of Rioja in the United States. Export Sales Manager Frank- Olivier Telling says the winery sent approximately 200000 cases to the US last year, of a total production that's just under 1 million" and here's the Google search [72]. Cullen328 (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as Cullen says, they are a well known if not especially prestigious Rioja house. Decanter lists about 15 of their wines, and has ratings for six of them. http://www.decanter.com/wine/finder/search.php?wineName=Marques de Caceres&quickSearch=Go&offset=0 . On the other hand it is a bloody awful article and I for one aren't going to put any effort into it. Greglocock (talk) 06:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sources talk of this winery as well-known in the wine world. Lebel Jacques (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. See how easy it is to find sources. Chicago Tribune Oct 26, 1983, says "MARQUES de Caceres, one of the best examples of the new wave in wineries". Most of the article is hidden behind a paywall, but clearly they give praise to them, making it notable coverage. Dream Focus 01:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—appears to be reasonably prominent. I added a pair of cites for notability.—RJH (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Caz Ferreira
- Caz Ferreira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
CSD'd three times. Better formatted article but subject still doesn't meet WP:ENT NeilN talk to me 00:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. I attempted to find sources to establish notability, but if they exist, they are beyond my ability to find. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Only seems to have had bit parts and doesn't meet WP:ENT ScottSteiner ✍ 03:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe five years down the road. But maybe not. It all depends. He's not notable now. DS (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Wikipedia isn't the place to construct notability. 99.136.255.230 (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no evidence of notability. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. The Google news archive brings up one hit on the name, a 2nd grader talking about carrots improving vision. Non-notable as this time. Studerby (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Minimal career fails WP:ENT. Lack of coverage in reliable sources fails WP:GNG. Maybe when this younster's career matures... but for now the article is simply WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:00, 16 April 2011 (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. joe deckertalk to me 15:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Empyre
- Empyre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find significant coverage of this "global media arts community." Strong promotional tone as well, which appears to have existed essentially unchanged in the article since its creation in 2007. VQuakr (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Fails WP:ORG. Sources provided do not provide significant coverage of this organization. A search for other sources doesn't come up with much, therefore fails WP:N. Auseplot (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all the coverage i found relates to overseas entities not this one. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2011 (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. Consensus is that the requirements of WP:BIO are not met. Sandstein 06:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Karpantschof
- Daniel Karpantschof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Article has some references, but is lacking secondary source to support. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the WP:BIO and must say that if you don't find a 14 year old ambassador to the UNESCO significant or notable, we really have some interesting parameters for success, don't we? ;) - Peter --Pjhansson (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am adding more citations from press and media outlets, but most of them are in Danish. I am eager to learn the craft of putting together a correct Wikipedia Article, including the lingo and correct citation. --Pjhansson (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the article sufficient cited now? --Pjhansson (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I would say hoax, but reading the article does give the impression of an actual claim. The english sources are scarce and non reliable. There is a Daniel Karpantschof listed in Dogville as a development consultant, but even if it refer to the subject the movie didn't make him known for it. The claims in the areas of politics are not well referenced either, and even if it could be verified it would still have to meet WP:POLITICIAN, and the same for being an entrepreneur. It would be very useful is someone could review the Danish sources, but unless something remarkably notable turns out this is clear WP:SPAM - frankieMR (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of his work is done in Danish, but a search in InfoMedia (Danish media archive) reveals extensive credentials. In terms of Dogville, the movie actually did make him quite famous in the international feature film industry. While it is greatly different from the mainstream community, being nominated for a Palm d'Or is almost as good as being nominated for an academy award. My Danish isn't perfect, but good enough to do media research. It's really no wonder that most of the sources are in Danish as he only recently moved to the US. --Pjhansson (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete his UNESCO role doesn't even rate a mention. nothing in gnews [73]. fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GNews doesn't cover Denmark and 1999-2002 is before GNews covers even US. Have tried to find pages on the Danish Ministry of Education that would cover both Karpantschof's involvement in the board of education as well as UNESCO, but the pages are no longer there - not surprising since its been ten years. There are a lot of Danish media on the subject though. Tried to upload scanned frontpages to WikiCommons, but they were removed.--Pjhansson (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- gnews is in Danish too. [74]. LibStar (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2011 (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.
GNews is IN Danish, but doesn't cover Danish media. I see that the article has been deleted. I feel sad for you people. --Pjhansson (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2011 (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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wong Lo Kat
- Wong Lo Kat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable beverage WuhWuzDat 15:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Highly notable Chinese drink.[75][76] Discussed in lots of books.[77] --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Week Keep | Need Modification, I'm a Chinese from Malaysia, Wong Lo Kat is actually a common name of herbal tea formulated by the founder. Almost all Chinese Traditional Medical Hall, or knows as Chinese Traditional Herbs Pharmacy sell the Wong Lo Kat herbal tea. Wong Lo Kat is much more a herbal tea's formula named after the founder. And few years back being commercialized by a giant can drinks company at China as Red Can Wong Lo Kat as what the photo posted at the page now. The page should keep only if the information given is more talking about the history and the ingredients of the tea instead of the company who canned it. Like computer software, open source software with modification can be commercialized but the credit is always to the Open Source Founded and not the one who just modify it. 219.95.123.254 (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Even a cursory search demonstrates this is a notable beverage.—RJH (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2011 (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 Deleted per CSD - Copyright violation. ttonyb (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Costas Zapas
- Costas Zapas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
pure unadulterated spam, this person may be notable, but this article, in its current form, is inherently unsalvageable. WuhWuzDat 15:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:BIO per source http://www.tainiothiki.gr/v2/.--81.237.218.107 (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2011 (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. joe deckertalk to me 15:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Western Cyprus Travel Guide
- Western Cyprus Travel Guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No coverage in independent secondary sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I think this might just be an add for their app. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply another app. There's an app for that and it's called Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2011 (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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mrs Miggins
- Mrs Miggins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fictional character of no external notability. No independent reliable sources. Sources cited are a BBC source (not independent of a BBC series), a blog (not reliable), a site selling a book by the actress who played the character (not really a source; if they meant the book it isn't independent), IMDb (not a reliable source). Suggest redirect to Blackadder the Third. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC) SummerPhD (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "As Mrs Miggins said of the fleeing French aristos in Blackadder the Third: 'ooh la la and an éclair for both of us!' The visit of diminutive French ..." if she is being used by newstatesman.com as a reference she is notable enough for an independent article. We don't delete based on the references as they stand in the article now, but how they are outside of Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, you added a
sourcelink to the article. However, it is not an indication of substantial coverage of the character in independent reliable sources. Rather it is an insubstantial reference to the character. We're here to discuss notability. You cite fails to address that. In fact, I fail to see how the quote substantiates that "Mrs. Miggins is a fictional character in the British sitcom Blackadder." (That said, I will grant that Mrs. Miggins is, in fact, a fiction character that exists in the British sitcom Blackadder.) - SummerPhD (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, you added a
- Delete fictional character with a single in-line citation. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The nomination suggests redirection which is not achieved by deletion. The nomination's claims of non-notability seem to be false. If it were non-notable, why would the nominator want to redirect it? Obviously the topic, has been noticed both by the nominator. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As I have explained to you previously, there is no case for a speedy keep here. I am suggesting the article for the non-notable topic be deleted and replaced with a redirect. That I "noticed" the topic has nothing whatsoever to do with notability. If I added a link to an article ouearhnjbgaewpirhn in an article you watch, you would "notice" it. However, ouearhnjbgaewpirhn would still not be notable, as you no doubt know. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To replace the article with a redirect, then ordinary editing suffices. Our deletion policy states that If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are making several contradictory arguments. You are saying it shouldn't be deleted because I didn't ask for deletion (actually, I did), that should simply redirect it, and that it shouldn't be redirected because it can be fixed. Please pick a defense for the article. Incidentally, the sources added give us one random quote from her, who played the character and that she owns a coffee shop. I can easily find more info on blatantly non-notable characters from most sit coms. If your argument is that no articles should ever be deleted, please say so. If you believe the character here is notable, please demonstrate it. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But what is the reason for deleting and replacing with a redirect rather than simply redirecting? I don't see any reason for the deletion part of the argument, only for the redirecting. Rlendog (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the character is not notable, the article should be deleted. Because the character name is a reasonably logic search term, a redirect should then be created. Nitpicking rules to say that makes this AfD incorrect is Wikilawyering at its worst. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To replace the article with a redirect, then ordinary editing suffices. Our deletion policy states that If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As I have explained to you previously, there is no case for a speedy keep here. I am suggesting the article for the non-notable topic be deleted and replaced with a redirect. That I "noticed" the topic has nothing whatsoever to do with notability. If I added a link to an article ouearhnjbgaewpirhn in an article you watch, you would "notice" it. However, ouearhnjbgaewpirhn would still not be notable, as you no doubt know. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect: due to a lack of ability to WP:verify notability. As a note to other editors, if you don't object to redirecting, then !vote redirect. If you do object to deletion and/or redirection, then should offer a real reason for objecting, instead of WP:WIKILAWYERing some sort of technicality. Even a bad or subjective reason is better than WP:GAMEing the AFD discussion by looking for procedural reasons for objecting to the proposal. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting or not is not a technicality. If an editor wants to delete the history in addition to turning the article into a redirect, they need a valid reason. None has been given here. Notability concerns can be addressed with a simple redirect, without deletion. Rlendog (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - Per nom. No reason is given for deletion, either before or without redirecting. Rlendog (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It is not notable, counselor. That's the reason for deletion. We delete "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline", like this one. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but not quite. A non-notable subject can be redirected to an appropriate target. That is what is suggested in the nomination itself. Still no reason given that deletion needs to be a part of the process. Rlendog (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:Deletion Policy#Redirection. Rlendog (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overruled. That speaks to "an unsuitable article". This is not a WP:NOT issue, this is a lack of notability. Whatever your reason for nitpicking this to death, I can't say. But I'll leave you to it from here on out. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. You may want to take a look at WP:POT. For someone whining about wikilawyering, you are sure doing a lot of it. I still don't understand why redirection doesn't adequately resolve the notability issue without requiring deletion. Redirects don't need to meet the notability guideline (as your nomination admits that this would be an appropriate redirect). So what is the point of deleting as well? What is the benefit of deleting? Since all your responses seem to invoke technicalities in order to avoid the issue, I have to assume there is no point or benefit. As your last response linked to WP:NOT, you are presumably aware that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Rlendog (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overruled. That speaks to "an unsuitable article". This is not a WP:NOT issue, this is a lack of notability. Whatever your reason for nitpicking this to death, I can't say. But I'll leave you to it from here on out. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It is not notable, counselor. That's the reason for deletion. We delete "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline", like this one. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Popular character, popular show, endless re-runs, 3 refs. Szzuk (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect or Merge. Unseen character is a plot device, and without secondary sources there should not be a stand-alone page on it. Abductive (reasoning) 21:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep--wrong forum this isn't the place for discussing redirects--the talk pages of the articles involved is. And clearly this needs to be at least a redirect. This would appear to be a case of forum shopping. Hobit (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Wow. That's a strong accusation. What other forums do you think I took this to? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you _didn't_ take it to the forum a redirect discussion belongs in--the talk pages of the articles themselves. Isn't that where redirect discussions generally belong? Hobit (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming good faith, it would seem you don't know the meaning often implied by "forum shopping". I brought this to AfD to get more eyes on it. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was using it in the "... the practice adopted by some litigants to get their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favorable judgment." sense. Merge and redirect discussions don't belong here. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking of trying to obtain a favorable judgment... saying that we HAVE to keep this because we're not allowed to discuss redirects at AFD is pretty litigious too. If you want to keep, just provide a policy-based reason. But don't say we have to shut down the discussion as a matter of procedure, as that's a reason based in what Wikipedia is not. (Namely, that a perceived procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request.) Shooterwalker (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was using it in the "... the practice adopted by some litigants to get their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favorable judgment." sense. Merge and redirect discussions don't belong here. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming good faith, it would seem you don't know the meaning often implied by "forum shopping". I brought this to AfD to get more eyes on it. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you _didn't_ take it to the forum a redirect discussion belongs in--the talk pages of the articles themselves. Isn't that where redirect discussions generally belong? Hobit (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Wow. That's a strong accusation. What other forums do you think I took this to? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2011 (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.