- 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. v/r - TP 23:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Kristus Center
- The Kristus Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Page has been orphaned and not touched for over 5 years Pirodam (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - How intriguing that it was on here for such a long period of time untouched, but I didn't find any notable and third-party links on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. A reasonable search for sources reveals nothing independent. How is it this discussion itself has "been orphaned" and "not touched" for five weeks? BusterD (talk) 20:12, 1 October 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. Carrites analysis is right on the button. Closers expect to see specific sources and the only ones provided have been refuted as tangential or mentions Spartaz Humbug! 06:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Superhero Hype!
- Superhero Hype! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Insufficiently notable website. Article was previously AfD'd in December 2007 with the result of "No consensus". For over three years now, the article has been tagged with {{Notability}}, but no proper sourcing has ever been provided. It appears this site has never "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (see WP:WEB#Criteria). Thank you. — Satori Son 14:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Admittedly the article has been in poor condition for a while, but a quick search shows it is notable enough to be referred to on MTV (here), SFX (here), RTE (here) and Digital Spy (here) amongst others in the past couple of weeks, and I know they are given a number of exclusives because I remember putting one in the article for the upcoming X-Men: Destiny game. The sources are there it just requires someone to sit down with the time to turn it in to a decent article. BulbaThor (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware this website has received very brief mentions from time to time, but I still have not seen any in-depth coverage by reliable sources which would even remotely meet the standards of the WP:GNG. — Satori Son 18:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Its notability is visible, however the article needs proper attention. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 17:35, 2 August 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, v/r - TP 14:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agree with user Satori Son: the few mentions I can find are very brief, casual remarks. I see no level of depth that would establish notability required by GNG. --Noleander (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On the one hand, it appears to be part of a professional media company; its indicia reads, "CraveOnline Media, LLC is a division of AtomicOnline, LLC, an Evolve Media Corp. company". And I recognize at least one byline, that of Edward Douglas, as that of professional journalist. However, the lack of a masthead that would list staff and the lack of an address for an editorial office makes me wonder if, despite the corporate support, this may be a site of solely user-generated content. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 2 & Question If the decision is to keep, please note there's no exclamation point in the logo, and that the title of the article should be "SuperheroHype.com". Also, if the decision is to delete, what's to be done with cites to it in various articles, mostly about comic-book movies? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yes, it has been mentioned in reliable sources, but that's all they are - mentions. Certainly not significant coverage, and therefore not enough to meet either WP:GNG or the alternative WP:WEB. Nor are the alternate requirements of the latter guideline met. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:14, 17 August 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, BusterD (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment: Consensus still seems mixed, but as opposed to closing a second time as "no consensus", it makes sense to allow a bit more time to mature the notability discussion. BusterD (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The sources found are all trivial, and all of the other "keep" !votes are WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I took a glance at the nearly information-free, unsourced stub of a piece and I thought this was an easy call for deletion. Then I ran a simple Google search for the exact phrase "Superhero hype" and came up with 1.65 million hits and that made my head swim a little. How can there be so much out there relating to a site that ends up in an article this bad? It's a bit of a mystery... Does the lack of a swarm of comic book nerds here making an impassioned defense mean that the comic book nerds have given up on Wikipedia? And if so, what does that mean? Is it worth sifting through 1,649,854 blog posts to find a few kernels of substantial independent content that will save this wretched stub? It's all very puzzling. Ironically, and it will probably drive Mr. Hammer nuts for me to say this, the simple argument WP:ITSNOTABLE seems to me to be a reasonable one. Then again, that doesn't cut the mustard with most AfD closers, who want to see (a) content worth saving and/or (b) independent sourcing. This piece has neither. And I'm done blathering without an opinion either way. Carrite (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Not leaning for or against, but just commenting that a number of those hits appear to be Wikipedia mirror sites, keyword farms, and comments on forums and blogs. Not seeing a lot in the way of journalistic print/web periodicals. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - If this website merits a Wikipedia article, so does every website in the world that provides information about anything of interest to anyone. You would end up trying to pack snapshots of much of the web into Wikipedia. The storage cost alone would bring Wikipedia to an end. "Noteworthy" must mean something bigger than "existent" or else it means nothing. Ornithikos (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to CraveOnline. Failing merge, redirect to parent company. There are a vast number of hits, mostly self-referential and crosslinking to other Crave enterprises like ComingSoon.net. A surprising number of news hits which say something like: "Celebrities X & Y talked their upcoming book/movie/project to Superhero Hype and said this about the book/movie/project" (2009), reliable newspaper or reliable website." I initially found that compelling. Then I read Crave owns Sherdog, which has become regarded as a real news source by members of the Wikipedia MMA and kickboxing interest. IMHO, this is a company which manufactures buzz for a living, but I can't source that. I'll guess sources could be found in the inside-marketing/advertising periodicals unavailable without a password or a hefty subscription price. Since that's my opinion, I'm stuck with the evidence I did find, insufficient because of trivial/tabloid/promotional coverage only. Merge to parent target. BusterD (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Establishing a marketing presence in Wikipedia is a major goal of every online marketing organization that knows what's happening. Every conceivable form of hidden persuasion and simulated notability can be expected, like applauding in an echo chamber, as in this case. Ornithikos (talk) 04:54, 19 August 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 22:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Corinna Fugate
- Corinna Fugate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of non-signed, self-publishing musician who may or may not have vanished; long history of COI and autobio problems, lack of substantiation of claims, etc. Orange Mike | Talk 22:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Searching under her birth name and current name turns up little in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources. The article claims she has chosen to release independently to maintain her artistic freedom. The citation is to an angelfire page which appears to be a copy of this article behind a pay wall in the Kansas City Star. On the other hand, this earlier article in the Kansas City Star (also behind a pay wall) indicates she moved to New York in an attempt to land a record deal. With only some coverage in the Kansas City Star, and no other, that is insufficient coverage to establish notability for me. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Whpq. One reliable source that doesn't really indicate importance (no major award, achievement, etc.) or notability isn't enough in my book, either. Moogwrench (talk) 08:10, 24 August 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 22:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NE1
- NE1 (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 a notable event, no reliable sources. Andrew (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (Delete and) redirect to NE postcode area. I agree this does not seem a notable event. However NE1 is a likely search term for people looking for information on the postcode. The hatnote pointing to the radio station should be transferred to the article about the postcode area. Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish this as a notable event. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No reliable sources cover this event. Moogwrench (talk) 08:10, 24 August 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 22:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
J.N. Paquet
- J.N. Paquet (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 books can be verified, but they are in essentially no libraries, even in France. And they all are self published, every one of them. Given the promotionalism, I decided to take this out of prod and bring it here for a definitive discussion. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Just another author's vanity page in Wikipedia. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 23 August 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2011 Chilean pen incident
- 2011 Chilean pen incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Consensus at BLP/N [1] is that this falls into the WP:NOTNEWS category. See WP:SENSATION. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nominator, no different from 2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident, Bush falling of a Segway etc. ukexpat (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Absolutely non-encyclopedic, trivia topic. - Darwinek (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as sensationalistic portrayal of an apparent non-incident. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as trivial anecdote unworthy of being considered "notable" for Wikipedia in the first place. Collect (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the article was created with obvious political bias in the title and content (was called theft originally) by someone claiming to be a new editor, yet very able to cite a multitude of Wikipedia policies. Check the article's talk page. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is fair to accuse the creator of 'political bias', the event was called 'theft' in almost all of the sources. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which were carefully selected to be left-leaning and pro-Europe opinion. I'm sure plenty of sarcastic similiar commentary was made on other similar occasions. See French news video the New York Times [2] on Sarkozy. Do we have an article for Sarkozy's love of bling bling or President bling bling [3]? What about Sarkozy's love handles airbrushing [4]? or [[Sarkozy
drunktired after rushing up the stairs at G8]] [5]? Or [6], or this etc. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Yes, we could create a whole new encyclopedia of embarrassing events regarding famous (or less famous) politicians. What about Mirek Topolánek naked in Silvio Berlusconi's garden? [7] How funny! Why bother to make a critical research of their work and political decisions when it is so easy to make a funny video and show to everybody the 'true state of matters'? Moreover, it is far more interesting to a modern reader and the coverage is rapidly increasing. The question is: Is there any real consequence for Klaus' career? Is there any encyclopedic value in the article? My answer is: No. But I have to admit that the article contains an important hidden message. It tells something about the idiocy of today's world. Just my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which were carefully selected to be left-leaning and pro-Europe opinion. I'm sure plenty of sarcastic similiar commentary was made on other similar occasions. See French news video the New York Times [2] on Sarkozy. Do we have an article for Sarkozy's love of bling bling or President bling bling [3]? What about Sarkozy's love handles airbrushing [4]? or [[Sarkozy
- I don't think it is fair to accuse the creator of 'political bias', the event was called 'theft' in almost all of the sources. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's quite amusing to see how he cites opinion pieces such as [8], which merely use this event as an opportunity to rehash their long-term disapproval of Klaus on other issues, in support of his theft-as-fact theory, and to claim in-depth coverage and analysis of this event. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Enough coverage, and enough of a time span. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of coverage to meet WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is not enough for news events. See WP:109PAPERS, WP:SENSATION and WP:PERSISTENCE. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my comment here. An in-depth analysis of this event is impossible, it is an unimportant incident that has been grossly inflated by the media. Food for the masses. Of course, it has helped many people to strengthen their opinion on Klaus: "Take a look at the old thief, finally he has revealed himself in full glory!" (it is the most popular comment under the Youtube videos). It is cheap, unjust and disparaging. Let's forget the worthless tabloid-trash and focus on real problems. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per NOTNEWS. Has no lasting impact on the legacy of Klaus.– Lionel (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sigh, I don't know who you are FuFoFuEd, but I don't appreciate you hurling statements like "by someone claiming to be a new editor, yet very able to cite a multitude of Wikipedia policies". I have never edited Wikipedia on any other user account. I read up on the policies after this article was lambasted by editors who wanted it gone. I was pretty confused as I researched the subject extensively. It met all the criteria of GNG and the specific NEWS events guidelines. It was notable, covered in reliable sources independent of the subject, etc, etc. I have never even heard of Klaus before I waded into this bloody foray! How can I be politically biased against him? I live in Canada and while I'd love to say that Czech politics interest me, they do not.
- I have no political agenda here. It has the word 'theft' in the title, because that's what it was reported as: a theft. You're entitled to your own opinion, but in case you want to know the truth: I created this article as a bit of a laugh. If you read the first draft, you'll see the tongue-in-cheekness. Then, I thought to myself, "what rules is it actually breaking?". I researched the relevant policies (it doesn't take a genius to do that like your comment seems to imply) and realized that this article is more than acceptable. It meets any standard I could throw at it. The bulk of the arguments against this article seem to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But face it. It is encyclopedic, by your own rules! Let's debate this thing on its merits, not on what your initial impression of the event was.
- Here are my arguments against deletion: one and two. Let's debate them, not throw weak ad hominem attacks against the article's creator. DubiousIrony yell 20:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your frustration, Dubious Irony. I don't think this article is particularly incorrect or badly written. You did a good work and there's no need to be upset or quit your editing on Wikipedia. You know, I edit here for years and I know well that conflict and disagreement is a part of everyday life on this project. Let's debate this article on its own merits. I'm not a censor, not long ago I participated in a discussion regarding the alleged inspiration and ideological motivation of Breivik's murderous attacks in Norway. I was one of the handful of people who supported open presentation of facts. I did it because I consider the information, the response and defense of some people labelled in his manifesto of being his ideological 'heroes', as very important for their own biographies. Wikipedia prevented including the information despite the fact that it was verifiable by multiple reliable sources. I respect that, even though I strongly disagree. However, it was a different case and different circumstances. What is this article? It is a YouTube/media joke that has no purpose other than ridiculing the subject. The subject is a highly visible living person, a president of a country. That's the only reason why has the video attracted the attention of the media. I strongly oppose the existence of a stand alone article on this topic in an encyclopedia, no matter how many news articles we have. It is a matter of ethics and common sense, and it has nothing to do with censorship. You can interpret my opinion as WP:POV or WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but I feel it is the right and duty of an responsible editor to do so, to warn against the malevolence and superficiality of the mass media. I'm asking again: Is there any real consequence for Klaus' career? Is there any encyclopedic value in the article? Or is it a cowardly attempt to make a clown of a living person unable to defend himself against the omnipresence of the mass media? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. You can find my relevant comments also here and here. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are my arguments against deletion: one and two. Let's debate them, not throw weak ad hominem attacks against the article's creator. DubiousIrony yell 20:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, just a quick one. I really was (IMHO) a productive editor until this whole fiasco. Look at my contributions. Do I look like a single-purpose-account designed to stir up trouble? I am a real believer in Wikipedia. What left me with a shitty taste in my mouth was not the fact that other editors disagreed that this article should be removed, it's how they went about it. Most of the comments were "it's unencyclopedic!" or "I don't think it applies here!" or "I don't like this article's tone!", or my favourite, "the whole event was silly, therefore we should not cover it". Are you bloody serious? We have articles like Honeypots_in_espionage_fiction but an incident which has 500 separate articles on Google News is somehow unencyclopedic? The reason I left Wikipedia is because editors pay lip service to living by the policies, but actually embrace WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a mantra. To editors like FuFoFuEd I'll just say one thing: even at my most frustrated, I tried to keep the debate centered on the issues. Never did I once think "maybe my argument won't work, so let me try an ad hominem attack instead". I disagreed with many of the responses I read, but I never assumed that the people behind them were some sort of malicious creatures out to do Wikipedia harm. I knew that they were trying to look out for the best interests of the project. So I ask you this: please continue to debate the merits of this article, but stop your attempts to analyze my motivations, political leanings or try to present me spending a few hours familiarizing myself with Wikipedia guidelines as some sort of mortal sin. Do you see me calling you a right-wing nutjob who sucks the cock of censorship because you want this article deleted? No, you don't, because that would be a ridiculous position to take. So kindly stop making inferences about myself from one article that I created on WP. DubiousIrony yell 20:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You still haven't explained how this event has any long term impact on anything, like Klaus' political life, or the Chilean-Czech relations, or anything of substance for that matter. Mere assertions that it meets WP:EVENT and long diatribes on civility don't suffice. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete of all the things WP is, it isn't a tabloid. Trivial stuff like this may form part of the Vaclav Klaus article, but a full blown article strikes me as being undue, more of the sort of things that attack pages are made of. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Quantity of coverage at the time of the event is not the same as notability - this has zero encyclopedic value. WP:SENSATION/WP:NOTNEWS. This is like Bush's many gaffes, a political joke and a non-event, that perhaps, perhaps warrants a one or two line mention on the BLP of the Czech president.--Cerejota (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Selectively merge (just the lead and maybe a sentence about the Facebook campaign and kleptomania prank) to Václav Klaus#Chilean pen incident. My reasoning is based on two points:
An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope.
An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. ... Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
- Coverage of this event has been sufficiently significant (in quantity and, to a lesser extent, depth – e.g., CSM), but I found indication that interest in the episode by reliable sources persisted for more than a few days. It appears that there was a flurry of coverage (much of it repeating the same information) in April and subsequent coverage – e.g., ABC News, Ceskapozice – has consisted of passing mentions in articles about Klaus. More important than the issue of notability, however, is that of due weight. The event certainly seems to be noteworthy enough to mention in Klaus' article, but the existence of a separate article about the event gives undue weight to this aspect of Klaus' two-decade-long political career.
- On a side-note, I think that the criticism that has been directed toward the article's creator (instead of the article) is unjustified and unnecessary, and I would not be unhappy to see it redacted or removed. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A merger is not necessary as the article on Klaus already has a section on this incident, in to which any editor can add any information (and of course be reverted). This article is an aberration and a clear lack of understanding that we are not a news source, and hence should be deleted, and any information on the incident added on its own merits into the BLP. Merger would mean having to accept that the edits warranted inclusion in the encyclopedia, which they didn't.--Cerejota (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the necessity of the expanding the section in Klaus' article, YMMV. However, I do not think that the information should be condemned solely on the basis of which edits introduced it into the encyclopedia and where; as you say, information on the episode should be considered "on its own merits". Any merged content that is deemed to be unnecessary or inappropriate in the context of Klaus' biography can and should, of course, be removed. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And before making demands that I retract what I wrote, please check how the article looked when it was created [9]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid you've misread a request and an expression of a preference as a demand. My aim merely was to urge a more moderate tone – and fewer assumptions about intentions – in this discussion. In any case, I am aware of how the article looked when it was created but I also recognize that the creator attempted to take steps ([10][11]) to improve the inappropriate tone and focus of the article. The NPOV and BLP problem will, in my opinion, remain as long as this article exists, but I think it is safer to assume that the initial version of the article was a misplaced attempt at humor – i.e., "silliness" – rather than a politically motivated attack on Klaus. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A merger is not necessary as the article on Klaus already has a section on this incident, in to which any editor can add any information (and of course be reverted). This article is an aberration and a clear lack of understanding that we are not a news source, and hence should be deleted, and any information on the incident added on its own merits into the BLP. Merger would mean having to accept that the edits warranted inclusion in the encyclopedia, which they didn't.--Cerejota (talk) 04:17, 20 August 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 22:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abu Muhammad Bin Abi Ahmad
- Abu Muhammad Bin Abi Ahmad (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 biographical article. Notability not verified by independent reliable sources. Inter rest (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I didn't see notable links on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 01:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as it doesn't qualify for reliable sources nor notability. I was first going: "SO WHAT!" ~ AdvertAdam talk 06:46, 18 August 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 22:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abu Ahmad Abdal
- Abu Ahmad Abdal (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 verified by independent reliable sources. Inter rest (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I didn't see notable links on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 01:08, 18 August 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheeks (Actor)
- Cheeks (Actor) (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 was created by using a previously deleted article Cheeks_(Multimedia_Artist). Additional discussion can be viewed at User_talk:CheeksTV. This current version appears to contain many of the same unreliable sources and/or statements that cannot reliably be verified. The articles subject fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:MUSIC and WP:ACTOR Gustovratto (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:CheeksTV, the creator of most of the content in this article has been inactive since 15 February 2011. When it was found in the sandbox, nothing after 2010 had been updated, rendering it more or less abandoned. I tried to contact the user multiple times, but with no success. It is vital for this article to be live. If I would edit out the unreliable sources, will it then be viable for its subsequent stay? AnonymousAnimus (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Preceding comment was copied from the talk page - frankie (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article was debated and deleted previously based on the information provided in the discussion logs as previously listed above. On the original page Cheeks_(Multimedia_Artist) it clearly states the following:
- A page with this title has previously been deleted.
If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below. 07:37, 18 February 2010 Cirt (talk | contribs) deleted "Cheeks (Multimedia Artist)" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheeks (Multimedia Artist))
Per site policy, it was not the original author that should have been contacted. Regardless, the content is virtually identical to the originally debated and deleted article with the exception of a few minor updates. Upon reviewing the subject and comparing the notability requirements as outlined in WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:MUSIC and WP:ACTOR, it appears the individual fails to qualify as a significantly noteworthy individual at this time. Gustovratto (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~ It seems like the only temporary problem is notability, as I can easily fix the unreliable sources. When it comes to WP:ENTERTAINER, Cheeks (Actor) fits into these criteria:
- Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
- Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
It also states on WP:MUSIC that at least one criteria has to be met to fit for application, which in this case it does;
- Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.
It didn't say what criteria the article's subject has to meet for WP:ACTOR to apply, but there is clear proof that he is an actor. Maybe the article's parentheses could contain something that would work better? User:AnonymousAnimus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- DELETE. Has released music on his own independent label. Music has not charted on Billboard. Fails WP:MUSIC. Acting experience is in 2 short films and one movie in which he has a minor part. Fails WP:ACTOR. Majority of sources in article comes from his label site or his own website. These are not reliable sources per WP:SOURCES. iTunes source only verifies that his EP was released. Movie source only verifies movie was released. These are not about him. There are no reliable sources about him in the article and I couldn't find any on the web. Per WP:GNG, he has not"...received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" Fails WP:GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE. I, User:AnonymousAnimus (talk), agree on the deletion of Cheeks (Actor) as a result of the facts brought up in this debate. Thank you for taking a part in settling this. I respect the rules of Wikipedia and its standardization of article sufficiency, so deletion is absolutely the best thing to do. As the creator of the article, I approve. —Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 23 August 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orioles-Pirates rivalry
- Orioles-Pirates 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)
- Braves-Pirates rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Pirates-Reds rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Cubs-Pirates rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Brewers-Pirates rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Cardinals-Pirates rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New rivalry articles where there may be no rivalry to speak of. Rather than CSD or PROD these brand new articles, I feel we should all have a talk. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all I'm rather tired of all the unnecessary rivalry articles popping up everywhere. Only a few rivalries in baseball are really notable enough for articles (Dodgers/Giants, Cards/Cubs, Yanks/Red Sox maybe a couple more)... these ones are certainly not. Spanneraol (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Since we are talking about tired should we delete all baseball articles pre-1986? I would love to discuss the "facts" as put forth in the article (i.e. that the cities share commuters, commerce, business, and other rivalries in common, that both fanbases and franchises most numerous World Series matchup are with each other, thus memories, connections, grudges, not to mention that both went all seven games and far into the 9th as records fell). Also for encyclopedic content that "feelings" and contemporary-centric mindsets are being offered as justification for deletion strikes me as odd. In 1985 one could make a fantastic case on why Yankees-Redsox should be deleted, and aside from tired and guessing there might not be a rivalry citing facts that neither has won anything in over seven seasons and one hasn't since World War I, that Philly is much much closer even Baltimore, that neither has even fought for a playoff spot in over four seasons. I admit Baltimore-Pittsburgh has cooled some from two decisive game seven bottom of the ninth championship decisions in eight years, but how could that get any hotter (isn't that a bit more then the 2000's Yankees-Redsox rivalry). I am aware of more memorable points of the rivalry but am unable to cite them currently, but that would define any true rivalry, bar stories, family memories, that debate I had in a Florida Home Depot in my Steelers jersey with the Annapolis guy that only wanted to talk about how the Pirates stole 1979 from him (no mention of the Ravens-Steelers from that guy at all, amazing). I encourage all to step into 1995 or even 1975 when the titans of seven game World Series were Baltimore and Pittsburgh, and also consider the proximity even today of the two metros.Hholt01 (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note to closing admin: Hholt01 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reds–Cardinals rivalry for more perspective. You're missing the key points here. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Sox-Rays rivalry, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orioles-Yankees rivalry, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Jays-Tigers rivalry, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athletics-Angels rivalry and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twins-Yankees rivalry were closed as delete, while Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brewers–Cubs rivalry was closed as keep. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reds–Cardinals rivalry for more perspective. You're missing the key points here. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Appreciate the links, at least academically and I did read about 75% of each (bottoms up for the sake of time). Being that all of these go back to the 1870s-1880s to some degree I would tend to agree on the face of Jays-Tigers/Twins-Yankees. Maybe you could clarify that in the Spring of 1986 the same logic in your first link could be used to delete Yankees/Redsox, after all Philadelphia and Baltimore are much closer geographically, Baltimore in the same division with much more recent championships then Boston. The final two links are more justifications of the "since the 1980's" or "since yesterday, only one playoff series" etc. Apples and oranges with all of my additions save possibly for Milwaukee, which ironically enough is the most contemporary one that instills boiling blood on both sides (an arrest, assault, ejection, threats of lawsuits, and thats just the first 20 years). Again the closest geographic team that threated championships for the Pirates is Baltimore and vice versa (except for that lone 1983 embarrassment with the Phillies), both geographically and statistically (both decisive 7th games, one series the last 1-3 comeback in sports, etc. etc.) Hholt01 (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I put a NPOV link to this discussion on the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Maryland and West Virginia wikiproject discussions. Also I get the feeling that some posters have seemingly gotten fatigued from all the Rays-Yankees, Tigers-Jays etc. etc. article starts, however I also feel that a few posters here are stating ad homeniems that may very well be justified from seeing one "invented" or a couple year old "rivalry" articles pop up, but there is yet to be any rebuttal or counter to the facts listed in these articles (not that those alone would justify deletion/merger but it would be a start). Each rivalry is obviously extremely unique. To lump in a freshly minted Orioles-Pirates with an ill-conceived Twins-Yankees exposes that not much reading of the articles is taking place. I did spend some hours learning about the rich texture and fabric of Cubs-Cardinals, Yankees-Redsox, and to my amazement some of what is included or justifying them I intentionally left out of these articles as weak/irrelevant or circumstantial to the teams, cities and fanbases, things such as managers being loosely connected decades ago on the other coast for the other league (how does that make New Yorkers envious/disagreeable of Bostonians again?) and radio stations fighting over a county in southern Illinois somehow fuels never contenting for a title Cubs vs. Cardinals (is it a rivalry when your "rival" hasn't won nor competed in a World Series since before World War I, what exactly are you rivaling with them for, 3rd place?). I do see tons of citations which I would love to fill with these pages, but mostly they just link to more of the same trivia that is interesting but not really directly fueling the flames of rival players or fanbases. I would encourage anyone that truly feels these articles are less than worthy to read them and join me in adding citations if you wish. For as much history and contention I have added I know there is tons more. If my intent was to throw up a Rays-Yankees type "rivalry" that was a flash in the pan type thing I would have included about twice as many lesser ones, my intent is factual encyclopedic articles. Interested in any factual thing that I might be missing though and appreciate your expertise. Hholt01 (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A rivalry is something that is tested through time and really affects the fanbases... the Pirates fans would be exhausted by all these rivalries. How exactly are the Pirates and Braves rivals? Just cause they met in two NLCS? That article is factualy inaccurate anyway because it says the first meeting was in the International League in 1877, when the Braves (then called the Red Caps) were in the National League that season, and had been playing professionally since long before then so it certainly wasn't "their first professional game"). The article about the Cubs rivalry doesnt even explain how they are rivals, just lists details that happened in various games, none of which would lead to a rivalry. Just cause two teams play a lot doesnt make them rivals... I could go on but simply put these articles dont need to exist. Spanneraol (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Atlanta Fixed (it would help if that franchise could decide where it wanted to be, besides the Hitting for the Cycle article on wiki is factually inaccurate with the same single date issue [12] you are proposing deletion for it as well?). As for your other non-fact based ad homeniems, the "details that happened in various games" just happen to be world, MLB or NL records, or events that most fans of most teams would be more than lucky to witness in their lifetimes (hitting for the cycle, hall of fame broadcaster's last game etc.). You contradict yourself with the Cubs and Braves, "just cause they met in two NLCS" (you meant to say two 7 game 9th inning decision, razor wire close NLCS's with one team knowingly facing rebuilding and one coming from worst to first and the decision on the last 7 game 9th inning being decided by a Pittsburgh native Brave who was an ex-Pirate ah, rivalries are made of these!) anyway you state "only" for the Braves NLCS then attack the "lists" on the Cubs, both articles have the same lists of world, MLB or NL firsts. There is nothing "only" about the Braves. Hholt01 (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My point was.. what makes these rivalries lasting events other than just something that lasts a year or two and can be covered in the relevant season articles. Most of your articles do not say why these should be considered rivalries and your listing of facts that occurred in these games doesnt say why these events add up to any sort of lasting rivalry. Spanneraol (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all The articles all fail WP:GNG with a lack of multiple sources of non-routine coverage from independent, reliable sources. In the absence of these sources being identified, the articles appear to be original research on rivalries weakly supported by citations to a statistics website, baseball-reference.com. —Bagumba (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Without one fact to back up this statement I'm tempted to say your post violates these same things and that most wikiarticles violate these especially when only 48 hours old. 95% of all these so-called "violations" are pulled from Wiki's own articles on hitting for the cycle, ballparks, Baseball Hall of Fame, MLB records etc. Does that count as an external citation, No, but by your logic there are dozens of baseball related wiki articles now up for deletion? If your concern is GNG, Routine and Independent then fix your concern with articles that are 48 hours old, your concerns defeat the entire purpose of Wikipedia which is that NO article is complete, every one is up for constructive editing months and even years later. The goal here is not to pass each and every wiki test in the first 48 or 72 hours of article building, its to collectively and constructively improve them over months and years. There are baseball articles on this site that don't pass your concerns after being up for 72 months, is "delete all" their destination as well? The 1959 Harvey Haddix game for instance is referenced on around a dozen other wikipages, if we all followed your advice it would be time for wiki style book burning? Please excuse my hyperbole but when you make a statement with no facts at all that several wikipolicies are being violated on 48 hour old articles, um seriously what 48 hour old wikiarticle ever passed all those in the history of this place, and if that's the standard why have edit buttons on articles that can't go live without already being perfect? Hholt01 (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply asking for more time does not address the concern that there is no proof of notability of these subjects. Nobody expects the article to be perfect, but it does need to demonstrate notability. If you are not ready to have your work scrutinized, you can consider developing this on your own user page before adding it to the mainspace. Please assume good faith that participants are looking for sources, but remember that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. —Bagumba (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has asked for more time, please assume good faith on my side as well :-). The only editors who are requesting things what will take more time (thus asking for it) all wish to delete, so to negate those justifications for deletion is changing your vote? (just asking) Also it isn't a great thing to bundle articles that have one team in particular in common and use the same broad brush (comparing to a Yankees-Rays non-rivalry) to justify all of their deletions as if they were exactly identical, and then have editors complaining how "tired" this is? I always assume good faith, until the facts or lack there of prove otherwise, it is a two way street (if you want to complain that encyclopedic information or effort makes you tired, or you fail to distinguish between two separate rivalries maybe wiki isn't the place for you) Not addressing you in particular here but just general sentiments. Love to get back to the good faith road of analyzing the facts of each article individually without abstract "feelings" coming into play, I will be most happy to start down that new road.Hholt01 (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply asking for more time does not address the concern that there is no proof of notability of these subjects. Nobody expects the article to be perfect, but it does need to demonstrate notability. If you are not ready to have your work scrutinized, you can consider developing this on your own user page before adding it to the mainspace. Please assume good faith that participants are looking for sources, but remember that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. —Bagumba (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. Not only do all these articles fail WP:GNG by a wide margin, there's nothing in any of these articles asserts the notability of these rivalries in any way -- indeed, they do not even assert the presence of a rivalry between the two teams. Heck, given the content of the articles, they could all simply be retitled "List of cool things that happened in games between (x) and the Pirates", which, while it might be interesting, makes them nothing more than lists of trivia. -Dewelar (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If they don't assert the "presence" what exactly is the problem? If you are against lists in wiki sports articles there are about 500 up for deletion, tons in the baseball section alone. Hholt01 (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's obvious to me that you aren't being reasonable about these articles. You also obviously don't understand the concept of a rivalry, or perhaps don't have a firm grasp on certain basic Wikipedia concepts, or (more likely) both. I will leave it to others to continue belaboring the points. -Dewelar (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If they don't assert the "presence" what exactly is the problem? If you are against lists in wiki sports articles there are about 500 up for deletion, tons in the baseball section alone. Hholt01 (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Thank you for bringing this up. I agree that the rivalries articles are getting bloated and diminishing the articles about legitimate sports rivalries. If you could do this for more than just the Pirates, i.e. other teams as well, it would improve the overall quality of the articles IMHO. I did make a notation that the Pirates-Reds have met in the NLCS more than any other teams, but that is probably all it's worth, a notation, not an entirely separate article unless citations can be made that prove something more substantial. TempDog123 (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Appreciate the notation, and would welcome any more facts either here or on the articles. Hholt01 (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For notability and deletion I scanned what possibly you all could be referring to since aside from the Atlanta date no one will give specifics, this is what I found as far as "notability" on other rivalry articles, Giants-Yankees more than 2 months after being created and after a deletion proposal was defeated more than a month prior . . . sad, really sad and then more than a year later, Giants-Yankees has still not cited sources (in fact not one single solitary source either on wikipedia or off, and has warnings that it doesn't meet wikipedia quality standards. No one has asked for more time (except the "delete all" votes have basically required it to meet "standards") and the notability of all wikiarticles can always be improved, but to allow other rivalry articles a much much lower standard (I'm sorry it appears no standard was held to some for over a year) smacks as regionalism in the worst sense. I'm not trying to pass off a Rays-Yankees born yesterday bad blood as a long standing rivalry, and you'll never guess the complete lack of anything I found justifying Redsox-Yankees article when they had only competed for a chance at a pennant far fewer times then Braves-Pirates, Reds-Pirates and Orioles-Pirates for years and years, not to mention the slow and cumbersome wikiarticles on other rivalries. My submitted articles after 72 hours are by far better cited for notability than all baseball rivalry articles on wikipedia after more than a month-sometimes a year, and notability is defined on the rivalry page as the history of competition between fans, players and teams thus the so-called "trivia" content more than satisfies notability for any "year old" wiki rivalry article. Is there a lot more needed, yes, and I have been growing them addressing the "notability" as has been pointed out by the editors here. Thank you for your consideration. Hholt01 (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your articles dont explain why these would be considered rivalries. All it has is a collection of events that happened in games between these teams, but nothing anywhere that explains a rivalry. Plenty of articles exist that discuss long standing yankees-red sox rivalry and how it affects the fanbase... How exactly are the Pirates and Orioles rivals? They met a couple of times in the World Series in the 70s.. but that doesnt make them rivals... by the way, the team from the 19th century is not the same Orioles team as the current one, a fact not made clear in the article. The Reds, Cubs, Brewers, Cards are all in the same division but that doesnt create any longstanding rivalry... None of these articles explain why these meetings should be considered rivalries. Spanneraol (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the off-chance that these articles survive the deletion process, I have updated the Orioles-Pirates article to eliminate mentions of the 19th century Orioles. I also removed a couple of broken links. -Dewelar (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles here are so far original research about a rivalry built upon piecemeal facts about games between the two teams. What we need are multiple, non-routine coverage from independent, reliable sources that talk about the rivalry. Then, what looks now like trivia will instead be deemed notable in the context of a notable rivalry. Please note that other stuff exists is not a strong argument to keep. The argument is even weaker in your comparison to to the Yankees – Red Sox rivalry, which cites entire books devoted to the subject. —Bagumba (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see where you are coming from, however "rivalry" even defined by Wiki is abstract, I have however added more external links and will continue to do so for these articles. Please don't misunderstand I am not using other stuff exists as a crutch but when you get multiple editors speaking about abstract concepts that frankly would be considered very different 1,000 miles away all you really have to go on is other stuff exists to try and comprehend what type of article and notability you are requiring. The biggest observation with all of those is that to compare these articles (each very unique and different so the "___ all" as a vote is a stretch) . . . to compare these articles apples to apples, I am seeing they are much more cited and mature in a notability sense than any other 72 hour old rivalry article, again not an excuse but you are trying to make me see an abstract, sources are coming and notability but there are bars in Ohio and West Virginia that would think you a fool to consider Redsox-Yankees a rivalry, doesn't mean it should be nominated for deletion despite having less citations after a month. I get the basic point and will continue to source notability. Hholt01 (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even people in Ohio would consider Yanks/Red Sox a rivalry.. do you really hope to compare Pirates/Orioles to the Yanks/Red Sox or Dodgers/Giants who both have long histories of acrimonious rivalries? The point isnt in sourcing its in prooving any sort of real rivalry exists here rather than just a typical divisional contest.. You could write similar articles about any two teams in the league but they'd get deleted too. Why dont you spend your time on a more worthy endeavor, such as improving the Pirates season articles? Most of the information you're adding here could and should be added to those articles instead. Spanneraol (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see where you are coming from, however "rivalry" even defined by Wiki is abstract, I have however added more external links and will continue to do so for these articles. Please don't misunderstand I am not using other stuff exists as a crutch but when you get multiple editors speaking about abstract concepts that frankly would be considered very different 1,000 miles away all you really have to go on is other stuff exists to try and comprehend what type of article and notability you are requiring. The biggest observation with all of those is that to compare these articles (each very unique and different so the "___ all" as a vote is a stretch) . . . to compare these articles apples to apples, I am seeing they are much more cited and mature in a notability sense than any other 72 hour old rivalry article, again not an excuse but you are trying to make me see an abstract, sources are coming and notability but there are bars in Ohio and West Virginia that would think you a fool to consider Redsox-Yankees a rivalry, doesn't mean it should be nominated for deletion despite having less citations after a month. I get the basic point and will continue to source notability. Hholt01 (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your articles dont explain why these would be considered rivalries. All it has is a collection of events that happened in games between these teams, but nothing anywhere that explains a rivalry. Plenty of articles exist that discuss long standing yankees-red sox rivalry and how it affects the fanbase... How exactly are the Pirates and Orioles rivals? They met a couple of times in the World Series in the 70s.. but that doesnt make them rivals... by the way, the team from the 19th century is not the same Orioles team as the current one, a fact not made clear in the article. The Reds, Cubs, Brewers, Cards are all in the same division but that doesnt create any longstanding rivalry... None of these articles explain why these meetings should be considered rivalries. Spanneraol (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For notability and deletion I scanned what possibly you all could be referring to since aside from the Atlanta date no one will give specifics, this is what I found as far as "notability" on other rivalry articles, Giants-Yankees more than 2 months after being created and after a deletion proposal was defeated more than a month prior . . . sad, really sad and then more than a year later, Giants-Yankees has still not cited sources (in fact not one single solitary source either on wikipedia or off, and has warnings that it doesn't meet wikipedia quality standards. No one has asked for more time (except the "delete all" votes have basically required it to meet "standards") and the notability of all wikiarticles can always be improved, but to allow other rivalry articles a much much lower standard (I'm sorry it appears no standard was held to some for over a year) smacks as regionalism in the worst sense. I'm not trying to pass off a Rays-Yankees born yesterday bad blood as a long standing rivalry, and you'll never guess the complete lack of anything I found justifying Redsox-Yankees article when they had only competed for a chance at a pennant far fewer times then Braves-Pirates, Reds-Pirates and Orioles-Pirates for years and years, not to mention the slow and cumbersome wikiarticles on other rivalries. My submitted articles after 72 hours are by far better cited for notability than all baseball rivalry articles on wikipedia after more than a month-sometimes a year, and notability is defined on the rivalry page as the history of competition between fans, players and teams thus the so-called "trivia" content more than satisfies notability for any "year old" wiki rivalry article. Is there a lot more needed, yes, and I have been growing them addressing the "notability" as has been pointed out by the editors here. Thank you for your consideration. Hholt01 (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Appreciate the notation, and would welcome any more facts either here or on the articles. Hholt01 (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your efforts do seem sincere. However, Wikipedia can only document what has been reliably sourced. Even the new external links that have been added talk about a "rival" in the generic sense that would apply to any opponent. Otherwise, the sources discuss a rivalry as it applies to a specific season. As Spanneraol stated, we are looking for evidence of a rivalry beyond a game or a season. This would require sources that each document the rivalry over a longer time span and not multiple sources that only talk about a single season that is used to synthesize a larger-scale rivalry. Without such sources, regardless of how accurate talk in bars may be, you are encouraged to redirect your energy and improve other articles related to the Pirates.—Bagumba (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After having read some of the other rivalry articles I will concede that only applying things like LCS or 7 game world series isn't a full definition. I can see how moving a few of these to season or entries on the Pirates and other teams articles might be appropriate. Again though no one has really addressed the fact that these are very different rivalries, I can see for the sake of time bunching them (I bunched them to create) but I would put forth that ones like Reds-Pirates and Cubs-Pirates should stay (I would still vote for everyone save maybe Brewers and possibly O's but I'm on the fence with that given how they competed for titles to the last inning of seven games the same generation and then are competing for the cellar and #1 draft picks another generation). If the consensus is delete I would hope that they are judged individually, especially Reds and Cubs. Cardinals and Braves (back-to-back last out bottom of ninth seven games battles, and bad blood even in 2011 19 inning games) are strong as well. Hholt01 (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your efforts do seem sincere. However, Wikipedia can only document what has been reliably sourced. Even the new external links that have been added talk about a "rival" in the generic sense that would apply to any opponent. Otherwise, the sources discuss a rivalry as it applies to a specific season. As Spanneraol stated, we are looking for evidence of a rivalry beyond a game or a season. This would require sources that each document the rivalry over a longer time span and not multiple sources that only talk about a single season that is used to synthesize a larger-scale rivalry. Without such sources, regardless of how accurate talk in bars may be, you are encouraged to redirect your energy and improve other articles related to the Pirates.—Bagumba (talk) 07:42, 21 August 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 22:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PhytonInc
- PhytonInc (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:GNG and WP:ORG. A Google News search & Google News Archive search for "PhytonInc" produce no hits. A Google News search produces no hits and & a Google News Archive search for "Phyton microcontrollers" produce 4 hits. 3 of the 4 are PR pieces and 1 is a small mention in another product's description. Author claims to be from the "Phyton Team" as seen in the description of the images uploaded by the author File:CP40 and 48.jpg, File:G-41 2.jpg, File:Phyton logo.gif (apparently I don't know how to link files). User Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) declined the speedy deletion nomination by TreasuryTag (talk · contribs) stating that, "not that easy to make this kind of thing." OlYellerTalktome 18:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There doesn't seem to be notable third-party mentions.SwisterTwister talk 20:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of third-party coverage ╟─TreasuryTag►fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale─╢ 17:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, no assertion of notability, and searches didn't pick anything up.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Tech business that makes device programmers for engineering and volume manufacturing, IDEs, C compilers, assemblers, software debuggers and simulators, in-circuit, JTAG and other on-chip emulators for 8- to 32-bit microcontrollers. Not exactly sure how to parse that list, but the only references are to websites of their customers, and nothing better seems to be out there. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MILL. No evidence of any particular innovation or notable product. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:00, 22 August 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 speedily deleted under A10 non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ASSort
- ASSort (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 sorting algorithm posted by its author. Prod declined. Hairhorn (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I created an AfD shortly after apparently. Working on getting it cleaned up. OlYellerTalktome 18:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article about an algorithm with no indication of importance. I don't see a CSD point that applies. PROD was removed by author of article and algorithm. Google News search and Google News Archive search produce no hits for the subject. Fails WP:GNG and I see no other inclusion guidelines that would apply as the the author, Ofek Ron, is also not notable. OlYellerTalktome 18:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Completely non-notable. Lacks even one independent secondary source WP:RS to support notability as required by WP:GNG. No one should be surprised that Google searches turn up nothing, given that it's not even a good algorithm. If the the array is almost sorted, it makes absolutely no sense to do all that copying over to a linked list and then back. If you knew the array was almost sorted, wouldn't you simply insertion sort? This is just WP:MADEUP WP:SOAP. Msnicki (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per this comment by the author, this is clearly original research. The author is encouraged to submit the algorithm to standard academic journals for appropriate peer review. If it gets published, then a Wikipedia article can be written about it. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete for all the reasons stated above. In addition, I have tagged for Speedy Delete under A10 (duplicates Sorting algorithm and also as hoax, as I think this hits the borderline for speedy delete as hoax. Safiel (talk) 21:26, 17 August 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. Courcelles 22:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Major League Baseball All-Star Game records
- Major League Baseball All-Star Game records (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 excessive listing of statistics. While you might not think this listing is "excessive", I'd say that a page made up 100% of random statistics is excessive. There is also no particular notability to any of these "records". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Random? check the meaning of that word. I think you mean "indiscriminate". But they're the notable statistics people keep track of, and each of them has a specific Wikipedia article about it to show notability, and each game is individually notable, so the combination is about as much the opposite of indiscriminate as baseball statistics can get. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC) .[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The list could use some referencing and cleanup work, but it's a valid stand alone list. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The page is indiscriminate per WP:NOT#STATS. The game is an exhibition game, with players playing only a few innings before being removed. I doubt the records have many sources of non-routine coverage from independent sources. —Bagumba (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Major League Baseball All-Star Game. Spanneraol (talk) 15:56, 21 August 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 22:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Autobiography of Frau Adolf Hitler
- The Autobiography of Frau Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-published novel of questionable notability. Google search on "Frank Sanello" "Autobiography of Frau Adolf Hitler" shows only 14 unique results. Article appears to have been written by Sanello himself. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the article Frank Sanello is currently proposed for deletion. — Scientizzle 18:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no indication of notability for this novel (nor for the author, which however is a different issue) --bonadea contributions talk 20:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Not listed at World Cat, obviously promotional MadCow257 (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable spam. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:08, 24 August 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 22:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cult Brands
- Cult Brands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Looks like an essay. Mattg82 (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Complete bollocks that's selling something: These are the days when the relationship between brands and their customers has become much more complex. For one thing, consumers simply know more than they used to. A customer spurned is a customer lost. Some brands realise this phenomenon wherein the customers have a shared consciousness that connects members to the brands and one another. They uphold rituals and traditions that involve public greeting to recognize and acknowledge fellow Brand Lovers. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or userfy for rework. I disagree it's selling something (The notion that cult brands exist? Bah, just check Apple. [13]. The German Wikipedia article de:Kultmarke has a good number of other references). But there's definitely spades of unsourced opinion in the English article, like in the paragraph cited above. It would take a complete rewrite to make it follow the main pillars of WP:V and NPOV. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite or Delete - If commercial promotions are noteworthy, which I dispute, the topic of this article is even more noteworthy, which I regret. The consensus elsewhere retains pages describing even the most trivial commercial promotions, so this page documenting world-scale mega-promotions should be preserved also. However, nothing good can be said about the current article, and its vanished creator, who never did anything else in Wikipedia, is unlikely to come to its rescue. Ornithikos (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a notable topic, with ample news results talking about it. The article would need to be rewritten. If it is deleted, please don't salt it or anything to keep it from being recreated by someone who wants to take the time to do something with it. Maybe just reduce it to a simple stub. Dream Focus 03:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Immediately as Copyright Violation - in looking up the material from this article, it is completely a word-for-word ripoff from many sites, which all seem to be spam-type sites. Having on Wikipedia seems like an attempt to reinforce the ranking of these spam sites. -- Avanu (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MIRRORS? There are many spam sites that use chunks of Wikipedia. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This article was created on 06:31, 9 February 2010. It had the first sentence "These are the days when the relationship between brands and their customers has become" at that time. I searched for that on Google and found many articles created AFTER that time period that used it. The definition section is perhaps a copyright violation, it copying it from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. [14] Dream Focus 18:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MIRRORS? There are many spam sites that use chunks of Wikipedia. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:12, 22 August 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 22:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Davenport - Singer Songwriter
- Arthur Davenport - Singer Songwriter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Autobiographical/promotional article for a musician of questionable notability. Article is largely unsourced, copied from the artist's website. Google search on "Arthur Davenport" "Reality Bends" shows mainly primary sources and sales links - little significant coverage from independent sources. According to Billboard.com, he has never had an album or single on any chart. Only reference is to a "review" from Listen.com, but that only shows up on text provided by the artist to various sites - a search on Listen.com shows no results for this artist. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- G12 wholesale copyvio of the Biography tab on his website. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it's not a copyvio - the source, which makes clear that it is WP:Autobiography, carries a release under GFDL and CC-BY-SA. JohnCD (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Autobigraphy of a musician without any coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. It seems he's kicked around here and there and managed to make a living as a musician, but hasn't really been noted. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Entirely self promtional article about a non notable musician. Among his own claims to fame are the facts that he is a dropout who won a battle of the bands and was once featured on NPR performing his song. His only listed gigs consist of performing locally for 30 mins before the movie starts. You must be joking. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no notability when i searched in a search engineCurb Chain (talk) 19:39, 23 August 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 Two envelopes problem. Courcelles 22:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two envelopes problem/sources
- Two envelopes problem/sources (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Author seems to think an introduction is unnecessary but this is a list to go with the two envelopes problem article. I feel it falls firmly into the link farm area. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy or move to talk page or separate workpage. The content does not belong as a standalone article per WP:LINKFARM. The Two envelopes problem article appears to be adequately sourced, and if the "further reading" section (which I've never liked) is so long that it necessitates a fork article, then maybe there are too many "further reading" recommendations. I recommend one of these options instead of outright deletion, in case the person/people working on the parent article might want to use these sources as references at a later time. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, just move it to a collapse box on the talk page.—S Marshall T/C 21:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy merge into Two envelopes problem#Further reading. —Ruud 22:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 17:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but either merge into Two envelopes problem#Further reading or rename to something like List of articles and books discussing the two-envelope paradox. Notwithstanding WP:LINKFARM, the two-envelope paradox is special in that, in spite of a vigorous debate, nothing resembling consensus as to how to resolve the paradox has emerged in the scientific community. Even the papers that purport to give an overview of the arguments give spotty coverage, and our Wikipedia article is no exception. The list would be more useful if it was annotated, but I realize that requires a tremendous effort. As far as I'm concerned it can be culled somewhat by removing unpublished or self-published sources. --Lambiam 17:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Move it to a talkpage section and collapse, and then particular items can be moved to Two envelopes problem#Further reading at editorial discretion — frankie (talk) 17:56, 21 August 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 List of colleges and universities in Florida. Courcelles 22:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of Florida universities by admission rates
- List of Florida universities by admission rates (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 useless, contextless list. This is a non-notable subject, and synthesis was used to put it together. No sources cover the subject of comparing "Florida universities by admission rates". Getting this information from the cited source requires a totally DIY approach: filtering data on U.S. colleges and universities down to Florida, and then sorting it yourself. The current WP list doesn't even include all the schools in the source, which includes some (but not all) community colleges and some for-profit schools, so a lot of the data is edited out arbitrarily. The list appears to have been put together with an element of boosterism for Florida International University, which is billed as the "most selective university in Florida" in its article. As I said on the talk page these problems aren't fixable by editing or merging. Cúchullain t/c 16:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with List of colleges and universities in Florida. The reasoning being, despite all the valid criticism above, it is a useful summary that students, parents, and teachers, are interested in (many of whom contribute to Wikipedia). Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 00:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If they were so interested in it you'd think sources outside Wikipedia would have a list like this. But they don't.--Cúchullain t/c 12:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The State University System of Florida actually provides a list of Florida universities based upon "Admission and Registration Headcounts" here. --Nemesis63 (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First, that's not a list, it's a table, you still have to sort the data yourself. Second, it doesn't compare state universities to private schools. Third, it has totally different numbers that contradict the numbers given in this list. This list is truly unsalvageable.--Cúchullain t/c 20:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The State University System of Florida actually provides a list of Florida universities based upon "Admission and Registration Headcounts" here. --Nemesis63 (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If they were so interested in it you'd think sources outside Wikipedia would have a list like this. But they don't.--Cúchullain t/c 12:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with List of colleges and universities in Florida, as suggested above. I believe that the some of the criticisms need to be addressed, but facts are stubborn things; FIU is the most selective university in the state based upon admissions numbers. The numbers are taken from a reputable source, and you suggest that "community colleges" are not fully integrated, yet the article was originally intended to be made of "universities" (hence "List of Florida universities by admission rates"). --Nemesis63 (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Most of the individual articles already contain their admission rate, so no information is being lost. Merging with list of colleges and universities in Florida, which is just a plain list, is a bad idea. It would be adding one bald statistic to some of the entries with no context. The list doesn't include more important figures like the size of the university, freshman enrollment, tuition, number of faculty, etc, it shouldn't include this either. And as I say excluding some schools but keeping others is an arbitrary limiting of the data (ie, original research).--Cúchullain t/c 12:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Cuchullain, I think you make a great point. I believe that if we added that information (enrollment, tuition, faculty, admissions, etc.) to the List of colleges and universities in Florida it would add much more substance to that article. --Nemesis63 (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanding that list is a discussion to have at its talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 20:02, 18 August 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 BRAVIA. Courcelles 22:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sony XBR8
- Sony XBR8 (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 not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- merge as usual -- or at least as ought to be usual. These separate articles should never have been made in the first place, but a merge will deal with them. No argument given against a merge,. WP:Deletion policy requires considering such alternatives to deletion before coming here. Nobody can know whether it might indeed be individually notable in any case, without checking sources, and the nom gives no indication of having done so, in this or the other articles DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into BRAVIA and please stop using AfD as the first step. --Kvng (talk) 16:42, 22 August 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. This is a borderline case between a keep and a no consensus closure, but the material difference between them is nil, and there is in no way a consensus to delete. Courcelles 23:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth Rauscher
- Elizabeth Rauscher (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 apparent claim of notability. Doesn't seem to meet either WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. See also the remarks on the article talk page.TR 15:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC) TR 15:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I now see this article has been deleted before in 2008. Probably should have been speedied.TR 15:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I closed it as G4 on the basis that it was essentially the same as the earlier article; User:Slim Virgin asked me to revert for further discussion, and rather than go through Deletion Review, it seemed simpler to do just that. I don't see the need to relist, as it was just one day. There is at least one relevant additional reference, as now visible on Jack Sarfatti. At this point, I have no opinion; I await further arguments. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Rauscher was the co-founder in 1975 of the Berkeley Fundamental Physics Group, an informal group of physicists who met every Friday for brainstorming sessions, and whose work helped to keep alive certain philosophical ideas about quantum physics that now form the basis of quantum information science. As a result, the group's work is being explored and re-evaluated, most recently by David Kaiser of MIT in his How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture and the Quantum Revival (2011). Rauscher was a central member of this group—and Kaiser refers to her quite a bit—arranging meetings and introducing people to each other. Her bio should be given a chance to be developed carefully, based on Kaiser's research and any future publications spawned by it.
We have articles on most of the other key members of the Fundamental Physics Group: Henry Stapp, Fred Alan Wolf, Nick Herbert, Fritjof Capra, Jack Sarfatti, and John Clauser. Rauscher was, I believe, the only woman member, as well as co-founder, so it would be unfortunate to delete her bio just as people are getting interested in the history of the group. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 05:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: She is mentioned (very briefly) by Hugh Gusterson, in Nature 476, 278–279 (18 August 2011 doi:10.1038/476278a Published online 17 August 2011 ) in his review of the book How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival David Kaiser W. W. Norton: 2011. 372 pp. $26.95, £19.99. and although many of us might find some of her stuff fringe I think there is enough for notability. This quote seems to me to help This meant that some of the key work in quantum mechanics in the 1970s and 1980s was done by a motley crew of young physicists, who worked largely outside universities and published in obscure journals such as Epistemological Letters — “a hand-typed, mimeographed newsletter”. They included Elizabeth Rauscher, Jack Sarfatti, Fred Alan Wolf, Saul-Paul Sirag, John Clauser and Fritjof Capra. The centre of their intellectual universe was the San Francisco Bay area. Many were associated with the Fundamental Fysiks Group, an open discussion group about quantum mechanics that started meeting in 1975 at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California.. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk))
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have also mentioned it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete. Rauscher's record in physics is remarkably average (e.g. h-index of 5 over a 50 year career). The comment above erroneously argues the founding of the Fundamental Physics Group (FPG) toward Rauscher's notability. FPG is not an article itself, but rather a redirect to a paragraph in the Jack Sarfatti article. Rauscher is mentioned in 1 sentence there, though there's no sourcing for her or her role in FPG. In fact, the Kaiser lecture, which is the main source in that paragraph, does not even mention Rauscher at all. It mainly focuses on Jack Sarfatti and Fred Alan Wolf. The argument that articles on other members of FPG exist is nothing more than WP:WAX. In fact, those people are all demonstrably notable, for example John Clauser (h-index 21, Wolf Prize in Physics), Nick Herbert (author of Quantum reality : beyond the new physics with WorldCat holdings >1500), or Henry Stapp (95 peer-reviewed papers, most 1st authored h-index 16) and their articles are generally well-sourced. Rauscher's record of accomplishment is very obviously not in the league of these folks. Rather, she seems to be more associated lately with Nassim Haramein, whose WP article has been repeatedly deleted for lack of notability. As for the Nature source cited above, the sum total of content there is "They included Elizabeth Rauscher,...(list of others)" – this the archetypical trivial mention. Indeed, everything one might consider in assessing Rauscher indicates that she's a minor figure at best and not notable in the way WP guidelines require. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Clear keep. Besides the mention in this article in Nature yesterday, there are 176 references in Google Books, including top sources like this University Chicago Press book or this from Taylor & Francis. --JN466 17:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More trivial mentions. For instance, the University of Chicago book cite is actually an article about Henry Stapp: "A Science for Jacob: Henry Stapp and the Bell's Theorem Group". Here's the entirety of the content on Rauscher: "Zukav...thanks...Elizabeth Rauscher...". It says precisely nothing about Rauscher – nothing more than a name drop. Agricola44 (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- That's not the entirety of the content; the entirety of the content is, "Elizabeth Rauscher, who founded the Fundamental Physics Group and encouraged nonphysicists to attend". She is likewise described as having "organized the Fundamental Fysicks Group at the Berkeley lab in 1974] in Newsweek. --JN466 18:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry I left out those extra 11 words. The point I'm making is that it's one part of one sentence that's devoted to her. Sources all seem to repeat the same talking point, essentially that she organized this informal group of physicists (a group not notable per se) and encouraged people to join it. Perhaps you're arguing that the number of sources repeating this is high enough to add up to notability? Agricola44 (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- I could have added the next 100 words too, because the book goes on to say that among those attending the group Rauscher founded at Berkeley, "Zukav lists Fritjof Capra, John Clauser, who would later help to establish experimentally the truth of Bell's Theorem, and Fred Wolfe, who would go on to write a number of popular books on the mysticism of physics. In short, this was a small group of intellectuals who first gathered in the early 1970s at Berkeley to explore how consciousness and energy might be related and then met annually at Esalen in the late '70s and early '80s to continue their conversations. What they said, and particularly what some of them wrote, would have a major impact on the American alternative religious scene." Rauscher founded a group that was to have a notable impact on 1970s and 1980s culture and beyond, and will be of interest to readers. --JN466 19:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet again Rauscher is not mentioned in your prolix post. As I said above, these individuals (John Clauser et al.) are demonstrably notable for work they did individually, not because of being associated with some informal group. I think this point is crucial. The same cannot be said of Rauscher, as her remarkably average scientific record attests. You're basically pushing the view that Rauscher inherits notability by association with these people. Agricola44 (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- She is a notable figure in the history of science as the founder and organizer of a group that has exerted an influence no one expected them to have at the time they were active. If she fails PROF or AUTHOR, fine, that doesn't matter; there are other criteria. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What other criteria? You seem to be arguing that Rauscher is notable for inviting important physicists to meet "every Friday for brainstorming sessions", even though the subsequent "intellectual fruits" of the individuals in this group do not seem to include any real contributions from Rauscher herself. In other words, she's notable because of being associated with these people. I consider it differently. I see no substantive sources that document Rauscher, herself or her work, only trivial mentions. I see a very mediocre record in physics, as gleaned from the standard citation databases, over a 50-year career. I see no significant positions held, no prestigious awards, no widely held books she's authored (unless you consider the holographic multiverse book in 68 libraries to be "widely held"), no origination of a siginificant new concept, and so on and so forth. In short, I can't find anything in the gamut of notability guidelines under which she would pass. Sorry. Agricola44 (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm arguing that she's notable because notable writers, including academics, have written about her. All the Wikipedia buzz words (PROF, AUTHOR, etc) refer to a guideline that offers suggestions, but that no one is obliged to follow. The bottom line in any notability consideration is the question: "are reliable sources writing about this person or topic?" And the answer here is yes. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 04:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree, except that you've left out the critical point that the sources are all trivial. The arguments you and several others have used here suggest you're willing to "lower the bar" for this case. Why? Agricola44 (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm sorry I left out those extra 11 words. The point I'm making is that it's one part of one sentence that's devoted to her. Sources all seem to repeat the same talking point, essentially that she organized this informal group of physicists (a group not notable per se) and encouraged people to join it. Perhaps you're arguing that the number of sources repeating this is high enough to add up to notability? Agricola44 (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- More trivial mentions. For instance, the University of Chicago book cite is actually an article about Henry Stapp: "A Science for Jacob: Henry Stapp and the Bell's Theorem Group". Here's the entirety of the content on Rauscher: "Zukav...thanks...Elizabeth Rauscher...". It says precisely nothing about Rauscher – nothing more than a name drop. Agricola44 (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. The delete arguments seem to be confusing notability and importance. WP is full of articles about obscure ancient Romans who unremarkably held a few offices and are known from only scattered mentions in ancient histories, or Renaissance humanists who wrote a few letters to Erasmus and produced some texts as editors/translators but no extant original work, or minor 19th-century artists who hung out with Rodin and created work for local parks and churches. These are all historically notable because they contribute to a more complete understanding of intellectual or cultural history, but there may not be a monograph or even a journal article devoted exclusively to the individual; their articles are compiled from short passages or mentions in a larger context. I don't see what the encyclopedia would gain from deleting such figures. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF exists is not a proper argument in a deletion debate.TR 08:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, no. You miss the point: that figures can be notable while being minor. WP:OSE explicitly cautions editors not to use it for trying to reinvent the wheel, and addresses the difference between notability and importance (major/minor): see WP:OSE#Precedent in usage. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And you seem to misunderstand the meaning of notability on wikipedia. The only true measure of notability on wikipedia is, if a person has been subject of significant coverage in independent sources per WP:GNG. If yet to see any of the keep arguments produce an explicit example of such coverage.TR 13:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kaiser alone contains about forty pages discussing Rauscher. --JN466 15:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability policy says that "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." That's self-evidently the case here, since someone who doesn't know who Elizabeth Rauscher is (like me) can read the article and come away with a knowledge of what her significance is. The following remark from an IP also helps place this figure in her cultural context; it's a stated goal of the Foundation to involve more women editors and to improve coverage of topics pertaining to women. Again, I don't see what WP gains by deleting such figures, or how such deletion contributes to the goal of providing comprehensive coverage of encyclopedic topics. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kaiser alone contains about forty pages discussing Rauscher. --JN466 15:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And you seem to misunderstand the meaning of notability on wikipedia. The only true measure of notability on wikipedia is, if a person has been subject of significant coverage in independent sources per WP:GNG. If yet to see any of the keep arguments produce an explicit example of such coverage.TR 13:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, no. You miss the point: that figures can be notable while being minor. WP:OSE explicitly cautions editors not to use it for trying to reinvent the wheel, and addresses the difference between notability and importance (major/minor): see WP:OSE#Precedent in usage. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF exists is not a proper argument in a deletion debate.TR 08:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment "At that time, nationwide, women earned only 5% of the undergraduate degrees in physics, and less than 2% of the physics PhDs." 98.163.75.189 (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Even back when it was in this state, that physicist was clearly notable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is another good example of the puffery that might confuse some folks who are not familiar with the internal workings of the academic world. Consider "She was a professor of nuclear science and astrophysics with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory from 1962 until 1979, and served as its chair from 1974 to 1977" – implying she was chair of a department of nuclear science and astrophysics. Of course, chair of a department is often a very good indicator of notability, but this statement applies to the informal physics group we've been discussing (see Rauscher's own CV). Therefore, this statement is extremely misleading, at best because "chair" is completely informal in this case, not a formal and proper title as recognized in academia. Makes all the difference. Agricola44 (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- If a condescending tone is necessary to make your case, it's probably based on preconceptions of what's "important" rather than whether the sources support including this figure as a participant in a particular moment of intellectual history. Anyone familiar with the "internal workings of the academic world" would know that a woman active in physics during this period is notable as an aspect of women's history if sufficient RS document her activities. The early stage of women entering a traditionally all-male field is notable historically. As Slim Virgin and others have pointed out, there are broader historical considerations here than there would be for a BLP under WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. An argument for deletion that evokes "notability by association" is in error, because it applies to mere association, not active participation as a minor figure. Rauscher was a participant, not somebody's cousin or lover who was merely "associated". Cynwolfe (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So it seems we agree then that she was a minor figure. This would seem to put the burden on those who want to keep the article to show that she made contributions as a minor participant. In turn, this would mean showing publications that had some sort of impact – thus bringing us back to the usual metrics of citations, h-index, book holdings, and the like. However, it's already conclusively established that Rauscher's grades here are way below what we take as showing notability. Agricola44 (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Yes, I absolutely agree that she was minor figure; but "minor" is a judgment of importance, not a consideration of WP notability, as there are plenty of minor figures (of the sort I listed above) who are historically notable; that is, they contribute to a comprehensive understanding of a particular intellectual movement, military campaign, or government, and their participation is noted in RS. That's why I think the emphasis on this discussion should remain on whether the sources are sufficient, and whether her notability can be stated in a way that makes it clear to someone who hadn't heard of her before. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is another good example of the puffery that might confuse some folks who are not familiar with the internal workings of the academic world. Consider "She was a professor of nuclear science and astrophysics with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory from 1962 until 1979, and served as its chair from 1974 to 1977" – implying she was chair of a department of nuclear science and astrophysics. Of course, chair of a department is often a very good indicator of notability, but this statement applies to the informal physics group we've been discussing (see Rauscher's own CV). Therefore, this statement is extremely misleading, at best because "chair" is completely informal in this case, not a formal and proper title as recognized in academia. Makes all the difference. Agricola44 (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Weak delete Fails WP:PROF; with quite a low citation count, no major award or associations as far as I can see, no named chair etc, and no evidence of notability outside academia. The article seems to suggest notability by association with Fritjof Capra etc., but WP:NOTINHERITED. A case could be made for notability under WP:GNG based on the books cited, although I am not in a position to check how substantial the discussion of Rauscher in those books is. -- 202.124.75.136 (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep More than ample sources in the article now that explain the significance of this scientist. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sufficient sources to establish notability even beyond WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR; and per the above keep comments by Cynwolfe, Jn466 and SlimVirgin. Dreadstar ☥ 18:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with Slimvirgin that the subject does not pass WP:Prof or WP:Author. The only possibility is WP:GNG under WP:Fringe, but I do not see that the sources are sufficient for that. The subject has not made the primary impact in that area as such figure as, for example, Velikovsky. One editor suggests that the standards of notability for females should be lower than for males. This has never been Wikipedia policy. Another editor makes comparisons with Ancient Romans who have articles in Wikipedia. If the subject is being discussed in 2000 years time then I am sure that Wikipedians of that era will be only too pleased to approve an article. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- No one has suggested that standards of notability should be lower for women. But one thing that concerns me about PROF is that it's written from an entirely male perspective, and a mainstream one. It perfectly fits someone who went to university at 18, graduated at 21, obtained his PhD at 24, entered a laboratory, and spent the rest of his life publishing, publishing, publishing. It doesn't easily accommodate women who struggled to get accepted when almost all of their peers were men. It doesn't accommodate people with alternative ideas and approaches, people with interrupted careers, people who for whatever reason remained outside the "publish till you drop" model. So we are defining notability in a way that is more likely to exclude women, and particularly women from a certain era. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are saying exactly that standards of notability should be lowered for females. Wikipedia judges notability on the basis of outputs, not inputs. For example, many people are born into a poverty which excludes them from the educational opportunities that might give them the possibility of achieving the academic notability described by WP:Prof. We do not make allowance for any circumstances that might have hindered achievement. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm saying we should judge notability by whether reliable sources write about that person. We shouldn't judge it by whether she has an "h-index of 5," which is an artificial, algorithmic way of looking at things, and not the only measure of achievement. It is not our job to measure achievement. It's up to the sources to decide whether this person is worth writing about, for whatever reason. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You change the subject. h-index, which it is helpful to read, is an objective way of determining eligibility for WP:Prof#C1 by peer comparison. For physicists, past precedent on these pages is that an h-index of around 15 is need to clearly satisfy WP:Prof#C1. As h-index is a non-linear measure, this subject's score of 5 falls very short of that mark, as pointed out by Agricola44. To revert to topic: I am an occasional editor of articles on eminent women, for example Antonia Fraser, Mary Louisa Molesworth, Pamela Hansford Johnson, Susan Hill, Ada Lovelace, Ann Widdecombe (who is regularly subject to spiteful vandalism). These women have one thing in common, they all achieved Wikipedia notability on the basis of their own achievements, nobody made special dispensation for them because they were women. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- I'd appreciate if you wouldn't refer to "lower standards" and "special dispensation." If you want to argue that Rauscher isn't notable in your terms or in PROF terms as a physicist, then okay. PROF is just a guideline focusing on one narrow notabiity parameter. The only thing that matters for Wikipedia is whether reliable sources have written about her and her work, and they have, including most recently and extensively David Kaiser, a physicist and historian of science at MIT. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 06:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You change the subject. h-index, which it is helpful to read, is an objective way of determining eligibility for WP:Prof#C1 by peer comparison. For physicists, past precedent on these pages is that an h-index of around 15 is need to clearly satisfy WP:Prof#C1. As h-index is a non-linear measure, this subject's score of 5 falls very short of that mark, as pointed out by Agricola44. To revert to topic: I am an occasional editor of articles on eminent women, for example Antonia Fraser, Mary Louisa Molesworth, Pamela Hansford Johnson, Susan Hill, Ada Lovelace, Ann Widdecombe (who is regularly subject to spiteful vandalism). These women have one thing in common, they all achieved Wikipedia notability on the basis of their own achievements, nobody made special dispensation for them because they were women. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- No one is saying that notability standards should be lowered for women; the point being made is that this woman was doing something that very few, if any other women could do at the time since it was historically dominated by men - if not an all-male club. Dreadstar ☥ 04:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More special pleading. There were women physicists active in the 1960s. Mildred Dresselhaus comes to mind. Your claim is like saying that notability should be lowered for left-handed physicists as there aren't many of them working in the field. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- It was obviously harder for a woman to become a physicist than for a man in the era Rauscher was working in, when only two percent of physics PhDs in America were obtained by women. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 06:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Left-handed physicists? That's a totally ludicrous simile, Xxanthippe; it's clear where the 'special pleading' is coming from and it's not from those who know how historically difficult it has been for a woman to get into physics - even in the enlightened 1960's and beyond. Let's not minimize this woman's accomplishments. Dreadstar ☥ 07:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (Disrupting thread to keep related comments together). I'm dismayed but not surprised to see the hostility toward women's history here. To recognize women who left a mark by entering a traditionally all-male field is hardly creating "lower standards" of notability for women. We don't argue that all Rosa Parks did was ride a bus, and since people ride buses all the time, and since other African Americans had made acts of defiance before, why should Rosa Parks be notable? I confess that I don't get that line of reasoning. People participating in and contributing to cultural change is one of the marks of historical notability. What's at issue here is whether this admittedly minor figure's activities can be documented in RS to a satisfactory degree. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While there are enough sources to satisfy notability without even attending to gender issues, there are sources that discuss Rauscher from the point of view of gender issues as well; e.g. [15], [16]. --JN466 11:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sad to say that the misrepresentation of sources is getting worse. These do not discuss Rauscher in the substantive way you claim. The first is nothing more than a conference summary that reports broadly on the speakers and activities. Of Rauscher, it says merely: "Next, Elizabeth Rauscher (LBL) described some of the problems that confront women seeking careers in astronomy and physics." Almost all physicists attend conferences and such a mention in a summary is quite trivial. The second one is an essay by Rauscher, not about her, entitled "On Science, Women, and Mysticism" published in an obscure and apparently now defunct periodical called Woman of Power. I don't think it can be made any more plain that, if GNG is to apply (which seems to be what is suggested), substantive sources about the subject are what is required. It is clear that many proponents have been searching hard. Perhaps there are some substantive sources yet to be found (in which case I will gladly switch my position), but so far we have none. Agricola44 (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- I think I'll give you that one, and admit to a pang of embarrassment. I thought Woman of Power had been a more substantial publication; the first Google Books search page listed 4040 hits, but I see now that by the second page we're down to 15, or at least less than 20. So scratch that. I still think she is notable enough, but these two sources don't make a difference here. Regards, --JN466 01:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sad to say that the misrepresentation of sources is getting worse. These do not discuss Rauscher in the substantive way you claim. The first is nothing more than a conference summary that reports broadly on the speakers and activities. Of Rauscher, it says merely: "Next, Elizabeth Rauscher (LBL) described some of the problems that confront women seeking careers in astronomy and physics." Almost all physicists attend conferences and such a mention in a summary is quite trivial. The second one is an essay by Rauscher, not about her, entitled "On Science, Women, and Mysticism" published in an obscure and apparently now defunct periodical called Woman of Power. I don't think it can be made any more plain that, if GNG is to apply (which seems to be what is suggested), substantive sources about the subject are what is required. It is clear that many proponents have been searching hard. Perhaps there are some substantive sources yet to be found (in which case I will gladly switch my position), but so far we have none. Agricola44 (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- More special pleading. There were women physicists active in the 1960s. Mildred Dresselhaus comes to mind. Your claim is like saying that notability should be lowered for left-handed physicists as there aren't many of them working in the field. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm saying we should judge notability by whether reliable sources write about that person. We shouldn't judge it by whether she has an "h-index of 5," which is an artificial, algorithmic way of looking at things, and not the only measure of achievement. It is not our job to measure achievement. It's up to the sources to decide whether this person is worth writing about, for whatever reason. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are saying exactly that standards of notability should be lowered for females. Wikipedia judges notability on the basis of outputs, not inputs. For example, many people are born into a poverty which excludes them from the educational opportunities that might give them the possibility of achieving the academic notability described by WP:Prof. We do not make allowance for any circumstances that might have hindered achievement. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Everybody seems agreed that the subject fails WP:PROF. I don't thinking attacking the WP:PROF guideline helps the article; nor does the "she is notable because he is a woman" argument. The obvious road to keeping the article is based on satisfying WP:GNG, and there is quite possibly enough material (maybe even in Kaiser alone) to do that. However, someone needs to shift attention away from this AfD towards the article itself. The main claim to notability will probably be in the WP:FRINGE "new age" elements such as "remote viewing" (see e.g. Kaiser p 262), but that's no obstacle, as long as someone can dig up and document a few more references. There may be some here: [17], although most of the books there are of dubious reliability. -- 202.124.74.59 (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A sensible approach and consistent with my first comments on this page. The references you point to are of a fringe/crank nature (at least the first few pages that I have looked at). That by itself is not objectionable; I have no problem with fringe topics provided that they are labelled as such and do not masquerade as mainstream science. As happens often with fringe scientists, the person starts off working in mainstream topics and then moves into the fringe. This accounts for the paucity of citations as fringe sources are not used by most citation databases. The subject is not notable for her mainstream work so arguments about how hard it is to do a PhD are beside the point. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- @SlimVirgin. I decline to accept your directions as to what language I can and cannot use on Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- In fact it seems she has won a "Green Award," which suggests she is a major figure in the WP:FRINGE community, and hence probably notable. -- 202.124.72.57 (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the "Green Award" notable itself? If not, she is probably not notable for receiving it. (Not being facetious. Simply reporting my unfamiliarity with that particular award.) Agricola44 (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- comment i dislike fringe as much as anyone, but go back and read the Kaiser book. (which you can under google books). there is an extended discussion of her career. are you seriously arguing that an historian of science at MIT is going to waste time on a non-notable person? or that you know better than him? is not his work an indication of notability? your arguments do not do you credit. i see DGG voted delete the first time, and reopened, wonder how he would vote now. 98.163.75.189 (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Yes, it's fringy, but I think the nontrivial coverage of her in "How the Hippies Saved Physics" and in the Robesonian article about her eviction from the tobacco farm (a one-paragraph precis of her career) are together enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Fringe is great, and we need more of it - or perhaps my vision of fringe is different than yours ;) Regardless of fringe, it's an amazing story and she's a total badass. A woman in 1975 doing what she did with quantum physics? So amazing. Keep! SarahStierch (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Why not save your AfD energy for all the barely referenced and truly non-notable or poorly reference or even vanity Bios out there, like, say Pete Perry or Amikam Aharoni. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please prod those first to leave AfD free for the controversial cases. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Thanks. One forgets about Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please prod those first to leave AfD free for the controversial cases. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. Rauscher is described alone and at some length by David Kaiser in his book How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival. On page 49, he begins by saying "Rauscher grew up in the Berkeley area." The short biography of Rauscher continues for three pages. This is not trivial coverage. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A fringe scientist whose ideas have never been addressed scientifically, all the sources are from perspectives sportive of the fringe ideas and thus a neutral article will be impossible to construct. The only source with major coverage is pseudo-scientific, otherwise it is just very brief half sentence mentions. To the closing admin, please note that significant support has been canvassed here from WikiProject Feminism and they all appear to be voting 'keep she is a woman'. LegrisKe (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The source who has given her the most coverage is David Kaiser, Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science, and senior lecturer in physics, at MIT. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 08:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm quite certain an admin will notice the difference between "keep she is a woman", which is a reductio ad absurdum of what's actually been said here, and the element of historical notability that accrues to women who participated in changing the culture of traditionally all-male fields. There's nothing intellectually dubious, or even particularly feminist, about recognizing that as one element of notability among others. I usually don't write on "women's topics," but a few months ago became aware through outside media that WP is perceived as hostile to women. As a result, I became part of the new Women's History project (not WikiProject Feminism) because I wanted to counter that perception and encourage women to edit, and wanted to improve coverage of topics pertaining to women that might have been neglected. I'm finding discussions such as these to be very illuminating. Once it was pointed out that Rauscher belonged to a generation when women physicists were rare, and therefore that was one element of her notability, editors who included that as an argument were disparaged as supporting her just because she was a woman, without regard to the obvious historical perspective (which would not be a factor in women physicists today). The hostility to a legitimate historical view seems disproportionate, and supports what I'd read but not personally experienced on WP. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this article will almost certainly be kept now (either as "keep" or "no consensus"), so don't panic. However, I think you misunderstand the discussion above: editors are discounting what you call the "legitimate historical view" because no sources support it (true though it might be). If some author had discussed Rauscher in a history of women in science, we would all have voted "keep" and gone home. You appear to be using WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to infer what such a history would say, and that's against the rules (as I understand them). Similarly (and I think the same is true of Brian Josephson below, and several editors above) you are confusing significance (notability in the ordinary sense of the word) with WP:N (notability in the Wikipedia sense). It's quite possible that all kinds of unrecognised geniuses are lacking articles because their achievements aren't documented, and so it must necessarily be in an encyclopaedia. It's unfortunate that some editors feel "disparaged," but it's not misogyny (there are male and female editors on both sides here). Rather, it's a recognition that simply claiming "she was a female physicist at a time when few existed" is not a valid argument under WP:GNG. In fact, Rauscher's career as a physicist has so far left few footprints on history, which is why several editors have !voted "delete." However, it is also becoming clear that her role in alternate religious thought has left quite a few footprints, and that should be enough to settle the notability question on its own. -- 202.124.72.4 (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But David Kaiser is an historian of science, and he did write about her fairly extensively, and he did discuss the difficulties she had as a woman during that era in physics. But for some reason you want to discount him. You've even suggested that MIT is not a reliable-enough source of information about him. [18] So it's quite hard to see where you're coming from. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 07:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the gender issue, the year Rauscher obtained her PhD, 1,645 other women obtained PhDs in physical sciences; I'm not sure all of those women necessarily satisfy WP:N. As to Kaiser, I'm certainly not discounting what he says about Rauscher, although he doesn't seem to say much about her contributions to physics per se. Several editors above have questioned whether the mentions of Rauscher in Kaiser's book are enough to satisfy WP:N, although I think, on balance, that they do. Fortunately, there's other material apart from Kaiser. I don't think you do the article any favours by trying to focus the AfD debate solely on Kaiser's book, nor by arguing with me when I'm putting a "keep" case. As to Kaiser himself, he's not up for AfD (and he would pass under WP:PROF #5 if he was), although it is unfortunate (and a breach of WP:BLP) that his article hangs entirely autobiographical material (such as his personal MIT web page), rather than, say, the official MIT staff list. And, please, WP:AGF and don't misrepresent me. -- 202.124.74.69 (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your reasonable approach. I've said more than once that "keep" is of course dependent on the existence of sufficient sources, which SlimVirgin's been working on. My objections were to the disparaging tone of "just because she's a woman." There's a big difference between that and questioning whether RS support the subject as a topic of women's history (among other elements of notability). The Women's History project in fact spent a lot of time addressing these kinds of issues in crafting criteria for inclusion within the project, and (at the risk of going off-topic) if any editors want to know some of the ways we excluded "just because she's a woman", see Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History#Scope (and particularly the criteria for biographies). This applies of course only to our project, not general notability, since the project deals only with history, not current events and contemporary culture. But some people involved in this discussion may be interested. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm sorry you found the tone disparaging; I'm sure nobody intended it that way. Those Women's History project guidelines are excellent, and it's a pity they weren't mentioned earlier. It's not actually clear to me that Rauscher meets them, but I presume that's all been resolved by within-project discussion. -- 202.124.72.140 (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your reasonable approach. I've said more than once that "keep" is of course dependent on the existence of sufficient sources, which SlimVirgin's been working on. My objections were to the disparaging tone of "just because she's a woman." There's a big difference between that and questioning whether RS support the subject as a topic of women's history (among other elements of notability). The Women's History project in fact spent a lot of time addressing these kinds of issues in crafting criteria for inclusion within the project, and (at the risk of going off-topic) if any editors want to know some of the ways we excluded "just because she's a woman", see Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History#Scope (and particularly the criteria for biographies). This applies of course only to our project, not general notability, since the project deals only with history, not current events and contemporary culture. But some people involved in this discussion may be interested. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the gender issue, the year Rauscher obtained her PhD, 1,645 other women obtained PhDs in physical sciences; I'm not sure all of those women necessarily satisfy WP:N. As to Kaiser, I'm certainly not discounting what he says about Rauscher, although he doesn't seem to say much about her contributions to physics per se. Several editors above have questioned whether the mentions of Rauscher in Kaiser's book are enough to satisfy WP:N, although I think, on balance, that they do. Fortunately, there's other material apart from Kaiser. I don't think you do the article any favours by trying to focus the AfD debate solely on Kaiser's book, nor by arguing with me when I'm putting a "keep" case. As to Kaiser himself, he's not up for AfD (and he would pass under WP:PROF #5 if he was), although it is unfortunate (and a breach of WP:BLP) that his article hangs entirely autobiographical material (such as his personal MIT web page), rather than, say, the official MIT staff list. And, please, WP:AGF and don't misrepresent me. -- 202.124.74.69 (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But David Kaiser is an historian of science, and he did write about her fairly extensively, and he did discuss the difficulties she had as a woman during that era in physics. But for some reason you want to discount him. You've even suggested that MIT is not a reliable-enough source of information about him. [18] So it's quite hard to see where you're coming from. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 07:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this article will almost certainly be kept now (either as "keep" or "no consensus"), so don't panic. However, I think you misunderstand the discussion above: editors are discounting what you call the "legitimate historical view" because no sources support it (true though it might be). If some author had discussed Rauscher in a history of women in science, we would all have voted "keep" and gone home. You appear to be using WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to infer what such a history would say, and that's against the rules (as I understand them). Similarly (and I think the same is true of Brian Josephson below, and several editors above) you are confusing significance (notability in the ordinary sense of the word) with WP:N (notability in the Wikipedia sense). It's quite possible that all kinds of unrecognised geniuses are lacking articles because their achievements aren't documented, and so it must necessarily be in an encyclopaedia. It's unfortunate that some editors feel "disparaged," but it's not misogyny (there are male and female editors on both sides here). Rather, it's a recognition that simply claiming "she was a female physicist at a time when few existed" is not a valid argument under WP:GNG. In fact, Rauscher's career as a physicist has so far left few footprints on history, which is why several editors have !voted "delete." However, it is also becoming clear that her role in alternate religious thought has left quite a few footprints, and that should be enough to settle the notability question on its own. -- 202.124.72.4 (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've not been following up her activities, but I believe she was one of the first to propose the use of multi-dimensional spaces to explain certain things (in a conference in the late '70s, I believe). That would seem pretty notable. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The closing admin should note that the above comment is from Brian Josephson. He seems to be modest enough not to be pulling rank here, but I think maybe his !vote might carry a little more
weightmass than others, on the basis of his expertise. For what its worth (not a lot, admittedly) I agree with him: keep. Rauscher may well not meet the notability requirements for her work within orthodox science, but that isn't the basis for the !keep votes above. Ignoring the feminist arguments (not that we necessarily should), Rauscher seems to have been an active participant in a trend challenging orthodoxy within physics - a challenge that seems to have had significant results, even if most of us don't have a clue what they mean. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The closing admin should note that the above comment is from Brian Josephson. He seems to be modest enough not to be pulling rank here, but I think maybe his !vote might carry a little more
- Keep. Seems clearly notable from the sources. Maybe her research isn't the most respected in physics, but that doesn't mean she can't be notable. Also, I think people are focusing too much on PROF and AUTHOR. Maybe she doesn't technically meet any single notability guideline, but the combination of her work as a physicist, an author, and a prominent female scientist seem to put her well within our scope. Kaldari (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The trend is clearly toward keep, though I think the policy justifications are extremely weak (like the above opinion that feels we should judge on an imaginary combination of various guidelines). I think the following is an accurate synopsis: there is one substantive source (6 paragraphs about Rauscher and a picture in Kaiser's recent book) and numerous other claimed ones that have been exposed as trivial upon closer examination. There now also seems to be rough consensus that she does not pass AUTH or PROF, so this case will be assessed from GNG. Generally, multiple sources are required, though it's pretty clear that the majority here will not hold this accountable. If this article is indeed kept, I hope it will be a fair presentation, i.e. not misrepresenting Rauscher as a renowned physicist, but rather as someone on the fringe. Right now, the bulk of the article casts her as a mainstream physicist and claims she is best know for founding FFG. In fact, she is much better known for her numerous new-age endeavors, e.g. her company, BioHarmonic Resonance and its holistic healing services, her remote viewing activities (mentioned, but only in passing), and her association with Nassim Haramein. In fact, her previous WP reputation has largely been established by one of the many Haramein AFDs, where I had difficulty convincing Avsav (whose intimate knowledge suggested either Haramein or Rauscher) that a paper jointly authored by the two was nonsense, for example in that it confused basic concepts like energy and torque. (Note that the current version tries to semantically wiggle around the problem, see pp 10.) While Rauscher was active in mainstream physics at one time, she departed long ago for the fringe. I've no problem with BLPs of such folks, as long as they're a truthful representation, which this one is currently not, and so long as the person is notable, of which 1 source does not convince me. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- The contention in this debate arose because the main authors of the second version of the BLP seemed to have minimal experience of writing on science topics and appeared to know little about the culture of science, in particular the distinction between fringe and mainstream science (the Demarcation problem). Mainstream scientists regard this distinction as of crucial importance and resent attempts of the latter to masquerade as the former. I don't think this was done deliberately in this case but was just due to a lack of cultural sensitivity. Some Wikipedians even seek to banish fringe science altogether from Wikipedia. I favor the inclusion of fringe topics provided that they are properly identified as such, and I have come under attack [19] myself for trying to include even properly labelled BLPs with a fringe flavor. The article needs revision to separate its mainstream/fringe aspects clearly. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- That's not a topic for AfD, but for the article talk page. Feel free to recommend sources there to cover those aspects of her work that may be considered fringe. The Rosen Publishing book is reputably published and can perhaps be used to add a couple of sentences. --JN466 01:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The trend is clearly toward keep, though I think the policy justifications are extremely weak (like the above opinion that feels we should judge on an imaginary combination of various guidelines). I think the following is an accurate synopsis: there is one substantive source (6 paragraphs about Rauscher and a picture in Kaiser's recent book) and numerous other claimed ones that have been exposed as trivial upon closer examination. There now also seems to be rough consensus that she does not pass AUTH or PROF, so this case will be assessed from GNG. Generally, multiple sources are required, though it's pretty clear that the majority here will not hold this accountable. If this article is indeed kept, I hope it will be a fair presentation, i.e. not misrepresenting Rauscher as a renowned physicist, but rather as someone on the fringe. Right now, the bulk of the article casts her as a mainstream physicist and claims she is best know for founding FFG. In fact, she is much better known for her numerous new-age endeavors, e.g. her company, BioHarmonic Resonance and its holistic healing services, her remote viewing activities (mentioned, but only in passing), and her association with Nassim Haramein. In fact, her previous WP reputation has largely been established by one of the many Haramein AFDs, where I had difficulty convincing Avsav (whose intimate knowledge suggested either Haramein or Rauscher) that a paper jointly authored by the two was nonsense, for example in that it confused basic concepts like energy and torque. (Note that the current version tries to semantically wiggle around the problem, see pp 10.) While Rauscher was active in mainstream physics at one time, she departed long ago for the fringe. I've no problem with BLPs of such folks, as long as they're a truthful representation, which this one is currently not, and so long as the person is notable, of which 1 source does not convince me. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 22:38, 23 August 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 delete. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reactivity (company)
- Reactivity (company) (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 not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. No minimal claim of significance. Full text: Reactivity is a web services company based in the United States. It was acquired by Cisco Systems on February 21, 2007. You get the impression that being bought out by Cisco is a very routine thing. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:42, 17 August 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 List of acquisitions by Cisco Systems. Delete, then redirect Courcelles 23:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SyPixx Networks
- SyPixx Networks (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 not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as containing no minimal claim to signficance. Full text: SyPixx Networks is a surveillance company based in the United States. It was acquired by Cisco Systems on March 7, 2006. No references. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is mentioned on the page List of acquisitions by Cisco Systems, so it doesn't help to create a seperate article as there doesn't seem to be any known history of SyPixx aside from the acquisition on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Notability not established and no longer an independent entity so this situation is unlikely to improve. --Kvng (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect after deletion to List of acquisitions by Cisco Systems. --joe deckertalk to me 15:13, 24 August 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 HP Photosmart. Courcelles 23:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HP Photosmart R927
- HP Photosmart R927 (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 not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- merge as usual -- or at least as ought to be usual. These separate articles should never have been made in the first place, but a merge will deal with them. No argument given against a merge,. WP:Deletion policy requires considering such alternatives to deletion before coming here. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to HP Photosmart and please stop using AfD as your first move - use WP:PROD or post something to the article's talk page. --Kvng (talk) 16:50, 22 August 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 HP Photosmart. Courcelles 23:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HP Photosmart M425
- HP Photosmart M425 (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 not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- merge as usual -- or at least as ought to be usual. These separate articles should never have been made in the first place, but a merge will deal with them. No argument given against a merge,. WP:Deletion policy requires considering such alternatives to deletion before coming here. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to HP Photosmart and please stop using AfD as your first move - use WP:PROD or post something to the article's talk page. --Kvng (talk) 16:51, 22 August 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. causa sui (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nokia 3110 classic
- Nokia 3110 classic (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 not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of gadgets for sale, now, recently, or in the past. No evidence of notability. Edison (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- merge as usual -- or at least as ought to be usual. These separate articles should never have been made in the first place, but a merge will deal with them. No argument given against a merge,. WP:Deletion policy requires considering such alternatives to deletion before coming here. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article looks like it is off to a good start. Non-notability not established by AfD submitter. --Kvng (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge because pages are not WP:NOTABLE, no significant coverage - add, references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject into this article. Significant coverage - References that are about the subject – at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. Not passing mentions, directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Several of them – not just one. It must be notable. Reliable sources - Something that is generally trusted to tell the truth. A major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality mainstream publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Not blogs, MySpace, Facebook, forum/Usenet posts, fansites, or Twitter. It must be verifiable. Independent - Nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject. Not their website, and not a press-release. It must be independent. LES 953 (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep(for now) Added an apparently independent "webzine" article as a reference. Based on the other current cellphone articles, this appears to meet the standard criteria for inclusion; however, I agree that this current practice is not reasonable. It is not practical to have an article on every model cellphone, laptop, coffee maker, ect. that ever is marketed. Some of the models probably had marketable lifespans measured in months or perhaps even weeks. The majority of these should be consolidated into a list, with articles for truly noteworthy ones linked to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legion211 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 25 August 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, Spartaz Humbug! 06:22, 25 August 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, Spartaz Humbug! 06:25, 25 August 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 StyleWriter. Courcelles 23:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
StyleWriter 1200
- StyleWriter 1200 (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 not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, so fails notability. Wikipedia is Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor is it a mirror of various manufacturer's sales websites. Edison (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Edison, have you checked for reviews? WIthout doing that, how can you know if the subject lacks significant coverage. The most uyou can mean is that the article at present lacks such coverage, and that';s only a reason for deletion if such references are unfindable. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not an efficient use of editor time for each editor of Wikipedia to individually spend a quarter hour scouring assorted data bases, and clicking on possibles which turn out to be unrelated or to be press releases, before concluding that "references are unfindable." There is some expectation that a nominator did that BEFORE nominating. There is a strong expectation that an article creator, or someone from a project devoted to some topic, would do that search. If the creator, the fans from a project, and the nominator have not found any refs, then the article is on shaky ground. You are most welcome to do that and let us know some of the best references. Edison (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- merge as usual -- or at least as ought to be usual. These separate articles should never have been made in the first place, but a merge will deal with them. No argument given against a merge,. WP:Deletion policy requires considering such alternatives to deletion before coming here. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of Apple printers as suggested by submitter 1 day after submitting for AfD. Can we please look for merge targets before AfD? --Kvng (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above. That article could use some love and sources. I'll be over there now. BusterD (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge target should be StyleWriter After looking at the subject matter, here's how I suggest it be broken down. List of Apple printers should be a table-fied list, so we can get an overview of the material, with sectioning which corresponds to main articles about each of the primary sub-lines (ImageWriter, LaserWriter, StyleWriter). So best merge target here would be StyleWriter, not List of Apple printers. IMHO, each of the main sub-lines is notable enough on its own, in innovation and supporting sources, to be worthy of its own page. All that work needs to be done, but I think the Apple printer list should be a table, capturing much of the data in the infoboxes. Opinions? BusterD (talk) 21:40, 24 August 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 LaserWriter. Courcelles 23:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LaserWriter Pro 600
- LaserWriter Pro 600 (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 not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Lacks references to demonstrate notability. Edison (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with List of Apple printers - Now that the article's little text has been merged to LaserWriter, I suppose it would be appropriate to mention it on the list of Apple printers.
Delete - Notability has not been confirmed, according to Google and Yahoo searches.SwisterTwister talk 19:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- merge as usual -- or at least as ought to be usual. These separate articles should never have been made in the first place, but a merge will deal with them. No argument given against a merge,. WP:Deletion policy requires considering such alternatives to deletion before coming here. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I just now inserted a mention of it into LaserWriter so you can consider it merged. --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of Apple printers --Kvng (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above. I'll organize the merge target page appropriately. BusterD (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge target should be LaserWriter After looking at the subject matter, here's how I suggest it be broken down. List of Apple printers should be a table-fied list, so we can get an overview of the material, with sectioning which corresponds to main articles about each of the primary sub-lines (ImageWriter, LaserWriter, StyleWriter). So best merge target here would be LaserWriter, not List of Apple printers. IMHO, each of the main sub-lines is notable enough on its own, in innovation and supporting sources, to be worthy of its own page. All that work needs to be done, but I think the Apple printer list should be a table, capturing much of the data in the infoboxes. Opinions? BusterD (talk) 21:38, 24 August 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 LaserWriter. Courcelles 23:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LaserWriter Pro 810
- LaserWriter Pro 810 (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 not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Some editors seem to want Wikipedia to be a mirror of the websites of every company which makes or made high tech gadgets, and have created countless unreferenced stubs. No indication this gadget satisfies WP:N. If every Apple gadget which satisfies WP:V needs a standalone article, then so does every single model of typewriter, telephone, or adding machine ever offered for sale, since they served some of the same functions as celphones, printers or comparable current tech gadgets, or every single model of any notable company's products. Only the notable innovative and groundbreaking ones need standalone articles. Edison (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- merge as usual -- or at least as ought to be usual. These separate articles should never have been made in the first place, but a merge will deal with them. No argument given against a merge,. WP:Deletion policy requires considering such alternatives to deletion before coming here. By my definition, a "gadget" is something like an adapter or a charger or a stand,; dismissive language like that taints a discussion. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I just inserted a mention of it into Laserwriter so you can consider it merged. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of Apple printers --Kvng (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge because pages are not WP:NOTABLE, no significant coverage - add, references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject into this article. Significant coverage - References that are about the subject – at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. Not passing mentions, directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Several of them – not just one. It must be notable. Reliable sources - Something that is generally trusted to tell the truth. A major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality mainstream publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Not blogs, MySpace, Facebook, forum/Usenet posts, fansites, or Twitter. It must be verifiable. Independent - Nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject. Not their website, and not a press-release. It must be independent. LES 953 (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If merge is an option, why don't you try that first. AfD should not be your first move. It turns out the same information in this article is already in the [[LaserWriter] article. I've created an anchor in the LaserWriter article where we can redirect. I assume it would be uncool to do the redirect before the AfD has completed. --Kvng (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above. I'm preparing the space. BusterD (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What's the MOS on multiple infoboxes in the same article? IMHO, these infoboxes serve a useful place for detail and help the reader to distinguish between types. Ideally the infobox should occupy the space next to the subject, but most of this content is too brief at this time (though expansion would easy, but time-consuming). Can infoboxes be set up gallery-style? BusterD (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge target should be LaserWriter After looking at the subject matter, here's how I suggest it be broken down. List of Apple printers should be a table-fied list, so we can get an overview of the material, with sectioning which corresponds to main articles about each of the primary sub-lines (ImageWriter, LaserWriter, StyleWriter). So best merge target here would be LaserWriter, not List of Apple printers. IMHO, each of the main sub-lines is notable enough on its own, in innovation and supporting sources, to be worthy of its own page. All that work needs to be done, but I think the Apple printer list should be a table, capturing much of the data in the infoboxes. Opinions? BusterD (talk) 21:36, 24 August 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 Allsvenskan. Spartaz Humbug! 06:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All-time Allsvenskan table
- All-time Allsvenskan table (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 PRODed this article with the rationale "Non-notable per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-time English Football League 1st Division Table." The PROD was contested with the edit summary "You can easlu". Not sure if that means something in Swedish, but I couldn't make heads nor tails of it. Anyway, I still believe this article should be deleted. It is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS because it is only ever going to be a table of stats. It is non-notable because, although it is reliably sourced, it does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources (only ref is from the Swedish Football Association – hardly independent). Finally, I have copyvio concerns because, although facts are not copyrightable, to lay out these statistics in exactly the same format as the SFA ref doesn't seem much more than copy/pasting and then adding some wiki-markup. Jenks24 (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I have an independant and reliable source to deal with the notability problem (Alsjö, Martin (2011). 100 år med Allsvensk Fotboll. Idrottsförlaget. ISBN 978-91-977326-7-3. (Swedish),). The problem here is that the source will be old news after one season, however every year I receive a yearbook from the club I support with the updated table. The issue with WP:NOTSTATS still stands, maybe we can add a lead and a couple of sections regarding the evolution of the table and the teams on it? Will this solve the issue or should I not bother? --Reckless182 (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, ok then. Thanks for finding a source and I will take your word for it that it deals with the notability problem (I assume Idrottsförlaget is independent from the Swedish Football Association?). Yes, I suppose that if a few paragraphs of prose were added that would also solve the NOTSTATS problem. I think that if you are able/willing to add that then article would probably survive the AfD (and I would be willing to withdraw my nom). The only remaining concern is the possible copyright violation. Copyvio issues are far from my strong suit so I'm going to ask Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) about that. If the copyvio issue checks out (as in it's not a copyvio), then I think it would definitely be worthwhile to add some prose to the article. Jenks24 (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes Idrottsförlaget is independent from the Swedish FA. I am willing to work on a lead and a section of some sort if the list can be saved in that way. Thanks for your help regarding the copyvio issue, if there's any way to differentiate the table to avoid copyvio, let me know. Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, ok then. Thanks for finding a source and I will take your word for it that it deals with the notability problem (I assume Idrottsförlaget is independent from the Swedish Football Association?). Yes, I suppose that if a few paragraphs of prose were added that would also solve the NOTSTATS problem. I think that if you are able/willing to add that then article would probably survive the AfD (and I would be willing to withdraw my nom). The only remaining concern is the possible copyright violation. Copyvio issues are far from my strong suit so I'm going to ask Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) about that. If the copyvio issue checks out (as in it's not a copyvio), then I think it would definitely be worthwhile to add some prose to the article. Jenks24 (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, this kind of table serves no purpose and violates a number of our guidelines (NOTSTATS, OR, LISTCRUFT). Not even worth merging IMO. GiantSnowman 00:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually why wouldn't merging the list to Allsvenskan be a good idea? I personally believe that this would be a better solution than my suggestion above. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also OK with merging to the main article, provided the table isn't a copyvio. See User talk:Moonriddengirl#Copyvio question for that discussion. If you can contribute to that at all, I'd appreciate it. Jenks24 (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per some discussion with Moonriddengirl and some of my own research on the issue of copyright in lists/tables, I do not think the list is table is creatively presented (it is following the standard format for most football tables) and it is therefore not a copyvio. As a result, I think a merge would be perfectly acceptable. Thanks for bearing with me on this, Reckless. Jenks24 (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also OK with merging to the main article, provided the table isn't a copyvio. See User talk:Moonriddengirl#Copyvio question for that discussion. If you can contribute to that at all, I'd appreciate it. Jenks24 (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per previous discussion. I agree that the list somewhat violates WP:NOTSTATS. However, I support a merge with Allsvenskan as a way to preserve the list on WP. I don't think there should be any problems since the contents of the list doesn't violate copyright. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. Why delete this page, when it is the same as All-time FA Premier League table or maybe even better. Maybe it is a non-necessary page at Wikipedia, but what do you then call this: List of Nelson F.C. seasons? Mentoz86 (talk) 23:39, 24 August 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 15:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leonard Haze
- Leonard Haze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently self-written, article does nothing to demonstrate any notability as a single member of a dubiously-notable band. King Öomie 13:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur: I have no doubt this is OR and it lacks any notability.--LeyteWolfer (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I didn't see any notable mentions on Google and Yahoo aside from music download sites and YouTube. SwisterTwister talk 19:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -There's no reason for this article to exist, especially since the singer by himself is not a notable persona. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]
- Delete Nothing substantial about this (auto-esque)biography: no reliable 3rd party sources.Curb Chain (talk) 21:38, 23 August 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. Bad faith nomination--no prejudice to a proper nomination DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Fairchild Challenge
- The Fairchild Challenge (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 page was initially created by a company that was contracted some years ago and who is no longer affiliated with The Fairchild Challenge or the institution, Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden. It is necessary for the page be deleted since the institution does not have administrative access to the page. Mbuyu (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
- Comment. This nomination says it is the third nomination of this article. I am unable to find traces of the prior two, and while speedy deletion and proposed deletion appear in history, any prior AfD discussions were not noted on the talk page. They do not appear under the expected titles (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fairchild Challenge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fairchild Challenge (2nd nomination)) and searching is not turning them up either.
Wikipedia articles are not owned by any business. It is not necessary for company personnel to have editing access to them, and in fact we'd prefer that they did not edit them. This is not a ground to delete the article, and since that's all that's presented here this might be subject to speedily closing as keep.
That isn't to say that other grounds for deleting this don't exist. I see only one independent reference here, to the hometown paper (a hometown paper from a major city, to be sure.) The tone of the article also does read like advertising, and the nomination does suggest that it was the work of an insider or paid PR professional. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:29, 17 August 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stimulsoft Reports
- Stimulsoft Reports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Despite the references and awards, I am dubious about the notability of this software product. The author has an obvious COI. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a poor article that makes no effort to describe its subject, other than to list brandnames. If we were permitted to WP:DELETETHEJUNK (oh happy day!) I would cheerfully delete it.
- The subject is a crappy report generator in a crappy sector (M$ platform, with the usual blinkers that introduces) of a business sector that is dull at best and more usually a stinking swamp of awful software sold to ignorant fools in suits. None of these products show any spark of creative wit or deliver a result that is a patch on what they ought to be. Their authors should be beaten around the ears with the collected works of Edward Tufte, probably on a daily basis, until their morale improves. This product's one saving grace is that at least it's not the far worse, and thoroughly superannuated, Crystal Reports. As you might guess, this is my day job.
- That said, it's a clear pass for WP:Notability. It exists in the market, the relevant publishing bodies in that market have paid the necessary heed to it. One even gave it an award, which just shows how low the bar is for the rest of them. Per WP:POLICY, we're stuck with this. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Another advertisement for non-notable back-office software: software manufacture in the sphere of Business Intelligence, data analysis and processing – reporting tools for various platforms, keeping full compatibility between products. Petty trade awards are to notability, as the Valentine cards your teacher made you give to every member of the opposite sex in your fourth grade class are to true love. Those are the only evidence for notability here, and I find nothing better. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Andy Dingley -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Andy. Our job is not to judge what ought to be notable, but what is. If this is notable in the field, so be it. If we're going to judge what fields are worth being notable in, we're going have some arguments about some genres of popular entertainment, etc. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I can't accept that inclusion in a list of "Top 100 Publisher Awards" (sorted alphabetically)"[20], or a bronze medal in "Business Intelligence and Reporting" from "SQL Server Magazine"[21] are the sorts of coverage that confer notability. Inclusion in a top 100 list only confers notability if it does so for every listed product. All of these listings lack depth. "SQL Server Magazine" and "componentsource.com" both strike me as canonical examples of "media of limited interest and circulation". None of this stuff establishes notability, and I do not see anything better in news searches. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SQL Server, Vis Studio & ComponentSource are niche publications. They're not even interesting to software development, they're only relevant to the M$ platform part of it. Yet within that niche, they're important publications - and M$ have a big table, so the crumbs from it feed a very large number of developers. I do not see "limited interest" as applicable here, any more than "Baseball Monthly" should be excluded because it only discusses baseball. We do cover narrow topics. We exclude only if the subject or the source is considered too narrow, within their own scope of relevance.
- I too don't see that inclusion on a top 100 list or a bronze award alone as terribly significant in isolation, but they weren't awarded in isolation - the product had also been reviewed & described in more detail, by the same publication. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The real question for me is, do those reviews establish that this particular software represents the sort of leap forward in the art that gives it long term significance in the field? Or is it just one of many such products whose active life span can be measured in years at best? and will be abandoned as soon as something better comes along, or (likelier) that the technology it depends on is replaced when something better comes along? Ephemeral products like that need to show more than existence or even market share. Because notability is not temporary, these things need to be examined from the viewpoint of geologic time. Without significant effects on history, culture, or technology, of the sort that will be felt outside IT departments, I don't see this as belonging in an encyclopedia. Especially not if we're also faced with the problem of commercially motivated conflict of interest. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 13:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [Does] this particular software represents the sort of leap forward in the art that gives it long term significance in the field?
- Of course not. Now find a policy-based reason why it has to and then we can delete it, along with 90% of other products in the same categories. Then we can extend the same principle to Brandon Spoon (a player notable only for never having done anything notable) and today's latest, Oakton, Australia. However I know of no such policy, only WP:Notability, based on the notice taken of it now. For that matter, judging "long-term" would surely involve both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If foretelling the future or original research is needed to sustain the notability of a piece of back office software, it would appear to follow that the software is not notable and should be deleted. From the beginning, when "notability" was first mooted as a criterion for eligibility for a stand alone article, notability has always meant long term historical notability, and ought always to be read with that in mind. This is why hardly any back-office software is notable, and the sources ought to at least verify a claim that it represents some kind of technical advance or has some kind of cultural or historic significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. A redirect from the WP:ALLCAPS namespace to a userspace essay. POV much? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If foretelling the future or original research is needed to sustain the notability of a piece of back office software, it would appear to follow that the software is not notable and should be deleted. From the beginning, when "notability" was first mooted as a criterion for eligibility for a stand alone article, notability has always meant long term historical notability, and ought always to be read with that in mind. This is why hardly any back-office software is notable, and the sources ought to at least verify a claim that it represents some kind of technical advance or has some kind of cultural or historic significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The real question for me is, do those reviews establish that this particular software represents the sort of leap forward in the art that gives it long term significance in the field? Or is it just one of many such products whose active life span can be measured in years at best? and will be abandoned as soon as something better comes along, or (likelier) that the technology it depends on is replaced when something better comes along? Ephemeral products like that need to show more than existence or even market share. Because notability is not temporary, these things need to be examined from the viewpoint of geologic time. Without significant effects on history, culture, or technology, of the sort that will be felt outside IT departments, I don't see this as belonging in an encyclopedia. Especially not if we're also faced with the problem of commercially motivated conflict of interest. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 13:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't set it up, but it's handy, so I'll use it. Never made a secret of where I was coming from, and I wrote that mostly to avoid repeating myself all that much. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:01, 18 August 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 23:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pakuranga Heights School
- Pakuranga Heights School (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 evidence that this is any more notable than most primary schools. It is generally accepted that primary schools are not notable by default. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the article about the locality, Pakuranga which has a section on "Schools" that just says there were no schools before 1960 and students went to school elsewhere. This is per past practice for primary schools, which amounts to a de facto notability standard for schools. The school's website makes no mention of being part of a "school district," which is the other usual merge target. Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT|not a directory of everything that exists]. Edison (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nomination - doesn't seem notable. bobrayner (talk) 14:40, 24 August 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. causa sui (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Portland Weird
- Keep Portland Weird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nomination per outcome of DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 8#Keep Portland Weird (closed). SoWhy 11:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Portland, Oregon. Merge only if it is worth a mention. Seems to be no more than a neologism. There are many ghits, but I see none that are independent and with direct coverage of the slogan. The coverage is concerned with the people of Portland, not with the slogan. If mention of the slogan belongs anywhere, it belongs first at Portland, Oregon, and currently there is no mention. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete non-notable organization. One reliable ref from outside the area would help a good deal, but so far nobody has been able to find one. I don't see it justifies a redirect to the city.Possibly to the original event in Austin, which is certainly notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC) see revised opinion lower down. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What the hell does "outside the area" have to do with anything?!?! Notability is determined by MULTIPLE, INDEPENDENTLY PRODUCED, SUBSTANTIAL, PUBLISHED pieces of coverage. They can be from three sources located on one street, no prohibition against that is specified anywhere in policy nor is it followed in practice. We don't require articles about things in New York City to be published outside New York City! We don't require articles about aspects of San Francisco to be published outside of San Francisco! This is complete ad libbing of actual Wikipedia notability guidelines here... Carrite (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is a fairly ubiquitous slogan here in Oregon and it's my sense that an article similar to Keep Austin Weird can and will emerge from this over time. HERE'S SUBSTANTIAL COVERAGE IN THE PORTLAND TRIBUNE, a former print paper that went electronic only a couple years ago. It's definitely a so-called "Reliable Source" in Wikispeak (even though I loathe that entire concept). KATU-TV IS DOING STORIES on "Keeping Portland Weird," which it correctly characterizes as "more than a bumper sticker, it's a way of life." OREGONLIVE.COM is the website of The Oregonian, the largest newspaper in the largest city in the state of Oregon and the second largest paper in the Pacific Northwest, and they have a whole index of pieces tagged "Keep Portland Weird." The exact phrase generates nearly 100,000 Google hits, which is a pretty good indicator that this is a cultural phenomenon far bigger than a bumper sticker. Incidentally, the slogan preceded the existence of the sticker, it wasn't caused by the sticker or the Dot-Com cite that capitalized on an already existing slogan. And have you seen the TV show Portlandia produced by Lorne Michaels? That's the Keep Portland Weird concept in a very tangible nutshell... Carrite (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LOCAL. The justification for LOCAL is that local newspapers are not very discriminate about local events. The show you mention was reviewed by the LA Times and Variety--probably the two major news sources for the genre nationally. your very example shows the difference and proves my point. There are various ways of realizing a concept--some may be notable, others not. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LOCAL is an WP:ESSAY: "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval." Please don't site essay acronyms as if they mean anything at all here, because they don't. Carrite (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Carrite, things usually go best around here when we keep things civil. In my opinion that would generally mean avoiding all-caps in a discussion, and outright dismissal of somebody's opinion.
- WP:LOCAL is an WP:ESSAY: "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval." Please don't site essay acronyms as if they mean anything at all here, because they don't. Carrite (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LOCAL. The justification for LOCAL is that local newspapers are not very discriminate about local events. The show you mention was reviewed by the LA Times and Variety--probably the two major news sources for the genre nationally. your very example shows the difference and proves my point. There are various ways of realizing a concept--some may be notable, others not. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a cite from the print version of The Oregonian (paywalled):"So, how weird are we?". The Oregonian. August 27, 2006. Retrieved 2006-12-13. This is a cite from the footnotes of Keep Austin Weird. Carrite (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/move content to Portland, Oregon - we are not here to make bumper sticker slogans notable by adding them to Wikipedia on there own page.Moxy (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: little indication that this campaign has garnered more than passing mention outside Portland itself. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There it is again. That's completely irrelevant to the question of notability, which is based on an article topic being the subject of multiple, independently produced, substantial published sources. There is no geographic requirement for notability, aside from the fact that the Portland metropolitan area is the biggest on the west coast between Seattle and San Francisco... This is not Ephrata, Washington we're talking about here and dissing for lack of "non-local" coverage. Carrite (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Snooting at the small but respectable city of Ephrata, although there is no geographic requirement for notability, while admiring the city of Portland so much that even a self-promotion campaign merits a separate Wikipedia page, seems a strange contribution to this discussion. How does it relate to the topic? Ornithikos (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or keep. Sources exist, but it may be a while until they are added.[22]. A GA could be made of this, with enough effort. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge coverage to new section in the article Portland, Oregon and redirect to that section. This topic is not notable enough to have its own article but notable enough to be included in the article Portland, Oregon. Jsayre64 (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Merge into the Portland article if that will bring happiness to Portland, and don't keep a Redirect page. One could scrape up countless local slogans that haven't a particle of significance outside their locales. If any deserves its own article, they all do. If we don't take the Notabiity guidelines on this type of article seriously, Wikipedia will become hard to tell from Trivial Pursuit. Ornithikos (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Expecting nothing, I Googled list slogans. The result was astounding! Hundreds of sites exist that do nothing but collect slogans. Every imaginable category of slogan has multiple collections on multiple sites, and multiple dedicated sites. Thousands upon thousands of slogans appear; even trying to count them would be mind-boggling. Commercial slogans are especially plentiful, probably because marketing departments work ceaselessly to create more of them. The collected slogans include countless well-documented examples that would be much more meaningful to many more people than Keep Portland Weird.
- If Keep Portland Weird deserves a separate page, despite the existing page about Portland, every well-documented commercial slogan in the world equally deserves a page, regardless of any existing page about the topic of the slogan. I could use Google and the lists of slogans to run a slogan-page factory so prolific that the only escape would be a new provision: Wikipedia is not a collection of slogans! No argument for merging the slogan pages into their parent topics (which I would support) could fail to require a similar merge for Keep Portland Weird, unless we decided to give Portland a special dispensation just because we like it (which I do).
- I think that the underlying problem arises from a tension between reflecting notability, which we should, and purveying advertising, which we should not. In the Portland case, mentioning its slogan on the Portland page would reflect the notability of Portland, which no one disputes, while giving the slogan a page of its own would merely toot Portland's horn, which is Portland's job, not Wikipedia's. Merging the slogan page into the topic page would preserve the current information and reflect Portland's notability, but avoid an incursion into marketing whose wider expression would add little but waste and hype. Ornithikos (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm not seeing a strong argument that the massive number of sources in the news archive search should be discarded for some reason [23]. There is a chapter of a book with this as a title [24] and there is more coverage in any number of other books. [25]. This clearly (and easily) meets WP:N. The IAR !votes are, well, a bit odd. Hobit (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When I looked through some sources, it seemed to me that they were coverage of the people of Portland, not coverage of the slogan, and that "Keep Portland Weird" was little more than mentioned. So I think it is a neologism worthy of mention, but not worthy of a stand alone article. To the extent that the subject is an organisation, I found nothing independent covering the organisation. But perhaps I didn't read enough sources? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree they were mostly about the people with respect to the slogan and not the organization. Based on the sources found, I'd think this article should be about the slogan and it's marketing successes (being used by other cities, etc.) and only briefly mention the organization. Hobit (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I looked at the the first two reliable sources that come up in a general google search for "keep portland weird".[26][27] They're both reliable and nontrivial, but they are about whether or not Portland is weird, as opposed to the slogan. So, there's a notable article to be written, and it's at the correct name maybe, but it may be about the slogan, but also more about Portland's weirdness, or wanting to think it's weirder than normal. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And I can't edit it to ad sources. That's annoying. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the unprotection. I made a slap dash edit based on one of the two refs I mentioned earlier. If someone else also improves the article, drop a note on my talk page and I'll add another improvement. I don't want to do this alone, but I'll go one for one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep In addition the refs added by others, I've added more from national and local publications, such as travel guides from Frommer's. This is a very public and notable part of Portland culture, and clearly meets the WP:GNG. Steven Walling • talk 05:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Existing sources match my personal experience with the topic, viewing of bumper stickers, etc. The Portland/Vancouver metro area is probably the fifth most significant on the U.S. West Coast, and has more population and cultural influence than many smaller nations. This is not an article about a county fair hog-raising contest; these sources are major regional newspapers. When the GNG is met with entirely different RSes, LOCAL is inapplicable. Jclemens (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Portland/Vancouver metro area is surely as you say, but the topic here is "a small group of small businesses in Portland" whose purpose is "to encourage consumers to spend their money locally". This is called boosterism, and a county fair is a good example. Every boosting campaign will claim that it is noteworthy, even unto Wikipedia, but one such campaign gains little merit from disparaging other such campaigns. Ornithikos (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep There now does seem to be material from outside the area. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While I'm against silly phrases-as-boosterism being on Wikipedia, this is a topic that is common outside of the marketing/neologism term. It's even the city's "unofficial motto" according to a handful of sources that were trivial to find. It's a kneejerk reaction to hide behind "it's local" or "I haven't heard of it". tedder (talk) 23:45, 22 August 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 speedily deleted (G11, advert) by Lectonar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). — Dengero (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vubites
- Vubites (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:NOTGUIDE Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 08:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:41, 17 August 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) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Imaan Hadchiti
- Imaan Hadchiti (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:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. nothing in gnews [28] and only 2 small mentions in major Australian search engine trove [29]. LibStar (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (article creator) - When searching gnews, remember to click "Archives" if you want to search all articles rather than just recent ones. There's this 7:30 Report segment from 2005 which I forgot to cite in the article initially. He won a national youth comedy competition at the Melbourne International Comedy Festival in 2005. Hadchiti receives significant coverage in the reference above from the ABC, satisfying WP:N.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- winning the "national youth comedy competition at the Melbourne International Comedy Festival " does not satisfy WP:CREATIVE. this does not get significant coverage in ABC, just 2 hits [30]. LibStar (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the refs in the article are just sufficient to meet the WP:GNG or WP:ENT -he has had multiple stage performances at major festivals (note that counter-intuitively WP:CREATIVE isn't actually meant for commedians), and I'd like to point out to the nominator that Trove isn't very useful for modern day searches - it only has very limited current information - it is most useful for it's digitised newspaper archive, which stops in the 1950s. The-Pope (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- then google news should pick up recent coverage, and there is no evidence of significant indepth coverage for this person. LibStar (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No significant career, no significant coverage. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to satisfy WP:GNG, one has to consider the quality of the sources. obviously ABC is a reliable source. but dbmagazine although an independent publication seems rather small, especially when there are ads for band members to contact a gmail address on the side banner. femail.com.au is not a mainstream source either. it reviews events. but looks like an advertising website to me http://www.femail.com.au/index.htm. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In my opinion the 7.30 Report ref almost gets him over the GNG line by itself. Agree that the other sources currently in the article aren't mainstream, but I've found a few more sources that I think guarantee Hadchiti meets GNG.
- Timms, Daryl (15 May 2008). "NRL show not short on ideas". Herald Sun. p. 98.
- "My sister, oh brother". Diamond Valley Leader. 7 May 2008. p. 405.
- "Making big strides in comedy in a short time". Diamond Valley Leader. 24 October 2007. p. 19.
- Ierodiaconou, George (17 October 2007). "Laughs with the comic lot". Hume Leader. p. 28.
- I'd link to all these if I could, but I accessed them using NewsBank, so a subscription is required. Although the last three refs are in regional papers, they do add to the notability, add I think Hadchit meets GNG when you take the 7.30 Report and Herald Sun references into account. Jenks24 (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per improvements and sourcing. Thanks Jenks24. It's just over the edge per WP:GNG, and notable to Australia is fine for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 7:30 Report is sufficiently independent, and other sources appear to confirm notability. Orderinchaos 08:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - in view of comments from Jenks and Orderinchaos - also Trove is not a major search engine, as such but a national library database that utilises library resources at a particular date in time - and due its constant development cannot be thought of as a final piece of evidence of notability of anything in the Australian context - there are many people who wouldnt get a hit on trove who are notable and well sourced from other information sources SatuSuro 07:28, 22 August 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 15:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMacsoft iPod to Mac Transfer
- IMacsoft iPod to Mac Transfer (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:NOTGUIDE --Σ talkcontribs 08:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication this process satisfies notability. Edison (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article creator only has made this one edit - likely advertising MadCow257 (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unreferenced, unencyclopedic, no indication of notability, created by an SPA. Dialectric (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Google searches turn up download sites, etc., but nothing that could be used to establish notability. I applaud all entrepreneurs who take it upon themselves to create stuff. But the article is written as an advertisement, clearly intended as WP:PROMOTION, lacks sources and doesn't belong here. Sorry. If you want your article here, you'll first need to pester some journalists into agreeing it's notable enough that they should take note and write about it. My rule of thumb is that you need two good articles from traditional print sources to establish notability for a new software product. Msnicki (talk) 18:58, 17 August 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. joe deckertalk to me 15:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IntelliMouse
- IntelliMouse (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 not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One of the best-selling line of mice and the standard by which Microsoft sets the standard for mice for the rest of the industry. No real reason for deletion presented. Nate • (chatter) 05:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Early popular of scroll wheel and optical, can find sources to meet WP:GNG MadCow257 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep As far as mice go, this one is pretty famous. Popularized the scroll wheel. —Ruud 11:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable, as a mouse that showed innovative developments in their history. However the encyclopedic history of mice is (IMHO) best explained through a merge of the Intellimouse history into the general coverage of mice. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep just clicked on the news search link and hit the jackpot. Does anyone screen these AfD's? --Kvng (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- :
Delete or mergebecause pages are not WP:NOTABLE, no significant coverage - add, references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject into this article. Significant coverage - References that are about the subject – at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. Not passing mentions, directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Several of them – not just one. It must be notable. Reliable sources - Something that is generally trusted to tell the truth. A major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality mainstream publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Not blogs, MySpace, Facebook, forum/Usenet posts, fansites, or Twitter. It must be verifiable. Independent - Nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject. Not their website, and not a press-release. It must be independent. LES 953 (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Please don't multi-!vote. Also we may assume that editors are familiar with policy and don't need it to be copy&pasted here. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 23 August 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. Courcelles 00:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Broken Down Comforter Collection
- The Broken Down Comforter Collection (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 appear to be notable, and is also a compilation of two EPs which already have their own Wikipedia pages currently. Lachlanusername (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This should never have been listed at AFD. At most, you have a candidate for redirecting to Grandaddy discography, which should have been first attempted through normal editing. On the merits, however, just because it's a compilation doesn't mean it shouldn't have a standalone article, and the norm is for albums of notable artists to have them. I found a review of this compilation just from a quick Google search. That review also notes that one of the two original EPs is "a rare vinyl-only EP of B-sides, and other detritus", which means that it likely had far less distribution and sales than this compilation, and it doesn't even have its own article on WP... So I'm not seeing a valid deletion rationale here. postdlf (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable band, album received significant coverage (there's also a review at Allmusic).--Michig (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with all the other albums from this band. One review on a fan-site and a reference in NME doesn't make notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:44, 8 August 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, v/r - TP 14:32, 9 August 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, Cerejota (talk) 04:24, 17 August 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. and merge Rome: Total Realism VII into it. causa sui (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rome: Total Realism
- Rome: Total Realism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominating Rome: Total Realism and Rome: Total Realism VII. 90 per cent plus of the articles' content is not referenced: at time of writing, Rome: Total Realism contains two references in the whole article, one of which does not work; Rome: Total Realism VII just contains two references to internet forums. The articles also read like game guides, rather than encyclopaedic entries. Rome: Total Realism was PRODded before, but this was contested. By way of precedent, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rise of Persia (also, for admins, [31] and It Is Me Here t / c 14:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because it is on a similar topic (spin-off of the mod) and is also unreferenced:
- Rome: Total Realism VII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Rome: Total Realism and merge Rome: Total Realism VII to it as unnecessary WP:SPINOUT. News, Books and Scholar links at the top of this AfD easily show WP:GNG-satisfying coverage for base topic. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep and merge as above, or strip and merge both to Rome: Total War. The About.com coverage is too light to support the article (UGO isn't loading for me), but the VG/RS search gives us a review at firingsquad.com. That's really all I can find though - I would not object to this being reduced to one paragraph (in accordance with WP:WAF) and merged to the parent article. Marasmusine (talk) 10:23, 4 August 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, v/r - TP 14:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge both - The parent article (not subject to this AfD) is Rome: Total War. That article is rather small. It makes no sense to have two small, unreferenced spin-off articles (both subject to this AfD). Best solution is to merge both into the parent article: Rome: Total War. No material will be lost, and there will be some decent sourcing. --Noleander (talk) 21:39, 9 August 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, Cerejota (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge Wow, glad I saw this nom. The mod is generally well known, despite lacking some references. In fact, I have enjoyed this mod for 2 years after first reading it from wikipedia. Dengero (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, does "keep and merge" mean "keep Rome: Total Realism and merge Rome: Total Realism VII to it", or to merge both (presumably to Rome: Total War)? —chaos5023 (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Rome: Total Realism and merge Rome: Total Realism VII to it. Sorry for not clarifying. Dengero (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, does "keep and merge" mean "keep Rome: Total Realism and merge Rome: Total Realism VII to it", or to merge both (presumably to Rome: Total War)? —chaos5023 (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Rome: Total Realism and merge Rome: Total Realism VII into it. A quick search turned up some sources like [33] and [34] and there are probably more. Indeed a google books search finds both a PC Gamer review[35] and a discussion in a book on Antiquity in popular culture.[36] Eluchil404 (talk) 05:09, 25 August 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. — Cirt (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
X-Series
- X-Series (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 free advertising and not a consumer guide. The issue isn't the article as written, but the topic, which is non-notable is usually spammy. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If deleted, the page should become a redirect to Xseries D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Obvious adspam. Product does not meet notabilty requirements. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:39, 9 August 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, Cerejota (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Dominus, or at least redirect to Hutchison 3G. Dengero (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clear adjunk. Just redirect the page as Dondegroovily stated. ~ Don4of4 [Talk] 04:48, 19 August 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
K-1 Fighting Network Prague 2007
- K-1 Fighting Network Prague 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
also nominating:
- K-1 Rules Kick Tournament 2008 in Marseilles
- K-1 World MAX 2008 Japan Tournament
- K-1 World Grand Prix 2008 in Budapest Europe GP Final Elimination
- K-1 MAX Netherlands 2008 The Final Qualification
another non notable series of kickboxing evetns that fail WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - do not meet notability threshold. In the absence of deletion, a merge/redirect to K-1 might be appropriate. Neutralitytalk 20:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all I don't see anything that makes these events notable. The articles are just listings of results and lack independent sources that show notability. Jakejr (talk) 04:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Non-notable sports events. Sources fail test for reliability and diversity, plus are themselves routine sports coverage. No objection to merging some of this to K-1. BusterD (talk) 10:51, 24 August 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 05:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Xapt3r
- Xapt3r (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 not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Dengero (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I didn't see any notable links on Google, Google News and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 17 August 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) 02:36, 18 August 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 05:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rice Refrigeration
- Rice Refrigeration (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. A non-notable defunct company that had a small number of appliance stores in one region of NZ. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I didn't see any sources at all on Google and Yahoo mentioning this company, the same with searching under the name Rices. SwisterTwister talk 04:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Also, at the risk of an WP:IDONTKNOWIT argument, any chain based in Invecargill which is unknown as close as Dunedin is unlikely to be notable. Grutness...wha? 10:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 18 August 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 05:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lynn Fitch
- Lynn Fitch (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: Essentially a campaign CV for a non-notable would-be candidate for state office, sourced only to her campaign website Eeekster (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Not only does she fail WP:POLITICIAN but language such as "Lynn has been recognized for her professionalism and leadership abilities by several organizations. She has been named one of the 50 Leading Business Women in Mississippi and to the inaugural class of Leadership in Law by the Mississippi Business Journal. In addition to these accolades, Lynn has also served as counsel for the Mississippi House of Representatives and as a special assistant attorney general in the Attorney General’s office" shows that the article as now written is entirely promotional and reeks of POV issues. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentIf she is one of the "50 Leading Business Women" in Mississippi, this suggests that she may be notable as a businessperson even if she isn't notable as a politician. Of course, the article would still need to be rewritten for tone. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:BLP being sourced to pages closely related to the subject. You cannot get such a biography right. The remote claim to notability is allegedly from Mississippi Business Journal, but that's too local&topical of a newspaper. I suspect that if you do track that article down, 99% of the women on that list don't have a Wikipedia article, so this is not a compelling WP:ANYBIO argument. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Primary notability is as the newly-nominated GOP candidate for State Treasurer of Mississippi, but she won't be independently notable until she's elected this fall. If Mississippi general election, 2011 actually existed, we could redirect the article there, but it doesn't. -LtNOWIS (talk) 04:26, 24 August 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bob McCoskrie
- Bob McCoskrie (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 fails WP:ANYBIO.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Aside from being invovled with the Family First group, I didn't see any other mentions of him on Google, Google News and Yahoo. The links on Google News mentioned him speaking on the company. I don't see the article growing into much of a biography.SwisterTwister talk 03:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy – Lionel (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where to? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:WikiProject Conservatism/Incubator. Thanks – Lionel (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting him in the incubator will not make him hatch as a notable person under WP guidelines. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:WikiProject Conservatism/Incubator. Thanks – Lionel (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where to? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If userfying is being considered, as was suggested above, I submit that it might be better to move this article to the Conservatism Incubator, which is essentially the same as the userfy option, except it's in a central area, in the project namespace. The advantages of incubation over userfication are that more eyes will see the article, and that it won't sit there indefinitely out of sight if no improvement occurs. Thanks for your consideration. – Lionel (talk) 07:36, 20 August 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 00:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Víctor Merchán de Antonio
- Víctor Merchán de Antonio (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:FOOTYN. Has not played a match in a fully professional league yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hasn't actually played in a fully-professional league yet, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL; also fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 00:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 21:42, 18 August 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 00:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Luis Gustavo Ledes
- Luis Gustavo Ledes (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:FOOTYN. Has not played a match in a fully professional league yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hasn't actually played in a fully-professional league yet, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL; also fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 00:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 21:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Having never played in a fully pro league, and without significant coverage, he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:47, 19 August 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 00:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isaac Cuenca
- Isaac Cuenca (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:FOOTYN. Has not played a match in a fully professional league yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hasn't actually played in a fully-professional league yet, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL; also fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 00:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Doesn't appear as if he meets any of the relevant notability criteria yet, though he has played for Barcelona in a couple of exhibition matches. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 21:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - until he actually plays a game in a fully pro league, he fails WP:NSPORT. He fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:46, 19 August 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. To answer the question about whether it can be restored later, yes, any admin can restore GedUK 12:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cristian Lobato
- Cristian Lobato (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:FOOTYN. Has not played a match in a fully professional league yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Segunda División is listed as fully professional at WP:FPL, therefore all 5 of these AfD appear to meet the notability critera MadCow257 (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- cmt Subject specific notability criteria (WP:NFOOTBALL in this case) requires the player has played in a FPL in a competitive match. As the league does not begin for a few days yet, Lobato does not appear to meet that criteria. --ClubOranjeT 10:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hasn't actually played in a fully-professional league yet, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL; also fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 00:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 21:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (buf if it's deleted it will be perfectly "legal"). At age 23, he has already played with FC Barcelona's first team in friendlies, and will in all certainty play many Segunda División games this season, bar injury (competition starts this weekend), it would save us a lot of trouble of creating piece again.
Is there a way to keep storyline and, after the article is reinstated, reinstate also the "wording"? --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Friendlies don't count, you do know that don't you. If they did then Josh Clapham would be notable because he played for us against Real Madrid in 2006. If Lobato plays in the Segunda División this season then the article can be brought back by an administrator immediately. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 03:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course man, i was not playing the fool :) Friendlies don't count, i was just wondering "what if the article is deleted and he plays this weekend (a GREAT possibility, unless the strike also affects the second division)?" Just let's wait a couple of days more then, of course, delete. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As stated above, he has not played in a fully pro league or had significant coverage. Therefore, he fails both relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:45, 19 August 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 HP Deskjet. Spartaz Humbug! 06:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HP 520
- HP 520 (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 not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge to HP Deskjet. According to my brief research, the previous HP 500 model may deserve an article and the 520 could be mentioned there. ex. source for the 500's notability If someone is knowledgable, please weigh about this MadCow257 (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- merge as suggested above. Reviews could probab ly be found to establish this as notable, but it is not a good practivce to have articles on each individual model. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HP 520 as "speedy close". Cunard (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:Delete the junk. This is unreferenced, barely three sentences long and the notable claims it does make are wrong anyway. The DeskJet is obviously notable, but the DJ+ and the DJ 500 were mere derivatives of this. By the time of the DJ 520 the technology was well established and the 520 itself did not advance this in any significant or notable manner. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to HP Deskjet --Kvng (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge because pages are not WP:NOTABLE, no significant coverage - add, references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject into this article. Significant coverage - References that are about the subject – at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. Not passing mentions, directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Several of them – not just one. It must be notable. Reliable sources - Something that is generally trusted to tell the truth. A major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality mainstream publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Not blogs, MySpace, Facebook, forum/Usenet posts, fansites, or Twitter. It must be verifiable. Independent - Nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject. Not their website, and not a press-release. It must be independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LES 953 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 23 August 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 00:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of artists who have sampled Michael Jackson
- List of artists who have sampled Michael Jackson (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 seems to be merely a list of trivia. LadyofShalott 01:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 01:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 01:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Why Michael Jackson? The bottom line is that this is trivia for the sake of trivia. Carrite (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 01:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information" (WP:TRIVIA) fits exactly per nom MadCow257 (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Given that the song pages exist, this information could easily be included within those articles. This is an unnecessary content fork, not to mention entirely trivia. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete the sort of narrow-interest obsessive detail that usually is better suited to a specialty wiki than an encyclopedia. HominidMachinae (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pretty much a trivia list with no real-world coverage. Lugnuts (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Could this be merged somewhere into his discography? If not, I vote delete — Status {talkcontribs 07:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Inappropriate to allow such an article to exist as a precedent would be established and a plethora of articles for other artists would be created.Curb Chain (talk) 21:48, 23 August 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 00:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Austin
- Michael Austin (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 strikes me as inappropriate per WP:BLP1E, with an eye towards the substantial meaning (if not the letter of) WP:PERP as well. I don't see evidence of substantial sustained coverage after the release. joe deckertalk to me 01:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 01:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —joe deckertalk to me 06:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- wrongful conviction and nothing else to show for notability--AssegaiAli (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unfortunately unnotable because the only claim to notability is his exoneration, which are not notable.Curb Chain (talk) 22:02, 23 August 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 00:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brian Cain
- Brian Cain (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 seems uncertain. The book is not in WorldCat, and the refs cited are primarily about other subjects. But the Houston Chronicle article does mention him as if he were an authority. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 3 August 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) 00:40, 10 August 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, 17 August 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. — Cirt (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Caitlin Papier
- Caitlin Papier (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:MUSICBIO Vanadus (talk | contribs) 00:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Does not Fail WP:MUSICBIO A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
- Does Meet: Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city
- Does Meet: Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.
- WP:BIO
- "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"
- The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
- Has made unique contributions to a field of entertainment.
Electricviolinwiki (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, has not produced an album, fails WP:BAND. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:07, 11 August 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, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Both Google and Yahoo didn't show many results that could help the biography be more blooming aside from minor sites. SwisterTwister talk 03:54, 17 August 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. — Cirt (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Temptation Sordid, or, Virtue Rewarded
- Temptation Sordid, or, Virtue Rewarded (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 play, appears to have had some amateur productions but no reliable sources to support WP:GNG. PROD declined. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - Obviously performed by numerous different groups and it is listed at Amazon (though not available). Not a significant play though so perhaps it only deserves mention at the author's article (if there could be one) or at List of works with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded". violet/riga (t) 08:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But nothing to establish notability. That is what is needed. "significant coverage in reliable sources", major awards, etc. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would call the numerous dramatics societies as reasonable sources that the play has been performed quite a few times, but there a few (if any) non-performance sources. violet/riga (t) 13:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Amateur performances don't count at all towards notability and there are no references in the article that support any sort of notability. If some significant coverage of the play in verifiable and reliable sources can be produced then I can accept notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If a play has been performed by (hyperbole) 500 different amateur groups then that would go some way to support notability. My point is that this has clearly been performed by a number of different groups and is perhaps notable within such circles, but I am not saying that it is necessarily notable for anyone else. violet/riga [talk] 09:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Amateur performances don't count at all towards notability and there are no references in the article that support any sort of notability. If some significant coverage of the play in verifiable and reliable sources can be produced then I can accept notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:53, 4 August 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, Courcelles 00:10, 10 August 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, Courcelles 00:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I would have considered merging this article to the author's page, but it does not yet exist. Claims of multiple performances by amateur groups, no sources to back up this claim, and cloudy language to describe the frequency of these performances (...not infrequently performed by amateur dramatics groups) leads me to support deletion. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:09, 17 August 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. Courcelles 00:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Trial of Davros
- The Trial of Davros (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 amateur play, no WP:RS to satisfy the WP:GNG, PROD declined by article creator. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: It's not accurate to say that there are no RS. There's a link to a BBC News interview with Terry Molloy in which he discusses the play. It's debatable whether this constitutes "significant coverage" per GNG#1, but it's clearly a reliable source. --Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but there is no significant coverage to satisfy GNG. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in two minds about this. The current article is much better written than many I could name, and there are additional sources available - the BBC, The Register and the Tameside Advertiser all covered it around the time of the 2005 performance, and there should be more offline if anyone knows where to look (local paper archives from 1993?). But I can't quite shake off a nagging feeling that this might not be enough to pass WP:GNG, although one more in-depth source would probably convince me. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are enough sources for our purpose. Our editing policy indicates that deletion is not appropriate. For example, merger into Davros would obviously be a better way forward than deletion. Warden (talk) 10:25, 12 August 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, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The sources don't, in my view, come close to supporting a separate article, in terms of verifiable content. However, there are sources, this is a big franchise, and amateur Dr Who productions in general do get covered in RSs. There was a multi-page feature on amateur Dr Who productions in an issue of SFX not that long ago, for instance. Also, it's not every series that has something like this published every month, which I expect covered this production. Anyway, a good merge candidate, but not something that should be deleted IMO. Someoneanother 10:53, 17 August 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 00:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bret Stephens
- Bret Stephens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Three of the 4 sources cited are primary sources from the WSJ where Stephens works, two of them trivial and one of them a column written by Stephens himself. The remaining source from the UJA is insufficiently independent and reliable to establish significant coverage in independent sources. Msnicki (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How important are the awards he has been given?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been trying to figure that out. I'm not personally familiar with the Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism but that of course means nothing. Googling reveals coverage each time the award is given but otoh, it's Fox News awarding the thing, so it's not very surprising they know how to get it into the news. Notice also that the award comes with an "internship" at one of the Fox properties; I'm having trouble deciding the significance of that, but it's not making me more impressed. For the sake of prestige, it's clearly in Fox News's interest that all their writers should have won awards, but this amounts to giving one to themselves.
Another way I thought of looking at it was to compare the notability of that prize within WP with the notability of, say, the Pulitzer Prize by comparing the "what links here" lists for the Breindel and Pulitzer prizes. Most of the links to the Breindel page are from the winners' pages; no surprise, there are lots more links to the Pulitzer. From that exercise, I'm pretty sure it's not like another Pulitzer.
I also looked at the list of past winners, noticed all the blue links and wondered if winning the Breindel seemed to be sufficient to make any of them notable. But if you follow the links, you'll notice that these other articles are much more heavily sourced and it's not hard to scan through the references to decide (in the cases I looked at, where I actually followed all the way through to click links to the sources themselves) that notability of these other subjects is likely easily established in all these other cases and has nothing to do with winning this award. So while I still can't really answer the question, I don't think we can take a presumption of notability just from this award. It is not like a Pulitzer. Msnicki (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been trying to figure that out. I'm not personally familiar with the Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism but that of course means nothing. Googling reveals coverage each time the award is given but otoh, it's Fox News awarding the thing, so it's not very surprising they know how to get it into the news. Notice also that the award comes with an "internship" at one of the Fox properties; I'm having trouble deciding the significance of that, but it's not making me more impressed. For the sake of prestige, it's clearly in Fox News's interest that all their writers should have won awards, but this amounts to giving one to themselves.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Msnicki (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Awards and general coverage received reveal GNG notability.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:28, 15 August 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, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on the basis of "Between 2002 and 2004 he was editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post," Ed-in-chief of such a major newspaper is notable DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does it say that in the guidelines? Msnicki (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Answering my own question, it doesn't. It certainly doesn't mention it in the discussion of journalists at WP:CREATIVE. And from WP:Subjective importance, "A common misnomer about notability is that importance or uniqueness equals notability. But some things that are assumed to be important lack sources that are required by Wikipedia in order to meet the general notability guidelines or other inclusion criteria. Therefore, they are not worthy of being included. A subject may be the biggest, the best, or the most well-known of something. It may be possible on this basis to argue that it should obviously be included. But without a single reliable source to verify its existence or accuracy, there is no way it can be included." See also, later on the page at WP:POSITION, more specific discussion of the fact that simply holding a prestigious title is not sufficient. Msnicki (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I would be inclined to keep just on the basis of being an editor-in-chief of a major newspaper. In this case we also have several professional awards. Passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the past practice has been to keep well-known journalists, which while I am not sure that I agree, it is the consensus. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Williams (journalist). Bearian (talk) 00:45, 23 August 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 00:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Night Train (UVA Ultimate Team)
- Night Train (UVA Ultimate Team) (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 created and maintained by members of the team for the purpose of promotion. It has no coverage that I could find, the only independent coverage after a lot of searching is an interview in Skyd Magazine, a magazine that covers ultimate topics. The article has had numerous issues for multiple years. I once deleted it through PROD and restored it on request, and gave it some time to allow it to improve, but clearly that's never going to happen with such a non-notable subject. -- Atama頭 16:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 16:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am the individual who made a number of edits and updates to the article two days ago. I had hoped, by including links and references to the USA Ultimate website and USA Ultimate Score Reporter, that I would help boost the credibility and notability of the article. If references to the official national governing body of the sport are not sufficient, where else should we turn to improve the notability of the article? Thanks, itoner90 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itoner90 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 11 August 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, 17 August 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Servicios Aéreos
- Servicios Aéreos (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 a valid disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages are for articles which share the exact same (or very similar) name. These airlines do not share the name "Servicios Aereos". Also, we don't disambiguate foreign-language terms unless the term is widely used in english sources. We already have List of airlines of Spain and List of airlines of Venezuela and List of airlines of Ecuador, etc. —SW— talk 19:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This list of Spanish-language-using airlines doesn't belong on English Wikipedia.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This dab page is useful. It is entirely possible that one or more of those airlines has been referred to as "Servicios Aéreos. Mjroots (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's not a phrase widely used in the English language. Should we have a dab page for "Servicii de avion" as it's possible one or more Romanian airlines may have been refereed to by this phrase?--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's "entirely possible"? Ok... well, it's also entirely possible that the airlines have been referred to as "Fingle Fangle Flapjack Flightbucket", but without providing sources which show that they are called either of these names in English sources, then they are both equally useless and inappropriate dab pages. We don't have a disambiguation page from 航空公司 to various Chinese airlines, nor do we have a dab for авиакомпания to various Russian airlines. —SW— yak 14:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's not a phrase widely used in the English language. Should we have a dab page for "Servicii de avion" as it's possible one or more Romanian airlines may have been refereed to by this phrase?--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:26, 16 August 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, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- When it comes to proper nouns, it doesn't matter what the "common" English phrase is or isn't but what the actual unique entity name is, in this case multiple airlines and air services companies in the Spanish language world which include or have included "Servicios Aéreos" in their official names.--Oakshade (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a proper noun, it's Spanish for "Air Services". See also WP:PTM, which states that "A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion." That is precisely what this dab page is doing. It's using the proper names of these airlines, most of which include some variation of "Servicios Aéreos" (but none of their complete names are "Servicios Aéreos"), and adding links to them. There is no risk of confusion between "Consorcio Venezolano de Industrias Aeronáuticas y Servicios Aéreos" (more commonly known as Conviasa) and "Compañía De Servicios Aéreos Nacionales S.A." (more commonly known as Sansa Airlines). No one would ever refer to any of these airlines solely as "Servicios Aéreos", just like no one in the US would ever refer to American Airlines as "Airline". This is why the Airline (disambiguation) page doesn't include American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Southwest Airlines even though they all have the word "Airline" in their name. Until it can be shown that there are multiple entities whose entire name is "Servicios Aéreos", or who are commonly referred to solely as "Servicios Aéreos", this dab page is inappropriate. —SW— yak 19:40, 17 August 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 00:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beryl Chang
- Beryl Chang (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 in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. He's published a few papers on economics but they are not cited significantly by others, he has also written what appears to be a book but I can find no reviews. He has done nothing as a musician to pass MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 00:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 01:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I didn't see any notable sources on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 02:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I tagged this last May when I could fine no sources for notability. Note that I have semi-protected the article due to numerous removals of the AfD template. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 17 August 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. — Cirt (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orlando Eye
- Orlando Eye (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 on a proposed structure/business. Even the one source cited uses "iffy" wording like "may", "could", etc. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that anything stable is underway, it's simply an idea floating around in a crystal ball. Normally I wouldn't AfD an article this new, but the facts seems to speak for themselves, and addition of further sources reporting that the proposal "might" lead to something "if" approved aren't going to help anything. After construction has begun, maybe this article could be encyclopedic. I thought about speedily deleting this, but it's not entirely clear that this counts as a non-notable "organization" per se, though of course an amusement park won't build itself. Another issue is that the article is really about a proposed amusement park with other features, not just about the proposed giant ferris wheel. PS: Interestingly, the creator's talk page consists of almost nothing but CSD/AFD deletion notices, but almost half of the articles in question were actually kept. Kind of an editorial tightrope walker. :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I was able to find several non-trivial, independent sources that cover this Ferris wheel even over and above what the original editor has included in the article. It seems that its notability has be sufficiently established in my opinion. Topher385 (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:N isn't the only active guideline here, and there's a policy matter that outranks it: WP:NOT. Regardless of some local media coverage, it's still the amusement-parkish equivalent of "So-and-so's forthcoming third album" or "Next constitution of Elbonia"; we routinely delete this stuff per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, regardless how much buzz there may be about the possibility of it happening, because it's not encyclopedic until a) it happens, or b) some controversy about, or other event surrounding, it becomes notable in and of itself (and then the article should focus on the controversy or whatever, not the allegedly forthcoming widget). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 03:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Source rebuttal: Here's a quote from one of the additional local/regional sources added (from the local Fox TV affiliate): "Circle Entertainment [the would-be developer], in filings with the Security[sic] and Exchange Commission, indicated closing on the deal will take place by January 1, 2012." This actually supports my nomination for deletion as blatant prediction, since it indicates that there isn't even a stable financial, zoning or other fact to rely on, only involved parties' expectations about a proposed deal and the milestones it has to cross to become a reality. Here's more, from an article published only yesterday: The plan "cleared its first hurdle when Orange County's Development Review Committee gave preliminary approval with conditions to plans for [it]....'probably in the neighborhood of a $100 million project'....The next stop for the development will be the Orange County Commission." Lots of maybes, no certainties, not even about the proposed budget. The other "new" piece actually clearly cannibalizes the Fox report, repeating most of its points but without any of the attribution nor any of the ifs and caveats, just recasting all the possibilities as if they were certainties; tt is not actually a reliable source at all. The other source is a single paragraph that tells the same story, but is dated March of this year, indicating that the facts (and the lack of any of them firming up) have apparently not changed in five months, with the exception of a single favorable "preliminary review", a "first hurdle". I have nothing against the project, it's simply isn't encyclopedic until it is at least certainly happening and being worked on, not just being talked about as a "maybe". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 03:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per point 5 of WP:CRYSTAL MadCow257 (talk) 18:24, 14 August 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) 00:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with no prejudice to recreation when it is actually constructed. I would have suggested a merge to List of Orlando, Florida attractions, but the attraction is merely in the planning stages and could fall through. Once construction begins, it might be fair to add it to such a list, but having its own article right now, predicting its details and expected visitors is WP:CRYSTAL. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:19, 17 August 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.