![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Treffpunkt.svg/48px-Treffpunkt.svg.png)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan Oquendo
- Jonathan Oquendo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced BLP about a boxer who fails WP:NSPORTS#Boxing. He's had no world title fights and has never been ranked in the top 10 (current Boxrec rank is 31st in his division). Papaursa (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article has no sources (except for his fight record) and he doesn't meet the notability criteria for boxers. Mdtemp (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article lacks sources and fails to show that subject meets any notability criteria. Astudent0 (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2012 (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 Dipankan (Have a chat?) 15:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Angampora
- Angampora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is nothing that shows this is a notable martial art or that it meets any of the criteria at WP:MANOTE. None of the sources show notability and claims of dating back 3000 years are unsourced. Papaursa (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Some youtube videos and an unsupported claim of being 3000 years old do not show notability. Mdtemp (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per WP:NRVE, ..."The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." Northamerica1000(talk) 02:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve Many mentions between Google Scholar and Google Books, including a mention in this 1959 book Some Sinhala Combative, Field And Aquatic Sports And Games. Here is an article in The Sunday Times, a notable Sri Lankan newspaper. Not familiar enough with the definition to say whether it qualifies as a martial art but it at least seems to be as notable a sport or game as mercy for example, if not moreso. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 00:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the sources you mention show significant reliable coverage. The book has a 1 sentence mention and the newspaper is an interview with someone who says his family has been studying and carrying on this martial art for many centuries, but there's no supporting evidence. I've seen many examples of people claiming to know secret martial arts that have been passed down for generations without giving a single shred of proof and it's made me a bit jaded. I haven't seen anything that shows this martial art meets any of the 5 criteria supporting notability mentioned at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying that any particular claims are true: this could be some simple kids' game invented a century ago that has been re-branded as a martial art. The book is only the oldest mention that appeared to be a reliable source to me, there were several others, and Google Scholar hits too. Whatever it is this thing called Angampora appears to have been around for at least half a century and is talked about in major newspapers in Sri Lanka where it's purported to be from; this says to me that it has sufficient notability to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, even just a stub that only contains the bare minimum verifiable information presented in a tenative way and isn't categorized as a martial art. (Though also, I'm noting that WP:MANOTE is just an essay, not a guideline or policy; but I appreciate the urban legendy nature of obscure martial arts.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the sources you mention show significant reliable coverage. The book has a 1 sentence mention and the newspaper is an interview with someone who says his family has been studying and carrying on this martial art for many centuries, but there's no supporting evidence. I've seen many examples of people claiming to know secret martial arts that have been passed down for generations without giving a single shred of proof and it's made me a bit jaded. I haven't seen anything that shows this martial art meets any of the 5 criteria supporting notability mentioned at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - The topic has received significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, thus passing WP:GNG:
- "'Angampora' the local martial art needs to be revived". Daily News (Sri Lanka). September 1, 2007. Retrieved May 13, 2012.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
|publisher=
(help) - Amarasekara, Janani (June 17, 2007). "Angampora - Sri Lankan martial art". Sunday Observer (Sri Lanka). Retrieved May 13, 2012.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
|publisher=
(help) - Wasala, Chinthana (24 November 2007). "Bandara to promote 'Angampora'". Sri Lanka Daily News. Retrieved 10 May 2012.
- "Bringing ancient form of martial art to the people". The Sunday Times (Sri Lanka). August 21, 2011. Retrieved May 13, 2012.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
|publisher=
(help) - "Weaponry used in "Angampora"". Sri Lanka Department of National Museums. Retrieved May 13, 2012.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help)|publisher=
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 02:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "'Angampora' the local martial art needs to be revived". Daily News (Sri Lanka). September 1, 2007. Retrieved May 13, 2012.
- Keep seems to be a well known and traditional martial art technique in Sri Lanka. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it seems to be something very important in Sri Lanka history and culture. This is a credible source, I found about it.
http://exploresrilanka.lk/2010/07/angampora-the-martial-art-of-sri-lankan-kings/ BernardZ (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak KeepSources are starting to come out of the woodwork but as a stub it just isn't credible. Unless expanded with the help of the newly discovered sources it should be deleted.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is Wikipedia, Peter. A work in progress. Stubs are entirely legitimate. Here is how our article on Banana started. Would it be better to delete it and wait until someone writes a more detailed article? I don't think so. Short articles might inspire others to expand the information. The article Angampora — as it stands — provides a brief description of the topic and gives five independent sources. It is better than nothing. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stubs are fine but there just isn't enough there to even imply notability. I can find press mentions of myself but if all there was in the article my age and hair colour .... anyway what I meant is that even a stub should have enough information.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These aren't simply passing mentions in media, these are entire newspaper articles treating the topic as a notable one. Do you have a collection in a national museums department devoted to you? But besides that, the argument you are making about deletion isn't a valid one under Wikipedia policy; a Wikipedia article being poorly written or poorly sourced does not render its topic non-notable. There is no "improve it or it must be deleted" principle like this. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 00:21, 15 May 2012 (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. JohnCD (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cliff Hammond
- Cliff Hammond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I do not think these awards actually make for notability--I think it is sales manager of the year for kitchen products in Sweden. DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The award was not in Sweden at all; it was available for several years as a national award in the United Kingdom.
A photo of the award: http://i47.tinypic.com/2prgy8h.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.54.16 (talk) 07:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The award is not a major notable award. -- Whpq (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Promotional BLP for clearly non-notable subject. Severely lacking in substantial coverage from independent WP:RS sources. Fails WP:N, fails WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2012 (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. JohnCD (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
K.D Pathak
- K.D Pathak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not so notable character of a not-so-notable Indian Tv show. No references establishing notability of character. Also fails WP:GNG §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Adaalat Yasht101 16:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nothing to verify notability in accordance with the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2012 (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. obvious bad faith nomination. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
America's Next Top Model, Cycle 18
- America's Next Top Model, Cycle 18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete As stated, fails requirements for WP:NOTABLE, violates what Wiki is not as a fan siteWP:NOT violates WP:SOAPas a promotional tool and has no realiable sources WP:RELIABLE. This show is a contest, making it an event but it fails WP:EVENT as well. There is virtually no reason for this page to exist if Wiki is not a fan site. Please discuss these matters on fan sites, fan forums, and other means outside of Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.72.167 (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet requirements for WP:NOTABLE as the notability of this reality TV show is questionable, and violates many standards established in WP:NOT. There is no coverage for this more than any other television show and as a result this fails the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy because it fails to demonstrate why or how it will have any enduring notability. Page should be merged into a generalized America's Next Top Model page, or even more accurately merge all of the iterations of this show together into 1 small page including the British and other national versions. Mississippistfan (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 10. Snotbot t • c » 23:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere are major issues with the entire ANTM article space, but they shouldn't be dealt with through wholesale deletion. Also due to lack of edits, reads as a possible bad faith nomination. Nate • (chatter) 04:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to Speedy Keep The posts brought up by Life of Riley make clear that nothing except an agenda push unrelated to ANTM was the reason for this nom. We don't need this AfD stretched out further or for this to be dragged into the MMA discussion. Nate • (chatter) 23:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Show receives wide press coverage (particularly in fashion/celebrity/women's-interest publication), establishing notability. It's well established that series or even episodes of TV shows can have separate articles providing they have sufficient references. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As stated, fails requirements for WP:NOTABLE, violates what Wiki is not as a fan siteWP:NOT violates WP:SOAPas a promotional tool and has no realiable sources WP:RELIABLE. This show is a contest, making it an event but it fails WP:EVENT as well. There is virtually no reason for this page to exist if Wiki is not a fan site. Please discuss these matters on fan sites, fan forums, and other means outside of Wiki. Why can't fans of America's Top Model make their own wiki for this WP:fancruft? AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep As right now, per given statement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model on giving a snowball keep. ApprenticeFan work 14:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and close. Bad faith nomination by bad faith user. See a couple of nominator's edits here and here. This nomination appears to be a retaliation against another user for the deletion of some MMA-related articles. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is really presumptuous of you to comment on the nominators motive, as you have no insight into his thinking process. Regardless, this article fails Wiki standards based on my post above, and for that reason should be deleted. This isn't a fan site for "America's Next Top Model", it is an encyclopedia. Such a shallow reality show is not fit for an encyclopedia entry, especially not dozens of articles on every little nuance related to the show. At the very least, merge all the individual articles into one entry for "America's Next Top Model" and be done with it. This isn't a fan site, this isn't a news site. Wikipedia is not the place for up-to-the-minute update news from reality TV. AugustWest1980 (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep This is clearly a pointy, bad faith nomination to get back at the creator. Mississippistfan and AugustWest1980 are a part of this bad faith nomination. SilverserenC 23:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ANI discussion of nominations
For courtesy, a point out that these two nominations are being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:POINTy nominations of ANTM articles, though we could use some sensible discussion about this (I am not willing to be dragged into the MMA discussion at all). Nate • (chatter) 23:23, 11 May 2012 (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. obvious bad faith nomination. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
America's Next Top Model
- America's Next Top Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The enduring notability WP:NOTABLE is undetermined for this reality television contest, as a result it fails virtually all criteria for WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. This page seems to be little more than a promotional tool for the show and a personal agenda for fans. This is not a America's Next Top Model fan page. There are no reliable sources WP:IRS to show the validity of this "contest". Mississippistfan (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 10. Snotbot t • c » 23:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge highly selective merge of all to America's Next Top Model, seperate articles on each "cycle" is unnecessary and cannot meet notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)This is not the AFD I !voted on since the season specific articles were removed from the nomination. I have no opinion on the remaining article.--RadioFan (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Note I have commented out the "Prefixindex" as it was showing 10 misleading AfD discussions. Unscintillating (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nominator has made a total of four edits to Wikipedia, two of which are AfD nominations. Unscintillating (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere are major issues with the entire ANTM article space, but they shouldn't be dealt with through wholesale deletion. Also due to lack of edits, reads as a possible bad faith nomination. Nate • (chatter) 04:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to Speedy Keep The posts brought up by Life of Riley in the nom for Cycle 18 make clear that nothing except an agenda push unrelated to ANTM was the reason for this nom. We don't need this AfD stretched out further or for this to be dragged into the MMA discussion. Nate • (chatter) 23:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep An obviously notable show that receives a huge amount of press coverage, with stories in everything from the New York Times to TMZ. Wikipedia:OUTCOMES says tv shows broadcast by various networks are usually kept, and this is no exception. Proposer either does not understand Wikipedia policies or is acting in bad faith. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable and well known television show. Stating that there are no reliable sources used for this article is completely false. Among other sources are the Huffington Post, TIME Magazine, and the Wall Street Journal. Chewbaccaaa (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For reasons above. Surprised this was even put up for deletion. Have heard a lot about it and I'm in the UK... Mabalu (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep It's really a notable reality TV show compare to Survivor, The Amazing Race and American Idol. It has been barely a million viewers in every recent season of the show. I'll give a snow consensus to close this discussion. The nominator had a bad faith on nominating the article and has really a newcomer in this online encyclopedia. ApprenticeFan work 14:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As stated, fails requirements for WP:NOTABLE, violates what Wiki is not as a fan siteWP:NOT violates WP:SOAPas a promotional tool and has no realiable sources WP:RELIABLE. This show is a contest, making it an event but it fails WP:EVENT as well. There is virtually no reason for this page to exist if Wiki is not a fan site. Please discuss these matters on fan sites, fan forums, and other means outside of Wiki. Why can't fans of America's Top Model make their own wiki for this WP:fancruft? AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball keep at this point. I think a case could be made for deleting or merging & redirecting many of the related articles - about the contestants, the individual seasons, etc. - to the main article, since many of them seem to have only primary sources, but, like it or not, the show itself is notable and the info is verifiable. I hate the way many TV show articles end up "fansite-y", too, but that's not a reason for deletion. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is clearly a pointy nomination. The notability of the TV show is unquestionable. SilverserenC 23:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ANI discussion of nominations
For courtesy, a point out that these two nominations are being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:POINTy nominations of ANTM articles, though we could use some sensible discussion about this (I am not willing to be dragged into the MMA discussion at all). Nate • (chatter) 23:23, 11 May 2012 (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 Kept, no consensus. A merge may be appropriate but this can be done outside AFD. JYolkowski // talk 01:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Wooster Scot Center
- The Wooster Scot Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete or possibly merge a word or to into College of Wooster. Not notable building. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ágoston Garamvölgyi
- Ágoston Garamvölgyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about footballer who is mentioned in a few obituaries - seemingly only notable as a reserve goalkeeper for Honvéd. Doesn't appear to be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (all obits I found are derivative of one published in the Nezmeti Sport) and I cannot verify that he played in a fully-pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without explanation. Jogurney (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with someone having both an English and Hungarian entry? Ifore2012 (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm only nominating the article in the English Wikipedia for deletion. Jogurney (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as unverified. The article does not meet WP:GNG, and there is no sourcing to indicate that Mr. Garamvolgyi played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2012 (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. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 04:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Santhosh Pandit
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santhosh Pandit (4th nomination)
- Santhosh Pandit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Proposes deletion as per WP:BLP1E. Biography of a living person. Subject notable only for one event.
An extract of the policy:
Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
- If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
- If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
- It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981.
The subject was in news just for only one event: an amateur film he made all by himself (acted, directed, written, ...), and which he screened in just one rented theater. And it was in news not for its quality but for its notoriety, for the infamy it earned, for the peculiar way such a bad product was received (with the viewers celebrating with oaths and abusive language). So even if we should have this 'great' incident recorded in the 'history' of cinema, then we could merge this article into Krishnanum Radhayum the article on the only film he made and which was the only reason of his appearance in news for a few months. Even for the most technical of the reasons, this article is not qualified to exist, since the subject was in news only for a single event (and of-course for its reverberations for a few more months).
And please note that there is no difference of opinion with the quality of the article. It is indeed well written. The problem is with the notability of the subject. That the subject was notable for only one event which has now lost its news value. Please do focus on WP:BLP1E in the discussion.
Austria156 (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is sufficient significant coverage in secondary sources to indicate WP:GNG. There is editorial oversight on enough of these sources to indicate WP:RS. There is however a fair amount of puffery which should be redacted. The discography and telefilm sections need to be referenced. The claims in the first paragraph are assertions which require citations. I think the best option is to keep the article, but tease out each issue in turn on the article talk page. isfutile:P (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that you are not familiar with the issue. I have just made my point clearer. Could you please reconsider your opinion? Thanks. Austria156 (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears to pass WP:GNG, not sure what has changed since AfD 3 which was an overwhelming keep result. Monty845 22:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In AfD3 BLP1E was not proved wrong. It failed due to an 'overwhelming' majority of keep votes. But should AfDs be decided by voting majority or for the issue raised? Why AfD4 on the same grounds after a failed AfD3? Because the subject is not anymore in the news and BLP1E is better proved now for those who are too technical about it. Austria156 (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep From what I can tell Santhosh just got more notable since the original article was made. Deleting it was probably the right choice before but keeping is probably the right choice now. I do not see any major problems with this article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is not with the article. The problem is with the notability of the subject. Please look at WP:BLP1E. Please. Austria156 (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: The person is well notable now, his first film was also very notable. He was covered and interviewed by all reputed media in Kerala. His second film is ready for release and the progress of this film is also reported with importance in leading Malayalam channels. The article on the person has enough references from reliable sources.
Anish Viswa 01:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- His first and only film was material for television news. (It did not find place in any of the reputed print dailies). And an encyclopedia is not place for shortlived news-entertainment. The question of WP:BLP1E is not yet answered. His second film was only an ambitious announcement or rather a boasting during the hype of the first film. It is not heard of ever since. Could you provide links to some reliable newspaper report on his second film since Jan 2012? Could anybody give some evidence that it is infact under production? Austria156 (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You made your point already and I don't think you hane to make your point again and again and challenge the opinion of all other Wikipedians. Please wait for the AfD decision. Santosh Pandit related news , articles and interviews were there in leading dailies like Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhumi, Times of India, Deccan Chronicle etc. The shooting location reports and songs of his second film was covered by Asianet, Indiavision, Reporter etc. You can also find videos in YouTube.
Anish Viswa 02:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- 1. See wikipedia guidelines on AfD discussions, and see archived AfDs. This is a discussion and every new argument can be, and ought to be answered. No offense intended, I'm just pointing out what you might have overseen.
- You keep on making the same point and argument all the time, that is what I said.
Anish Viswa 03:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep on making the same point and argument all the time, that is what I said.
- 2. Please provide specific references to establish reliable media coverage. Thanks. Austria156 (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think notability needs to be re-established time and again, please go through the 16 references available in Santhosh Pandit article and just see in which all print and visual media is he covered and also from whom he received an award.
Anish Viswa 03:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Santhosh Pandit was news in the last quarter of 2011. It is a fact needing no proof. Shall I copy paste my previous request here: "Could you provide links to some reliable newspaper report on his second film since Jan 2012? Could anybody give some evidence that it is infact under production?". The argument is that Santhosh Pandit was news, and just short lived news. Not fit for an encyclopedia. Hence WP:BLP1E. He just became famous for an uncommon act, which may not ever happen again. Remember if dog bit man it is not news, but if man bites dog it definitely is news, but that info does not go into an encyclopedia in these words: "man is an organism that might bite a dog in the most rarest of situaions". And if you find such a statement in an encyclopedia you will stop trusting it as an reliable source. So let us try to make our encyclopedia clean. Austria156 (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP1E does not by itself create a deletion argument. The topic must also be unworthy of keeping as a redirect. If the one-event is notable, pretty much by definition we won't be deleting the redirect of the person involved. Next, single events can be notable—a benchmark that has been mentioned is Balloon boy hoax. Third, films are not events. I'll moreso add the opinion that films are like books in being publications that will endure as long as Wikipedia endures. Fourth, being news does not mean that material is not encyclopedic, see the nutshell of WP:N, which says that newspapers can be used as sources. Unscintillating (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem one: We are going too technical here. Those from outside Kerala who are responding on this, make an impression on reading the article itself and the references. They do not know Santhosh Pandit neither do they know about his film neither do they know why it became news. People in Kerala knows why I am raising this issue. The case with Santhosh Pandit was just a 'crazy' news for Malayalees to laugh about, and talk about and have fun with. Nobody is going to remember the name Santhosh Pandit after a couple of years.
- Problem two: Do every piece of film screened in a theatre anywhere in the world has a right to be in wikipedia? If I make an amateur video and screen it in a rented theatre, and make enough noise in media to attract attention, become myself a clown, and manages to be in the news for a few weeks or even months through notoriety, then could I have a page all for myself in Wikipedia until the world ends? (That was what Santhosh Pandit did. (Contest this and I will cite references from the article itself.)) There needs to be something that qualifies a piece of moving picture to have its own article in an encyclopedia, isn't it? At least Wikipedians generally thinks so. If else what does this mean: Wikipedia:Notability (films)? Thanks. And my God! This is a job! Austria156 (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP1E does not by itself create a deletion argument. The topic must also be unworthy of keeping as a redirect. If the one-event is notable, pretty much by definition we won't be deleting the redirect of the person involved. Next, single events can be notable—a benchmark that has been mentioned is Balloon boy hoax. Third, films are not events. I'll moreso add the opinion that films are like books in being publications that will endure as long as Wikipedia endures. Fourth, being news does not mean that material is not encyclopedic, see the nutshell of WP:N, which says that newspapers can be used as sources. Unscintillating (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Santhosh Pandit was news in the last quarter of 2011. It is a fact needing no proof. Shall I copy paste my previous request here: "Could you provide links to some reliable newspaper report on his second film since Jan 2012? Could anybody give some evidence that it is infact under production?". The argument is that Santhosh Pandit was news, and just short lived news. Not fit for an encyclopedia. Hence WP:BLP1E. He just became famous for an uncommon act, which may not ever happen again. Remember if dog bit man it is not news, but if man bites dog it definitely is news, but that info does not go into an encyclopedia in these words: "man is an organism that might bite a dog in the most rarest of situaions". And if you find such a statement in an encyclopedia you will stop trusting it as an reliable source. So let us try to make our encyclopedia clean. Austria156 (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think notability needs to be re-established time and again, please go through the 16 references available in Santhosh Pandit article and just see in which all print and visual media is he covered and also from whom he received an award.
- 1. See wikipedia guidelines on AfD discussions, and see archived AfDs. This is a discussion and every new argument can be, and ought to be answered. No offense intended, I'm just pointing out what you might have overseen.
- You made your point already and I don't think you hane to make your point again and again and challenge the opinion of all other Wikipedians. Please wait for the AfD decision. Santosh Pandit related news , articles and interviews were there in leading dailies like Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhumi, Times of India, Deccan Chronicle etc. The shooting location reports and songs of his second film was covered by Asianet, Indiavision, Reporter etc. You can also find videos in YouTube.
- I am not interested in an argument, but since you dragged Keralites into this, I am also from Kerala and I know Santhosh Pandit is well known and notable now. It is not his fault that he made a film all by his efoort, that should be appreciated. Also, his film is not an amateur video, it received a proper censor certificate. He leased only 3 theatres in the initial week, later the film released in over 40 theatres all over Kerala. The film had it home video released and also aired on Television He is not in news currently since his second film is under production. He will be in news again, once the film hit theatres. We can't delete articles based on current notability basis. This article was decided to be kept based on last AfD with a clear conclusion that the subject is notable and fit to be in Wikipedia.
Anish Viswa 05:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- His first and only film was material for television news. (It did not find place in any of the reputed print dailies). And an encyclopedia is not place for shortlived news-entertainment. The question of WP:BLP1E is not yet answered. His second film was only an ambitious announcement or rather a boasting during the hype of the first film. It is not heard of ever since. Could you provide links to some reliable newspaper report on his second film since Jan 2012? Could anybody give some evidence that it is infact under production? Austria156 (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Strong Keep:(for God's sake, how often one must come back on this page and ponder on the same arguments just because someone likes to lick upon one's wounds of defeat and agony in a democratically cleaned up pique!). Those who want to recommend this page to be deleted have neither a vision about Wikipedia nor an idea about the very reasons why the page should be there. It is not because the person has become a 'superstar' or an eternal soul, but due to the very viral NOTABILITY he aquired (and continues to aquire) through his acts. As the user above mentioned, Wikipedia SHOULD NOT delete articles like stock market data just because someone gets irked for their moral policing dreams being disturbed. Santhosh Pandit may not be an accomplished artist in the way we are taught to consider art or film. But his movement has demonstrated other important social possibilities in a society where things have been taken granted like in a text book, for established systems. He has singlehandedly strived, succeeded and proved that it is possible to contemplate and execute such projects as producing, releasing and distributing a so-called feature film. If not for the quality of the film, the caliber and courage of the person indeed calls for a Wikipedia article proper.
I urge very strongly to keep the article and even not to entertain yet another request for deletion in the future regardless of how flamboyant or exuberant Santhosh Pandit may continue to show up in the public life of Kerala. As a person of article, he has already earned enough to be in the pages of Wikipedia by now. Remember, Wikipedia is not a pulp newspaper that keeps deleting or 'forgetting' articles as someone just feels like. ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭtalk 06:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep WP:SNOW Agree with ViswaPrabha's comments --Jacob.jose (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Just like Justin Bieber and Rebecca Black, this guy is notable enough although for the wrong reasons. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- for right or wrong reason, Santhosh Pandit is/was notable. Now as in when time progress, if he is not in the news headlines, how is the notability disappears.--Rameshng (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One major film is enough. This is not the situation that ONEEVENT was meant for. Though there is a possibility of merging, I wouldn't advise it, because someone who has done 1 successful film usually makes more of them. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately this is where the article lead uninformed readers to. This was not a major film. And this was not even a normal film. Let me repeat what I said earlier: "If somebody make an amateur video and screen it in a couple of rented theatres, and make enough noise in media to attract attention becoming himslef a clown, and manages to be in the news for a few weeks or even months through notoriety, then could he have a page all for himself in Wikipedia until the world ends?" (This is not a POV. See the reference within the article itself. You could read it straight. No need even to read between the lines). If the answer is yes. Then I Quit, And democracy wins. Austria156 (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The subject has won award for his first film. Thus making him notable enough as been recognized for the work. Winning award is different than just being commercially successful. His other films not getting success or coverage is not changing the past. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Malayalee supporters of the article, See what impressions others get about Santhosh Pandit and his film here. They read it has won an award and was 'commercially successful'. They do not know what kind of an award and what the commercial success was. Where does this place Wikipedia? Please don't make Wikipedia a laughing stock. The article gives wrong impression about this guy and his work. Austria156 (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not Malayalee. Do your home work. And in case you think that some info is presented wrongly, edit it and help present it correctly. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Malayalee supporters of the article, See what impressions others get about Santhosh Pandit and his film here. They read it has won an award and was 'commercially successful'. They do not know what kind of an award and what the commercial success was. Where does this place Wikipedia? Please don't make Wikipedia a laughing stock. The article gives wrong impression about this guy and his work. Austria156 (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:already highlighted above by several users and [[wp:SNOW], request closing this fourth nomination and a waste of time for AFD contributors.-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is from the originator of the AfD. Obviously, this is going to be a snowball. Originally when I proposed the deletion, I did not really expect any success. But it is unfortunate yet that people out here in our part of the world do not yet realize what an encyclopedia is. Eventhough fit for snowball, I would rather suggest to put this up for the normal one week period. Because, both for the marketing managers of Wikimedia (the cool businessmen behind all that great philosophy), as well as for the policy makers of Wikipedia (the sincere non-profit geeks), this would defenity give something to learn at least if you come back to this a few years later. Moreover, I am sure that five or ten years later, when Santhosh Pandit would have fallen to oblivion, if Wikipedia still would exist then, then it would be great fun, for the future sincere contributors to look back at this discusscion from the archives. Or if democracy decides to go for snowball, then it fits me too. Ultimately, it is the 'popularity factor' that decides the success of Wikipedia. If google did not promote Wikipedia articles in its search results, then Wikipedia would not be what it is today. Thanks. I quit from this discussion with all due respect to the participants. I think I have stolen some of their valuable time which would have been useful otherwise. Austria156 (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2012 (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hand-to-mouth food disease.
- Hand-to-mouth food disease. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The title is unrelated to the subject body. Furthermore, the content is already has a WP page, if the author wanted, he can simply improve on it. Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 21:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I'm not positive, but coudln't this potentially just be Speedy Deleted under criteria A10, since as mentioned, the actual body of the article is already covered elsewhere? Rorshacma (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Essay/original research, completely unencyclopedic, and an unlikely search term. --MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am inclined to consider this a hoax; the PoV is so pointed that the author even introduces some of it in the form of a question to help the medicine go down. "Can you count the amount of bacteria, fungal, protozoa etc, that have been transmitted into your mouth?" I count this a poor essay at best. Anarchangel (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - random thoughts about hygeine do not an article make. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject of this article is foodborne illness due to poor hand washing by food vendors. The structure—which starts off with apparently unrelated threads, and then later weaves them together—is unusual in Western culture, but it is typical of an educated person from parts of Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia.
I'm fairly confident that we already have an article on this subject, but the question is, which one? The author doesn't seem concerned so much about fecal-oral transmission as fomite-hand-oral (via food) transmission. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2012 (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Hillebrand
- Michael Hillebrand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not yet notable per WP:NSPORT or WP:NMMA. All references are for amateur matches, and I can't find any evidence online that he's appeared in anything higher than what's referenced in the article. Proposed deletion contested by page's creator. Scopecreep (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing here to satisfy WP:GNG First4Uppingham (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Struck per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Blue Coat School. Uncle G (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Concur with Nom and previous comment. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmanoconnor (talk • contribs) 23:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Competing as an underbelt is not considered notable and there's nothing else in the article. Mdtemp (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2012 (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. No evidence of notability presented under any guideline or policy, WP:GNG or otherwise. joe deckertalk to me 20:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-Colonial Socio-Political History of Kokori Inland
- Pre-Colonial Socio-Political History of Kokori Inland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previous Prod with rationale "No evidence that this bachelor's degree dissertation has any encyclopaedic notability." Prod removed by article creator so bringing it to AfD on the same rationale. AllyD (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not published, not cited, no references or sources to indicate notability or significant coverage. Does not pass WP:GNG. First4Uppingham (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Struck per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Blue Coat School. Uncle G (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as entirely non-notable; the synopsis section looks a little like it was written as a joke. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is a mess with no information at all about the subject. I'm not even sure how to begin cleaning it up, or whether Kokori Island is a real island, let alone worthwhile of a WP entry. Rjhatl (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete , probably by SNOW.` DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete - Wikipedia is not the place to publish/publicize your dissertation. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Baston
- Daniel Baston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP: GNG / WP:NFOOTY. No national team play in the olympics or WC according to provided sources. I can find none through research either. Newmanoconnor (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. First4Uppingham (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — First4Uppingham (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]- Struck per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Blue Coat School. Uncle G (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL has played in Liga I a fully professional league with a number of clubs, nominator clearly didn't check properly before nominating per WP:BEGIN. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Has played in at least two fully pro leagues, Liga I and Segunda División (per Playerhistory). Mattythewhite (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this article easily passes WP:NSPORT as demonstrated above. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Article passes NSPORT (he has played in several fully-pro leagues) and should pass the GNG with a little effort (I started to expand slightly). Jogurney (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as above, meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 09:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes the criteria set out at WP:NFOOTBALL by playing in Liga I. --sparkl!sm hey! 12:55, 15 May 2012 (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STOCK
- STOCK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Couldn't find any RS, hard to use google since that generic name. mabdul 21:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. First4Uppingham (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Struck per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Blue Coat School. Uncle G (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no 3rd party references, no indication of notability for this software, created by an SPA as possible spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - since the website is in another language, I presume any reliable sources would be as well. Combined with the name being a common word, it's impossible to tell for sure if reliable sources exist, but they most likely don't. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 07:50, 16 May 2012 (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. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 04:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Rockdust
- Rockdust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to be more advertising than attributable facts Lithopsian (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The topic appears to be notable, and any content issues fixable. --Lambiam 11:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Google scholar finds 561 hits for rockdust fertilizer. That seems more than enough to form the basis of an encyclopedic article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No more arguments for deletion. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cottesmore School
- Cottesmore School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable UK Prep School. No references to indicate notability. Does not pass WP:GNG First4Uppingham (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)— First4Uppingham (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dahliarose (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom - no significant coverage to reach WP:GNG criteria for organizations. 213.246.93.122 (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)— 213.246.93.122 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]- Comment. This is almost certainly the nominator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete(see my later comments) Have Googled this for a while but can't find anything beyond brief mentions in guides and review sites etc.--A bit iffy (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The school itself is of borderline notability. It's not particularly big (150 pupils) and of only moderate age (founded in 1894), but the clincher for me is that its building is Grade II listed[1] and is therefore architecturally notable. True, Grade II is not uncommon, but combined with the school's age I think it passes the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing based on policy argument there. It needs to satisfy WP:GNG and it doesn't. 213.246.93.122 (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think that an organisation can acquire notability because the building they inhabit might be notable.--A bit iffy (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course they can if the building is described in the article. The building is listed by English Heritage as "main building to Cottesmore School". It doesn't have any other listed name. So it makes sense to put an article about the building under the title "Cottesmore School", and naturally we would then describe the school as well. And as I said, the school itself is already of borderline notability because of its age. The building tips it over the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No that would make the building notable. Notability isn't inherited so that doesn't make the school notable. 213.246.93.122 (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I think I quite clearly said, I consider the building plus the school's age together sufficient to qualify it for an article. What part of that statement (which I have now expressed three times) is confusing? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No that would make the building notable. Notability isn't inherited so that doesn't make the school notable. 213.246.93.122 (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course they can if the building is described in the article. The building is listed by English Heritage as "main building to Cottesmore School". It doesn't have any other listed name. So it makes sense to put an article about the building under the title "Cottesmore School", and naturally we would then describe the school as well. And as I said, the school itself is already of borderline notability because of its age. The building tips it over the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic passes the WP:GNG by virtue of its coverage in detail in independent, reliable sources. Note that notable alumni include Thomas Sopwith and Gordon Chater. Note also that the nominating account was only started yesterday. It is named after a rival school and started by adding similar material about another school. It now seems to be embarking on a deletion and tagging spree. It seems absurd that we should tolerate this vexatious assault upon respectable educational topics. Warden (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If there were sources with significant coverage ... but I can't find any. Perhaps you could detail two sources you believe offer coverage for us to analyse. 213.246.93.122 (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could Warden (or anyone) list the detailed, independent, reliable coverage please? By the way: I'm not interested for the moment in the motives of the nominator, only in whether the school is notable. If someone can come up with such coverage, then I'd be happy to change my view.--A bit iffy (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not have significant coverage in more than one secondary verified source to satisfy WP:GNG ZachFoutre (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Note: Account set up 17 minutes ago, apparently solely to vote for deletion on this and similar school articles. Surprisingly similar to the nominator, in fact! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Blue Coat School, I am closing all of the disruptive schools nominations made today. I leave this discussion open as an exception, with the disruptive sockpuppet account opinions struck through by me, because of the good faith opinion of A bit iffy. Uncle G (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The comments from the anonymous IP account are also from the sockpuppet and I believe this IP address has now been blocked too. Should these comments also be struck through? Dahliarose (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The school's own website has a history of the school [2] [3] from which it is clear that there is much of historic interest. A brief search did turn up this useulf reference to the building and the school in British History Online.[4] It is primarily the building that is of importance rather than the school, but it makes sense for the article to be about the present usage of the building, and there are already four notable alumni who need a home. I've not yet had time to look for more sources, but it is obvious that there will be multiple reliable sources to write an encylcopaedic article about any institution or building of this importance that has been around for over 100 years. Many of the sources will, of course, be in print and not available online. Dahliarose (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This discussion is precisely the mayhem the deletion spree was intended to cause. I see why this exception was left, but it is time to put it to bed. The article has sufficient sources. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- SuggestionWhen the building is notable, and nothing else is, we sometime make the article about the building and mention the school in the article, with a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think the school — by which I mean the education provider — isn't notable. Although there are now a number of references, I haven't seen any non-trivial ones. In detail:
- ^ Margaret Smallwood (2008), Cottesmore School, Independent Schools Inspectorate — I assume there are inspection reports of all schools, so one on Cottesmore is unremarkable
- ^ The Morning Post (London, England), Monday, March 29, 1897; pg. 5; Issue 38941. 19th Century British Library Newspapers: Part II. –
about the building, not the schoolI can't easily read this. Does it have much of substance? - ^ English Heritage listing — about the building, not the school
- ^ Mark Girouard (1971), The Victorian Country House, Clarendon Press, p. 8 — about the building, not the school
- ^ Jill Franklin (1981), The Gentleman's Country House and its Plan, 1835-1914, Routledge & Kegan Paul, p. 257 — about the building, not the school
- ^ Main building to Cottesmore School. Listing on English Heritage's Images of England website — about the building, not the school
- ^ End of school dinners. The Evening Standard, (London, England), Tuesday, September 15, 2009 — I can't easily read this (paywalled). Does it contain much of substance about the school?
- ^ The Almost Late Gordon Chater, Bantam Books, 1996, ISBN 9781863597975 — I can't easily read this. However, I assume it only mentions in passing that Chater attended the school.
- ^ The Encyclopedia Britannica, 20, 1929 — I can't easily read this. However, I assume it only mentions in passing that Sopwith attended the school.
- (And anyway, as regards famous alumni, most schools have them, so this is unremarkable.)
- I'm interested by DGG's comment that sometimes buildings, rather than occupying organisations, are made the subject of articles. And the building does to me look quite striking and perhaps worthy of an article. Now, suppose the school were to move again, this time into a nondescript building. I think the school would probably be deemed non-notable. But this would go against the principle that notability is not temporary.
- Is the building notable though? I'm not certain — there seem to be around 400,000 Grade II buildings — I think it might be. It is quite an imposing building, and the ostrich millionaire history perhaps tips the balance.
- Hence I would change my opinion about article's existence to weak keep if it were renamed Buchan Hill (or similar). NB: I still don't think the article should be essentially about the school.--A bit iffy (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Given that no one apart from the sockpuppet nominator actually thinks that this page shouldn't exist, I would suggest that this AfD be closed as a speedy keep. The editorial discussion as to whether the article should be renamed could then continue on the appropriate talk page. WP:GNG is just one part of the WP:N guideline, but this is a guideline not a policy. The article satisfies our core policies WP:V and WP:NOR. It is a pointless exercise analysing the few sources that have been found to date, as no one has as yet spent much time working on the article. Also only a tiny fraction of the sources to support subject matter such as this will be found online. Time would be much better spent improving Wikipedia rather than prolonging this discussion. Dahliarose (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2012 (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 as part of a pattern of intentionally disruptive AFD nominations and contributions. First4Uppingham (talk · contribs), ZachFoutre (talk · contribs), and 213.246.93.122 (talk · contribs) are clearly one and the same person, and the contributions history gave the game away. Uncle G (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Birmingham Blue Coat School
- Birmingham Blue Coat School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reason: Non notable UK primary school. Does not pass WP:GNG First4Uppingham (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dahliarose (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom - no significant coverage to reach WP:GNG criteria for organisations. 213.246.93.122 (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the "WP:GNG criteria for organisations"? WP:GNG is the "general notability guideline". Unscintillating (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is almost certainly the nominator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Normally I would vote delete for primary school articles, but this is a large (550 pupils), historic (founded in 1722) prep school and I consider it to be worthy of an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a policy based argument. Sources with significant coverage are required, and here there is nothing sufficient to pass WP:GNG. 213.246.93.122 (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You make the common beginner's mistake of assuming that opinions are not valid in AfD discussions. You are incorrect. But if you really want one, here's a policy-based argument: Use common sense! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you might start by listing 2 sources which you believe indicate notability for this school, and which would satisfy WP:RS for the purpose of notability as defined by WP:GNG. 213.246.93.122 (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And perhaps you might start by reading what people write before answering. Oh, and not using three different sockpuppets would be nice too! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you might start by listing 2 sources which you believe indicate notability for this school, and which would satisfy WP:RS for the purpose of notability as defined by WP:GNG. 213.246.93.122 (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You make the common beginner's mistake of assuming that opinions are not valid in AfD discussions. You are incorrect. But if you really want one, here's a policy-based argument: Use common sense! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a policy based argument. Sources with significant coverage are required, and here there is nothing sufficient to pass WP:GNG. 213.246.93.122 (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article does not have significant coverage in more than one secondary verified source to satisfy WP:GNGZachFoutre (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Account set up 19 minutes ago, apparently solely to vote for deletion on this and similar school articles. Surprisingly similar to the nominator, in fact! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepFounded in 1722 not notable? nonsense.TheLongTone (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2012 (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 Aaron Rodgers. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron Rodgers Day
- Aaron Rodgers Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable/ hoax day author removed PROD Lerdthenerd wiki defender 20:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not a hoax, and is notable as it is about a day about Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers that was passed in Wisconsin Legislature to be celebrated across Wisconsin. Plus it is a stub article which backs up its notability firmly with 5 strong references including USA Today, NFL.com, ESPN, etc. Soulboost (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per SoulboostFirst4Uppingham (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Struck per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Blue Coat School. Uncle G (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. State legislatures pass "X Day" resolutions all the time. At best, this should be a section in the Aaron Rogers article. —Al E.(talk) 15:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Al E.(talk) 15:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Non-notable? That must be the reason why a google search will bring up several number of pages filled with sources, news sites, references, etc. to prove this day's notability. As for the other "X-day" that the legislature passes, if they are able to have several google search pages like Aaron Rodgers Day, then they should be able to warrant an article as well. Again, this article should be kept. Soulboost (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm willing to believe this isn't a hoax. That said, it's a local/regional issue at best and not suitable for its own article. No one outside of the Packer Fans cares, I would gather. Would be good to mention in the article on the player tho.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge this is definitely not a hoax. It's all over the news in Wisconsin that 12/12/12 has been declared his day in Wisconsin (since he wears jersey #12). However, I'm not convinced by either argument. While it meets GNC, it's a minor local (subnational) news that could easily be incorporated in Rodgers' article. Royalbroil 01:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Aaron Rodgers. The article is short and well-sourced, and wouldn't make the Aaron Rodgers article much longer. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. If, hypothetically, the subject were able to satisfy the notability standards of WP:GNG, WP:NSPORTS or WP:EVENT, there still would not be enough meaningful content to justify a stand-alone Wikipedia article. This "day" merits one or two sentences in Wikipedia article about the subject athlete—no more. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Aaron Rodgers, per Dirtlawyer1. cmadler (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Aaron Rodgers. This is unliklely to have enduring notablility per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, bit it can be WP:PRESERVED in the honoree's article.—Bagumba (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per the above. Surely there's some precedent for similar celebrations being mentioned in the honoree's article. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:23, 17 May 2012 (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 nothing really/invalid nomination, since this is not a deletion request. Merging doesn't require administrative intervention, and it doesn't seem anyone objects, so that's at normal editorial discretion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
XBRLS
- XBRLS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I doubt that this notable to get it's enough article, maybe merge it to XBRL. mabdul 19:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural closure This is AfD, not Articles for Redirection. Unscintillating (talk) 04:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question did you consider doing the merge/redirect WP:BEFORE opening this AfD? --Kvng (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: This may have been a little hastily created but let's get consensus before closing it
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural closure as per user:Unscintillating and lack of response from user:mabdul. --Kvng (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sry, for the late response. Really: yes I considered placing simple tags on two pages and waiting two years (or more) before somebody is doing anything. I still doubt that there should be two pages and thus nominating this page at AfD. The result of an AFD doesn't have to be a deletion, it can also be a merger, cleanup or redirection... so why didn't you (Kvng) collecting some arguments against any changes of this article? mabdul 17:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After discussion, result of an AfD can be a merge but the procedural complaint by myself (and I presume user:Unscintillating) is that you shouldn't open an AfD unless you want the article deleted wholesale. If from the outset, you think a merge is in order, WP:SOFIXIT. If you're not up for the work, it can indeed take a while for another volunteer to get around to doing it for you. --Kvng (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The "deletion guideline" that includes WP:SK#1 is marked as being "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow..." Unscintillating (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to XBRL, per WP:PRODUCT (it is a product, isn't it?) and nomination. -- Trevj (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2012 (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. JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Donna Duke
- Donna Duke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No assertion of notability per WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:PORNBIO; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested without comment by page's creator. Scopecreep (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- article reads like an advert - and is promotional in nature.
- contains two link spam entries to her websites
- references lack a single WP:RS source. - therefore this should be removed immediately from Wikipedia
- I recommend censuring the creator for introducing link spam etc in the guise of serious editing.
BO; talk 00:22, 14 May 2012 (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. Speedy delete via A7, organization with no plausible claim to importance. (at the moment, according to the article, it has only one member) DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Xi Omega
- Alpha Xi Omega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor newly started organization, not notable. Note this is a different Alpha Xi Omega (This one is in the Philippines) than the one in the first nomination.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2012 (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. JohnCD (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shlumpadinka
- Shlumpadinka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and It should be redirected or deleted Yasht101 02:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This should ideally be on Wiktionary. A quick Google source would show a Marriam-Webster entry. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I really doubt this meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. Wiktionary is not Wikipedia's trashcan. Angr (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whether it goes to Wiktionary or not, it still is a delete here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I know. But you said "This should ideally be on Wiktionary", and as a Wiktionarian as well as a Wikipedian I'm responding to that comment with a "No, it shouldn't. It should just be deleted." Angr (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but there is a Marriam-Webster entry on it. This can be discussed there, but I'm still with Delete. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I know. But you said "This should ideally be on Wiktionary", and as a Wiktionarian as well as a Wikipedian I'm responding to that comment with a "No, it shouldn't. It should just be deleted." Angr (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whether it goes to Wiktionary or not, it still is a delete here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 01:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Maybe this is a female thing, but I'm in favor of it. I'd like to see it kept in some form; cretainly not disappear entirely, especially if it has a Merriam-Webster entry. One option would be to merge with Oprah article. Softlavender (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki I agree that this belongs on wiktionary, but it doesn't belong here, so I'd delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millermk90 (talk • contribs)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I fail to see how this is notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It doesn't look like anything more than a non-notable neologism. §everal⇒|Times 15:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fzcentral
- Fzcentral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable failing WP:BAND. Four references that are a combination of trivial and self-published QU TalkQu 08:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not finding any coverage in reliable sources; only non-notable blogs and social networking sites. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow Talk 09:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hank Quense
- Hank Quense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I couldn't find enough coverage in reliable sources to prove that Quense passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. The NorthJersey.com source in the article was the best I could find. The article was deleted at AfD in 2008, but I'm not sure if the article is sufficiently similar to the old one to be able to delete it under CSD G4, or whether any new sources have appeared since then. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 18:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see he is now listed on Amazon (per the deletion discussion in 2008) but I do not know if that is enough to meet notability. The page also has a leans towards advertisement language in reference to his classes/writing seminars. I would second deletion. DietFoodstamp (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- for lack of notability per WP:AUTHOR. (Note: I reviewed the previous deleted article and this article does not qualify for WP:G4 speedy deletion because of the addition of books and some referenced newspaper items since the previous AFD discussion.) However, those books are all self-published and sold on-line by the author.[5] Those newspaper items appear in the Twin-Boro News, a community weekly with a circulation of less than 14,000. [6]. A local self-published writer without substantial quality coverage doesn't meet the notability criteria for a biography. — CactusWriter (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Princeton Progressive Nation
- Princeton Progressive Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable student publication. No secondary sources supporting its notability independent from the University. Appears to be defunct (its website has lapsed hosting). Axem Titanium (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or coverage to establish notability. --DAJF (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. One of the seven magazines in the infobox of the fourth oldest university in the U.S., which is a top 10 university and an Ivy League icon, an American icon and university to conjure with. The magazine is also the merger of two previous publications, which will each provide further sources for research, coverage, and information. Compare: The Harvard Ichthus, The Harvard Voice, Harvard Salient, Harvard Satyrical Press, The Gamut, The Harvard Independent, etc. UPDATE: OK, it may no longer exist (hard to tell; still listed on the official University site, with an e-mail adress. Could e-mail that address and ask about current status). But even if it is defunct, it may still be notable via the two papers that merged to create it. Softlavender (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you say that the two magazines that merged to create it were notable? I don't think a student-run magazine of an Ivy League university (or any university) is automatically notable. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from the parent organization. Each newspaper/magazine needs to prove its own independent notability, through third party sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I said it may still be notable via the two papers that merged to create it. Softlavender (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't AFD the time to decide whether it is or not? The article has been around for 6 years with no secondary sources. A quick jaunt in the Google turns up a dozen primary sources, which can't be used as evidence for notability, but not secondary/tertiary sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I said it may still be notable via the two papers that merged to create it. Softlavender (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect - A school's notability is not transferred to all student organizations. This must prove itself to be notable in its own right through its own coverage, which it does not.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - student activities and organizations are not normally considered notable unless there is coverage from outside the university or college, and none is shown here. JohnCD (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still Creek Ranch
- Still Creek Ranch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:N and WP:RS. School has around 70 students, not many. Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I don't think the number of students has a bearing on notability. I can't see that in WP:WPSCH/AG#N. Is there another policy that speaks to that? Wikipelli Talk 21:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now - very early days for this article. It's only been up for a day or so. I'm sure it will meet WP:GNG if it doesn't already. If the required sources can't be found then a merge to Bryan, Texas would be a better option than deletion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - way quick on the draw for this article (speedied within 60 seconds!). Let's not slap down new authors, let's show them what's wrong and see if it can be fixed first. I think the fact that the school is accredited kindergarten through high school, it meets the accepted practice of pages for high schools (WP:WPSCH/AG#N). Wikipelli Talk 23:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't noticed just how quick the speedy was - that's out of order. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Only 34 seconds elapsed from the creation of the article to a nomination for deletion. A second speedy deletion nomination occurred at 56 minutes into the life of the article. A third speedy deletion was attempted at 65 minutes into the life of the article. The third speedy-removal for the article took place 125 minutes into its existence. This AfD nomination took place 24 hours and 36 minutes after the article was created. Unscintillating (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Besides have WP:GNG notability shown in sources already in the article, this is a high school. In addition, an institution this old is likely to have WP:NRVE notability sourcing that matches that available on the internet. Unscintillating (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hold On I don't think there's quite enough to satisfy WP:GNG atm, but it's not far off. Worth waiting to see what could be added. ZachFoutre (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Struck per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Blue Coat School. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2012 (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. Unsourced BLP Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Joy Vachachira
- Joy Vachachira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This individual does not meet the criteria Wikipedia requires to establish notability. In the two references provided, he is just mentioned in photo captions. There are 160 unique Ghits[7], but the coverage is minimal (ie, just his name in address directories) and the sources are not reliable and independent (facebook, LinkedIn, blogs, etc.) The single hit in Google news archives is about car accident he was in. Also, the claim he is notable rests on his past presidency of the Knanaya Catholic Congress of North America, which does not itself meet the notability criteria - only 120 unique Google hits[8] and they are all primary, trivial, and/or not reliable. No hits for the organization on Google News, Books or Scholar. This one seems like a pretty clear delete, to me. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom for failing notability. There seems to be no possible reliable source which gives significant coverage sufficient to keep the article. Secret of success (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2012 (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. JohnCD (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dureal
- Dureal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability questions - does the number 1 player in Jedi Knight constitute a sufficient claim to notability? Are there multiple non-trivial mentions to support such a claim? Article is sourced to one website as of this nomination. Syrthiss (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WikiProject Video Games' only word on what is or isn't notable is if the article can pass GNG. So, there appears to be no inherent notability. The references in the article are all primary via ESL. This type of ref is good for stats, but doesn't help with nobility as secondary sources are required. Also, Dureal gets edit privileges on the ESL site, but I'm not sure what he can or can't edit. The ESL is not a major video game circuit where the major leagues have prize purses of over $500,000. ESL is more for individual amateur players. So, we have a player with no reliable, independent secondary sources, iffy-reliable primary sources and playing in a "bush league". Bgwhite (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The twin claims to notability here seem to be his status as the best Jedi Knight player and being the administrator of ESL. There is no source for the claim of best JK player and the ESL is apparently not notably enough for its own article so by extension its administrator is not notable. Eastshire (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2012 (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) 16:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lack of third party coverage, doesn't meet the WP:GNG. ("ESL" sources don't help establish that.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 15 May 2012 (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. Setting aside the comments from SPAs on both sides which aren't grounded in any kind of policy, it's clear that this doesn't quite meet notability requirements. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fallout: Equestria
- Fallout: Equestria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested WP:PROD. I listed my original concern as "No assertion of notability through reliable, published sources. Does not meet general notability guidelines as all sources are Wikis, Youtube, or other various fansites. No coverage in reliable third party media sources." I can't find any significant coverage from reliable sources. Teancum (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRedirect - coming as one of the main editors of the MLP:FIM article, I think I've only ever seen one reference in a foreign language reliable source to F:E (noting it's larger in word count than War & Peace) - far from enough to be notable. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- I found that reliable source (a polish paper) that gives the claim to F:E as being 2000+ A4 pages. This I've used to include fan fiction mention in the main MLP:FIM article, and including a #Fallout: Equestria anchor. So the term is searchable and thus redirection to the main MLP:FIM article is recommended. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you present this source please?EDIT: Nevermind, I assume it's this: http://www.emetro.pl/emetro/1,85652,11098458,Kochamy_pony__sa_nas_miliony.html - Seems to be a passing mention in some random polish website. Sergecross73 msg me 02:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Looks like the source was used to support a mention of Fallout: Equestria on the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic article. Here is the source in question, and it appears to be a news report in a magazine/newspaper. Relevant excerpt, translated from Polish via Google: "The longest of them - 'Fallout: Equestria' - set in post-apocalyptic reality and now consists of 40 chapters, and the text is located at approximately 2000 pages of A4." It is a minor source at best, and while valid, many more like it will probably be needed before the subject merits its own article. --Yamamoto114 (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, I'm not considering it a source for Fallout: Equestria as an article, but it does help on the main MLP:FIM page about fanworks. Hence why a redirect there would be appropriate since there's at least a slim chance that the term is searchable and redirects are cheap. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. I guess I'm just somewhat against a redirect, as they're easier to "undo", and it seems like this fanbase would be pretty quick to do that, judging by everything going on in this AFD... Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Delete, salt, then redirect" is always an option... Axem Titanium (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a very very very slim chance it could be notable in the future. (it's certainly not nonsense or infactual). I would just plainly redirect for the time being though semi-prot the redirect to avoid expansion without verification that expansion is warranted. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that you used three "very"s before "slim" makes me think it's so unlikely a "Delete, Salt, Redirect" probably would be a better choice. An admin is needed to removing something being salted, correct? With this fanbase, I'd prefer an admin having to make that call on notability. (No offense to you Masem. Upon re-reading that, I wanted to make sure you know I wasn't inferring you'd bring the article back before it should it would every hypothetically be warranted.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess that in the larger scheme of WP, if there's a chance this material could be used, however, slim, and we have a history to store it in, redirecting without deletion is a better option. Again, if it were flatout nonsense , or unsourced information, sure off to the bit bucket with it. --MASEM (t) 04:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that you used three "very"s before "slim" makes me think it's so unlikely a "Delete, Salt, Redirect" probably would be a better choice. An admin is needed to removing something being salted, correct? With this fanbase, I'd prefer an admin having to make that call on notability. (No offense to you Masem. Upon re-reading that, I wanted to make sure you know I wasn't inferring you'd bring the article back before it should it would every hypothetically be warranted.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a very very very slim chance it could be notable in the future. (it's certainly not nonsense or infactual). I would just plainly redirect for the time being though semi-prot the redirect to avoid expansion without verification that expansion is warranted. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Delete, salt, then redirect" is always an option... Axem Titanium (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. I guess I'm just somewhat against a redirect, as they're easier to "undo", and it seems like this fanbase would be pretty quick to do that, judging by everything going on in this AFD... Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, I'm not considering it a source for Fallout: Equestria as an article, but it does help on the main MLP:FIM page about fanworks. Hence why a redirect there would be appropriate since there's at least a slim chance that the term is searchable and redirects are cheap. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like the source was used to support a mention of Fallout: Equestria on the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic article. Here is the source in question, and it appears to be a news report in a magazine/newspaper. Relevant excerpt, translated from Polish via Google: "The longest of them - 'Fallout: Equestria' - set in post-apocalyptic reality and now consists of 40 chapters, and the text is located at approximately 2000 pages of A4." It is a minor source at best, and while valid, many more like it will probably be needed before the subject merits its own article. --Yamamoto114 (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I found that reliable source (a polish paper) that gives the claim to F:E as being 2000+ A4 pages. This I've used to include fan fiction mention in the main MLP:FIM article, and including a #Fallout: Equestria anchor. So the term is searchable and thus redirection to the main MLP:FIM article is recommended. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable fan stuff. Only sources seem to be wikia and fansite stuff, which don't count as reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 16:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not very notable, no reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twoflower88 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete - See below
- Re: Noteworthy - Both the Fallout video game series and the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic television series are noteworthy enough to merit their own Wikipedia articles, as is the brony sub-culture. Fallout: Equestria is widely recognized amongst the fan cultures of both shows, and has gained a prominent place within the brony sub-culture. It is highly regarded enough that it is currently being translated into four languages. To the best of my knowledge, virtually all coverage of this work is by sites and groups dedicated to the parent intellectual properties, including sites dedicated to news regarding those properties.
- Re: Reliable Sources Sources meet WP:IRS standards as per the Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources page (Definition of 'reliable source')
- The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
- the piece of work itself (the article, book),
- the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
- and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).
- Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.
- The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
- The article sites sources which include both the first (piece of work itself) and the second (the writer). The definition of "publishing", according to Wikipedia's article on Publishing is "the process of production and dissemination of literature or information — the activity of making information available to the general public. In some cases, authors may be their own publishers, meaning: originators and developers of content also provide media to deliver and display the content for the same." By Wikipedia's own definition, Equestria Daily and other sites that host internet works do qualify as "publishers of the work" and thus the article fulfills the third criteria for reliable sources as well. If additional sources of distribution are required, they can also be provided. 75.87.248.119 (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The types of sources that establish notability are ones that are independent from the content in question. Neither the "piece of work" or "the writer" qualify as this. Sources that establish notability would be, for instance, if IGN or The New York Times did an article on it. None of the sources you just provided do though. Sergecross73 msg me 03:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of the examples given, IGN and The New York Times, report on either this style of publication or subsection of culture. It is impossible to establish notability from sources "independent from the content in question" when all sources which would report on this are immediately classified as being non-independent in order to prevent establishment of notability. For example: Equestria Daily is a site which compiles and reports on news and interest pieces for one of the subcultures in question, as well as publishes stories by member of that subculture which pass through a rigorous quality control screening. It is not a "fan site" for Fallout: Equestria, yet it is being conveniently dismissed as a "reliable source" -- apparently because it can be used as a source. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Equestria Daily does not fit Wikipedia's definition of a WP:RS. I mean, look no further than the opening paragraph of it's own article: Equestria Daily... is 2011-established fan site dedicated to news and fan fiction...The site is run with a blog-style. It's a blog started by a college student a year ago about a cartoon. It's unquestionably not a reliable source. IGN and NYT were just well-known examples that I figured anyone could identify, we don't specifically need coverage by them, but we do need it from somewhere reliable like them. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of the examples given, IGN and The New York Times, report on either this style of publication or subsection of culture. It is impossible to establish notability from sources "independent from the content in question" when all sources which would report on this are immediately classified as being non-independent in order to prevent establishment of notability. For example: Equestria Daily is a site which compiles and reports on news and interest pieces for one of the subcultures in question, as well as publishes stories by member of that subculture which pass through a rigorous quality control screening. It is not a "fan site" for Fallout: Equestria, yet it is being conveniently dismissed as a "reliable source" -- apparently because it can be used as a source. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The types of sources that establish notability are ones that are independent from the content in question. Neither the "piece of work" or "the writer" qualify as this. Sources that establish notability would be, for instance, if IGN or The New York Times did an article on it. None of the sources you just provided do though. Sergecross73 msg me 03:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article sites sources which include both the first (piece of work itself) and the second (the writer). The definition of "publishing", according to Wikipedia's article on Publishing is "the process of production and dissemination of literature or information — the activity of making information available to the general public. In some cases, authors may be their own publishers, meaning: originators and developers of content also provide media to deliver and display the content for the same." By Wikipedia's own definition, Equestria Daily and other sites that host internet works do qualify as "publishers of the work" and thus the article fulfills the third criteria for reliable sources as well. If additional sources of distribution are required, they can also be provided. 75.87.248.119 (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete - For a lot of the same reasons already given previously. Fallout: Equestria has become widely renowned and is highly prominent in the brony subculture. It has essentially spawned its own fandom, and is quite deserving in its own right to have this page. I personally don't see why Equestria Daily is not a reliable source. They are essentially the publishers of this story as they are providing the means to disseminate the content to the public. Please do not delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.172.231 (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read up on WP:RS and WP:GNG in order to understand things better. "Creating your own fandom" doesn't help an article notable, it's coverage in sources that are separate from the source, and not fansites. Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete - This page meets all the requirements that are mentioned above. It was partially written by a third party source, me. I have not written any stories in the Fallout: Equestria series nor have I created any artwork for it. I have created a website devoted to indexing all the information about the stories and it's related works into one place. This is a specialized indexing site and not a fan site. It indexes items that I am not a fan of and in some cases stuff that I do not like. The goal of the site is indexing, not as a site to gush about how great everything is. Does this count as a fan site or a third party site? --Codepony (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your personal website would not meet the qualifications required to be a WP:RS, it'd be more along the lines of a fansite or blog, which is not a RS. Furthermore, it'd probably be somewhat of a conflict of interest if you're writing the article using sources from your own personal website. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please note all three "Do Not Delete" !votes so far have been made by people who haven't contributed anywhere outside the article or it's respective AFD, and share a suspiciously similar, and incorrect, view on what sort of sources establish notability. Sergecross73 msg me 03:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It should not be a surprise the many of the people (such as myself) who have taken notice of this article and have chosen to defend it against deletion would have similar stances on the article's validity. It is more surprising that Sergecross73 would slyly disparage these other contributors in an attempt to lessen the value perceived in their arguments as opposed than standing on the presumed strength of his own opinions. Let us please try to keep this civil. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not surprised, and it's pretty common practice to point out when multiple users share the same, flawed argument and act in the same way at an AFD. (For example, not understanding the WP:GNG or what counts as a third party source, their only interest being one single topic, all chosing to write "Do Not Delete" when "Keep" is typically used, etc.) It tends to suggest either sockpuppetry or a fansite sending members over to defend a given topic. Both things the closing Admin should consider. I've done nothing wrong or incivil. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By the same merits, then, it should also be pointed out that the large majority of those voting for the deletion of this article are just parroting what you are saying, without adding anything useful to the conversation or demonstrating a grasp of the rules they are attempting to invoke. (For example: "Not notable no sources yadda yadda".) This is suggestive of possible sockpuppetry or, more likely, an anti-brony or anti-fanfiction hate-site sending members over to try to destroy the article out of maliciousness. I will agree that there is reason to debate whether this article meets Wikipedia standards. You should admit that it is reasonable to question the motivations of those who are looking to have the article deleted. There is a strong appearance that this is largely (although certainly not entirely) an effort at within-the-guidelines vandalism by one person with a working knowledge of Wikipedia and his cronies. This undermines the entire process, and is something the closing Admin should also consider.
- I'm not surprised, and it's pretty common practice to point out when multiple users share the same, flawed argument and act in the same way at an AFD. (For example, not understanding the WP:GNG or what counts as a third party source, their only interest being one single topic, all chosing to write "Do Not Delete" when "Keep" is typically used, etc.) It tends to suggest either sockpuppetry or a fansite sending members over to defend a given topic. Both things the closing Admin should consider. I've done nothing wrong or incivil. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It should not be a surprise the many of the people (such as myself) who have taken notice of this article and have chosen to defend it against deletion would have similar stances on the article's validity. It is more surprising that Sergecross73 would slyly disparage these other contributors in an attempt to lessen the value perceived in their arguments as opposed than standing on the presumed strength of his own opinions. Let us please try to keep this civil. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
64.126.161.222 (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be interested to know -are there any "anti-brony" sites? I've never even heard of one. Twoflower88 (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. For example, Niggest Crook Force which is an anti-brony group primarily dedicated to using dummy accounts to file fraudulent copyright claims against videos posted on YouTube by bronies, and then advertise their "victories" on disposable hub accounts. To date, their biggest victory was an attack on the brony-orchistrated SMILE Christmas charity for children with cancer. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me I have never met any of you before in my life. Are you saying this is some kind of conspiracy to commit page murder.
- I'd be interested to know -are there any "anti-brony" sites? I've never even heard of one. Twoflower88 (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
XxMiAmIPiMpiNxx (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you observe the page history of the original article, you will discover that Fallout: Equestria has already survived vandalism of the sort that Wikipedia is skilled at protecting against. That may have no connection to you (although the timing and expressed attitudes are suspiciously similar). Based on that information, and "contributions" such as your own here, it can be safely extrapolated that there is an effort by multiple parties to kill the article out of prejudice towards the subject matter or similar maliciousness. Whether or not such efforts are co-ordinated would be a matter of speculation. However, it should be noted that there is an anti-fanfiction website called Project A.F.T.E.R. which has taken note of this article. Members of that website have been known to troll and vandalize sites hosting information about fanfictions they are targeting. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay one that website looks like some interesting reading I've never seen it before and two you can't really justify keeping an article on wikipedia by saying "a lot of pony fans like it". The fact is, there are places for this kind of thing (fan wikis, fan sites, tvtropes, etc) that are not here. Wikipedia's got notability for a reason, and they require published sources for a reason, and this article doesn't belong here. If someone wanted to know about it badly enough they'd be looking on a pony fanfiction site about it, they probably wouldn't expect it to be here. Trying to keep this article, if you will excuse my blatant conjecturing, is just a move to try and improve upon its status from the fans. It's pretty close to vanity imo and, again, doesn't belong here because wikipedia has standards which this doesn't meet. XxMiAmIPiMpiNxx (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better. Now you're actually contributing to the discussion. Allow me to offer my own blatant conjecture. This story recently had a footnote in the "longest novels" article on Wikipedia. Certain individuals who hated the My Little Pony fandom started vandalizing that page. The vandalism was reversed repeatedly, but this sparked an argument over whether "pony shit" belonged on that page (or Wikipedia in general). Arguments against it were made by people trying to hold that entry to Wikipedia's most stringent standards -- standards that an awful lot of the other entries on that page didn't meet. The end result was that not only was the "pony shit" removed from the article, but an entire section of the article was obliterated because the vast majority of the stories mentioned didn't meet the qualifications that anti-bronies were trying to use to surgically remove just the stories they didn't like. In the course of the preceding argument, one of Wikipedia's guardians against vandalism asserted that Fallout: Equestria had enough of a sub-cultural impact that it could soon deserve its own page. It is my conjecture that this article is the result of someone in the brony community reading that argument and saying "well, let's find out". On a related note, this article is part of the coverage of the Fallout series of video games and the influence of those games, part of Wikipedia's Wikiproject Video Games. There are a lot of articles within Wikiproject Video Games (and the Fallout-related section in particular) that do not meet the level of "notability" that people are trying to use to remove this page. A push to remove this article could result in a blow-back that wipes out numerous non-pony, non-fanfiction articles within the Wikiproject Video Games. I don't want to see Wikipedia history repeat itself on a much larger scale. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you're saying that not only should we keep an article that doesn't adhere to wikipedia's source and notability policies, but we shouldn't take it down because doing so would get rid of many other articles that also don't adhere to these policies? XxMiAmIPiMpiNxx (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm saying that whether this article meets Wikipedia's standards is determined by how liberally or conservatively Wikipedia's policies are interpreted. And that if Wikipedia is serious about projects like Wikiproject Video Games, it benefits them to continue the more liberal interpretations that allow such projects to grow. That means that the Wikipedia admins should not allow people with a prejudice against some subject matter to use extremely conservative interpretations of Wikipedia's Policies to get articles about that subject matter removed. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the thing is this article's only notability sources are a bunch of fan stuff. It's not a conservative interpretation, it's actually going against the actual, stated guidelines for sources. Articles get deleted all the time because the only sources they can find are fan publications. This one shouldn't be any different, and if you're claiming that wikipedia should "grow" with unverified non-notable articles then I suggest you write an entry for this work in tvtropes instead. (Oh my god you guys I feel like a real wikipede all of a sudden) XxMiAmIPiMpiNxx (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- TV Tropes has had an article about this story for about half a year now. As for notability sources, the issue I'm seeing is that no one seems to be able to provide a source that would both qualify for notability and would cover web-published fanfiction. For example, this story draws from the Fallout series and thus it falls in the realm of Fallout's impact in other media. However, the very quality that makes it potentially noteworthy in a Fallout article also prohibits it from being published by a for-profit press. So if you restrict "reliable sources" to for-profit presses, you automatically prevent the story or any other like it from ever qualifying -- not based on the merits or influence of the work but on the bias of the policy. Now, as noted above, the Wikipedia policy for "reliable sources" is much broader than that... until all applicable sources for sites and agencies which report on or deal with the subject matter are classified as "a bunch of fan stuff". Equestria Daily is regarded as a "fan site" primarily because it is a site for a subject matter that the people making the classification consider irrelevant. If those same people considered movies irrelevant, they would classify Rotten Tomatoes as a "fan site for movie fans". Sites like IGN are considered "reliable sources" instead of "really big fan sites" largely due to a matter of scale and a predisposition to accept what is being covered as potentially important. At what point does the scope, following and impact of a site move it beyond the threshold of "a bunch of fan stuff" to "a reliable source of information on a specific topic"? And if we strip away the personal biases involved here, have any of the sources cited crossed that threshold? Or gotten close enough to merit keeping the article, although perhaps in a different form? 64.126.161.222 (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See, you're talking about changing project and site wide standards. This is not the place to do that, or the time to change how we look at sources. You'd do that elsewhere, on a Wikipedia-wide discussion regarding standards for sources and notability. We're talking about this particular article, with the current particular standards. And it just doesn't meet it. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- TV Tropes has had an article about this story for about half a year now. As for notability sources, the issue I'm seeing is that no one seems to be able to provide a source that would both qualify for notability and would cover web-published fanfiction. For example, this story draws from the Fallout series and thus it falls in the realm of Fallout's impact in other media. However, the very quality that makes it potentially noteworthy in a Fallout article also prohibits it from being published by a for-profit press. So if you restrict "reliable sources" to for-profit presses, you automatically prevent the story or any other like it from ever qualifying -- not based on the merits or influence of the work but on the bias of the policy. Now, as noted above, the Wikipedia policy for "reliable sources" is much broader than that... until all applicable sources for sites and agencies which report on or deal with the subject matter are classified as "a bunch of fan stuff". Equestria Daily is regarded as a "fan site" primarily because it is a site for a subject matter that the people making the classification consider irrelevant. If those same people considered movies irrelevant, they would classify Rotten Tomatoes as a "fan site for movie fans". Sites like IGN are considered "reliable sources" instead of "really big fan sites" largely due to a matter of scale and a predisposition to accept what is being covered as potentially important. At what point does the scope, following and impact of a site move it beyond the threshold of "a bunch of fan stuff" to "a reliable source of information on a specific topic"? And if we strip away the personal biases involved here, have any of the sources cited crossed that threshold? Or gotten close enough to merit keeping the article, although perhaps in a different form? 64.126.161.222 (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the thing is this article's only notability sources are a bunch of fan stuff. It's not a conservative interpretation, it's actually going against the actual, stated guidelines for sources. Articles get deleted all the time because the only sources they can find are fan publications. This one shouldn't be any different, and if you're claiming that wikipedia should "grow" with unverified non-notable articles then I suggest you write an entry for this work in tvtropes instead. (Oh my god you guys I feel like a real wikipede all of a sudden) XxMiAmIPiMpiNxx (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm saying that whether this article meets Wikipedia's standards is determined by how liberally or conservatively Wikipedia's policies are interpreted. And that if Wikipedia is serious about projects like Wikiproject Video Games, it benefits them to continue the more liberal interpretations that allow such projects to grow. That means that the Wikipedia admins should not allow people with a prejudice against some subject matter to use extremely conservative interpretations of Wikipedia's Policies to get articles about that subject matter removed. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you're saying that not only should we keep an article that doesn't adhere to wikipedia's source and notability policies, but we shouldn't take it down because doing so would get rid of many other articles that also don't adhere to these policies? XxMiAmIPiMpiNxx (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better. Now you're actually contributing to the discussion. Allow me to offer my own blatant conjecture. This story recently had a footnote in the "longest novels" article on Wikipedia. Certain individuals who hated the My Little Pony fandom started vandalizing that page. The vandalism was reversed repeatedly, but this sparked an argument over whether "pony shit" belonged on that page (or Wikipedia in general). Arguments against it were made by people trying to hold that entry to Wikipedia's most stringent standards -- standards that an awful lot of the other entries on that page didn't meet. The end result was that not only was the "pony shit" removed from the article, but an entire section of the article was obliterated because the vast majority of the stories mentioned didn't meet the qualifications that anti-bronies were trying to use to surgically remove just the stories they didn't like. In the course of the preceding argument, one of Wikipedia's guardians against vandalism asserted that Fallout: Equestria had enough of a sub-cultural impact that it could soon deserve its own page. It is my conjecture that this article is the result of someone in the brony community reading that argument and saying "well, let's find out". On a related note, this article is part of the coverage of the Fallout series of video games and the influence of those games, part of Wikipedia's Wikiproject Video Games. There are a lot of articles within Wikiproject Video Games (and the Fallout-related section in particular) that do not meet the level of "notability" that people are trying to use to remove this page. A push to remove this article could result in a blow-back that wipes out numerous non-pony, non-fanfiction articles within the Wikiproject Video Games. I don't want to see Wikipedia history repeat itself on a much larger scale. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay one that website looks like some interesting reading I've never seen it before and two you can't really justify keeping an article on wikipedia by saying "a lot of pony fans like it". The fact is, there are places for this kind of thing (fan wikis, fan sites, tvtropes, etc) that are not here. Wikipedia's got notability for a reason, and they require published sources for a reason, and this article doesn't belong here. If someone wanted to know about it badly enough they'd be looking on a pony fanfiction site about it, they probably wouldn't expect it to be here. Trying to keep this article, if you will excuse my blatant conjecturing, is just a move to try and improve upon its status from the fans. It's pretty close to vanity imo and, again, doesn't belong here because wikipedia has standards which this doesn't meet. XxMiAmIPiMpiNxx (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you observe the page history of the original article, you will discover that Fallout: Equestria has already survived vandalism of the sort that Wikipedia is skilled at protecting against. That may have no connection to you (although the timing and expressed attitudes are suspiciously similar). Based on that information, and "contributions" such as your own here, it can be safely extrapolated that there is an effort by multiple parties to kill the article out of prejudice towards the subject matter or similar maliciousness. Whether or not such efforts are co-ordinated would be a matter of speculation. However, it should be noted that there is an anti-fanfiction website called Project A.F.T.E.R. which has taken note of this article. Members of that website have been known to troll and vandalize sites hosting information about fanfictions they are targeting. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete - This story (to paraphrase another commenter) may have started off as just a work of fanfiction but its influence has grown beyond that in a short period of time, effecting multiple fandoms. The community that has been inspired by this story is continuously growing and deserves to be represented. The story itself is an example of the influence of the Fallout series and is at least as significant a media adaption as the Fallout: Nuka Break video series. Thus, it is noteworthy as part of the impact of Fallout. In addition, the story has inspired over a dozen groups internationally to attempt to create tabletop roleplaying game, many of which draw on some or all of the Fallout video games' mechanics for system design. While these are fan-works of no individual significance, their efforts speak to the story's influence in helping spread the Fallout game to additional venues. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Baseless claims of the influence of this fanbase does not help prove notability. We need multiple, significant, third party reliable sources that prove it, separate from the source or ED. We need several, and not a single one has been provided yet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Try to avoid insulting people you don't agree with. "Does not meet my personal interpretation of significance" is not the same as "baseless". According to the rules for Wikipedia articles, truth is not the same as validity. You can argue that the claims of influence are not valid, but the references should leave no question that the claims of influence are true. And by merit of verifiable, documented accuracy, those claims are not baseless. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats not a "personal interpretation". Those are Wikipedia Policies. The only "interpretations" here are the sources on the article. Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 11:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Baseless" isn't an attack on you personally, it's that you still haven't provided any Wikipedia-standard reliable sources that demonstrate this "influence" you speak of. I'd expect someone to do the same to me if I wrote a long paragraph talking about something's influence without listing any sources to back up what I say. Which is why, typically when !vote that I want an article to be kept, I list off a ton of sources that backs up what I say. Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Either you are using a definition of "influence" that is unfamiliar to me, or you are being deliberately obtuse, or you are using technicalities to maintain denial. The influence of the story -- other stories, art, media, websites dedicated solely to the story, articles on sites related to My Little Pony and Fallout, etc -- is factual and demonstrated through the provided sources. Your arguments are the equivalent of saying "No matter how many pictures you've shown me of black people, you haven't proven black people exist, much less are noteworthy, because none of those photographs are from newspapers." 64.126.161.222 (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Flawed analogy. Existence=/= notability. I don't deny the existence of this fanfiction. I deny its WP:NOTABILITY, because no reliable third party sources are covering. There's a band down the street that is popular in the area, and has a Facebook page with 20 followers. It proves it exists. But it sure doesn't establish notability. Same concept with this fanfiction and just about any of the sources presented thus far. Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I understand the problem you two are having. Using your analogy, if that band down the street is popular enough to have inspired 20 other bands who follow in the first band's example and pay tribute to it in their songs, and each of those bands had Facebook pages claiming that original band as their inspiration, then that original band has influence. It may still not have WP:NOTABILITY, but claiming that there is no proof of influence, and speaking derisively about claims of influence, is erroneous and belligerent on your part. A large part of the !votes against deletion seem grounded in the concept that influence should count towards WP:NOTABILITY. An understandable confusion since you are the primary voice for deletion, and you keep making the mistake of using them interchangeably. 75.87.248.119 (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When Sergecross73 uses the word "influence", he means "WP:NOTABILITY". He is mis-using the word; influence ≠ Notability. Fallout: Equestria's influence (as per the dictionary definition of the word) has been established by the article and is not in question. It is Fallout: Equestria's Notability (capital "N", as per the Wikipedia guidelines) that is in question. HTH. 75.87.248.119 (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What I am saying is that there aren't any reliable third party sources attesting to this "influence", and as such, it can't be used to establish it's notability. That's what matters as far this article goes. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Flawed analogy. Existence=/= notability. I don't deny the existence of this fanfiction. I deny its WP:NOTABILITY, because no reliable third party sources are covering. There's a band down the street that is popular in the area, and has a Facebook page with 20 followers. It proves it exists. But it sure doesn't establish notability. Same concept with this fanfiction and just about any of the sources presented thus far. Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Either you are using a definition of "influence" that is unfamiliar to me, or you are being deliberately obtuse, or you are using technicalities to maintain denial. The influence of the story -- other stories, art, media, websites dedicated solely to the story, articles on sites related to My Little Pony and Fallout, etc -- is factual and demonstrated through the provided sources. Your arguments are the equivalent of saying "No matter how many pictures you've shown me of black people, you haven't proven black people exist, much less are noteworthy, because none of those photographs are from newspapers." 64.126.161.222 (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Try to avoid insulting people you don't agree with. "Does not meet my personal interpretation of significance" is not the same as "baseless". According to the rules for Wikipedia articles, truth is not the same as validity. You can argue that the claims of influence are not valid, but the references should leave no question that the claims of influence are true. And by merit of verifiable, documented accuracy, those claims are not baseless. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Baseless claims of the influence of this fanbase does not help prove notability. We need multiple, significant, third party reliable sources that prove it, separate from the source or ED. We need several, and not a single one has been provided yet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE Brony subculture is nowhere near important enough to warrant several articles about mediocre fan works — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.198.7.65 (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While there are several strong reasons as to why this article should be deleted, your personal disposition towards the subject matter in question is not one of them. --Yamamoto114 (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A quick note regarding sources - a good rule of thumb for checking if something is a reliable source is this: Could you go on that site right now, register an account, and post an article? For example, you could go on deviantART and plug your fanfiction story, but you can not go on the New York Times website and plug your fanfiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twoflower88 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The DeviantArt reference is, to the best of my understanding, there merely as evidence supporting the article's statement regarding art communities and the impressive amount of works that have been inspired by Fallout: Equestria. Regardless of whether it is a "reliable source" for purposes of notability, the reference does help establish the accuracy of facts stated in the article. Regarding that rule of thumb, it should be noted that Equestria Daily passes that test. 75.87.248.119 (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is still a user-contributed content. I could go on deviantart and write a blatant hoax and would the hoax gets its own WP article? Nope. Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 11:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Before commenting, it might be a good idea to pay attention to what the person you are responding to has actually said. The references you are complaining do not meet Wikipedia's standards as "reliable sources" aren't doing things that require they meet that classification to do. The article says that the story has inspired (amongst other things) numerous artworks. It then provides a reference link which, when you follow it, takes you to a deviantart page with, ta-da, hundreds of artworks inspired by the story. The deviantart reference does exactly what it is intended to do, and it doesn't need to be a "wikipedia-quality reliable resource" to do it. If you get hit in the head with a rock, that pretty well establishes that rocks exist, even if the person who threw it at you doesn't work for a geology department. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- deviantART was merely an example of something you can log on and instantly post something. I was not talking about the use of it in the article. Twoflower88 (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Before commenting, it might be a good idea to pay attention to what the person you are responding to has actually said. The references you are complaining do not meet Wikipedia's standards as "reliable sources" aren't doing things that require they meet that classification to do. The article says that the story has inspired (amongst other things) numerous artworks. It then provides a reference link which, when you follow it, takes you to a deviantart page with, ta-da, hundreds of artworks inspired by the story. The deviantart reference does exactly what it is intended to do, and it doesn't need to be a "wikipedia-quality reliable resource" to do it. If you get hit in the head with a rock, that pretty well establishes that rocks exist, even if the person who threw it at you doesn't work for a geology department. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is still a user-contributed content. I could go on deviantart and write a blatant hoax and would the hoax gets its own WP article? Nope. Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 11:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The DeviantArt reference is, to the best of my understanding, there merely as evidence supporting the article's statement regarding art communities and the impressive amount of works that have been inspired by Fallout: Equestria. Regardless of whether it is a "reliable source" for purposes of notability, the reference does help establish the accuracy of facts stated in the article. Regarding that rule of thumb, it should be noted that Equestria Daily passes that test. 75.87.248.119 (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - what is this doing on my wikipedias XxMiAmIPiMpiNxx (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It helps more if you explain your stance a little. Otherwise it could be overlooked like any other comment that doesn't really address Wikipedia policy... Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- oh, right, sorry. Not notable no sources yadda yadda XxMiAmIPiMpiNxx (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It helps more if you explain your stance a little. Otherwise it could be overlooked like any other comment that doesn't really address Wikipedia policy... Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (obviously...) I think the reasons are really obvious. Wikia? Deviantart? Youtube? Equestriadaily.com which blatantly violates WP:THIRDPARTY? Does not meet WP:N at all. Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 11:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice. If it's as important and notable as proponents claim, it will eventually meet notability guidelines. Recreate the article if/when it does. Until then, this is just fancruft. --Ashenai (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't believe that this was created in the first place. It violates a ton of guidelines. Seriously, why does this have a page? 99.230.221.138 (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:PONY.
Gobōnobo + c 22:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So your argument is
based off ofa joke essay? Sergecross73 msg me 22:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Well, we are arguing over ponies, so WP:PONY must be relevant!(I'm joking, of course.) Twoflower88 (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, what about the humor template? The article was kept as it is considered humourous. Also, aren't images disallowed in signatures? Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 02:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note: this redirects to "No, you cant have pony." It's Wikipedia policy: pony articles have no place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a firm anti-pony stance and articles like this one are nothing but blatant attempts to move Wikipedia to a neutral or even pro-pony stance. This will not be allowed. Please review "No, you can't have pony." Discussion closed. (More seriously, considering the high number of vandalism attempts on this article in the last 24 hours, Wikipedia admins might want to consider removing the page just to save themselves the hassle.) 75.87.248.119 (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we are arguing over ponies, so WP:PONY must be relevant!(I'm joking, of course.) Twoflower88 (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So your argument is
- Delete Delete, delete, delete! There's no place on Wikipedia for non-notable fanfiction. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does, however, have a place for notable [[9]] fanfiction. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And Fallout Equestria is far, far from notable. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on what? Because you don't like it? Because you don't like the Fallout games, maybe? What makes Fallout: Equestria "far, far" less notable than Pinjar, Time's Champion, The Enchanted Duplicator and Another Hope? 64.126.161.222 (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on Wikipedia Policy and guidelines, such as WP:N. It fails most or all of the criteria under the General Notability Guidelines. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So, my point is that there is precedent for this article's inclusion on Wikipedia, and your argument is that the article doesn't hold to standards that articles about similar subject matter haven't been regularly subject to anyway? 64.126.161.222 (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Invalid argument - read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 10:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." - read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 64.126.161.222 (talk) 10:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The burden of proof, however, rests on those who advocate keeping the page by demonstrating why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is being "used correctly" in being "consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Precedent or no precedent, a reasonable application of WP:N cannot provide the necessary notability for this page. The argument is not that this page should be deleted because people don't like it (which you are attacking quite vigorously, but is still beside the point), but rather that its content is simply not notable. 125.51.213.174 (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is - are you using it correctly? What you're basically saying is that we disregard WP:N because some other articles also violate WP:N and yet they are allowed to "stay". This is the point of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 07:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct. Listing off "less-notable" fan-fiction articles doesn't help this article, it just points out that those article may warrant deletion as well. Sergecross73 msg me 12:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." - read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 64.126.161.222 (talk) 10:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Invalid argument - read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 10:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So, my point is that there is precedent for this article's inclusion on Wikipedia, and your argument is that the article doesn't hold to standards that articles about similar subject matter haven't been regularly subject to anyway? 64.126.161.222 (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on Wikipedia Policy and guidelines, such as WP:N. It fails most or all of the criteria under the General Notability Guidelines. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on what? Because you don't like it? Because you don't like the Fallout games, maybe? What makes Fallout: Equestria "far, far" less notable than Pinjar, Time's Champion, The Enchanted Duplicator and Another Hope? 64.126.161.222 (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And Fallout Equestria is far, far from notable. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does, however, have a place for notable [[9]] fanfiction. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Нихрена себе тут срач развели — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.34.174.199 (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic: I can't see any notability demostrated in the article (EqD falls way short), but, per Masem, I think a brief mention is warranted when discussing brony subculture. Sceptre (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Delete this page. Fanfiction does not deserve full Wikipedia articles no matter how lengthy or well-written they are. It has had very far from a universal effect on the world - I've only just heard of it today - and it will only interest one group of people: bronies. Wikipedia articles should aim to aattract the interest of more than one group of people, not just a crazy Internet following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.210.247 (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Time's Champion, Fallout: Nuka Break, Another Hope? Not suggesting they should be deleted, but I do think it points out a flaw in your rather biased opinion. --Codepony (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the IP's reasoning is a little off, fan fiction can be mentioned, but it's needs the proper third party coverage in reliable sources, the same thing that has written up and down this page. This is something that is lacking with Fallout Equestria. Your examples are not in the same league. For instance, Time's Champion received coverage from the BBC, a very major third party source, and was even legitimately published as a real book. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "I do think it points out a flaw in your rather biased opinion."-Look at what you just wrote, and think hard for a second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.70.217 (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How much of an entitlement complex do you need to type that. Seriously. This fanfic is in no way notable, nor does it have any non-biased sources. I hate how internet people always assume that because their fangroup was influenced by a work, the work can be considered highly influential. 38.116.202.11 (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "I do think it points out a flaw in your rather biased opinion."-Look at what you just wrote, and think hard for a second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.70.217 (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the IP's reasoning is a little off, fan fiction can be mentioned, but it's needs the proper third party coverage in reliable sources, the same thing that has written up and down this page. This is something that is lacking with Fallout Equestria. Your examples are not in the same league. For instance, Time's Champion received coverage from the BBC, a very major third party source, and was even legitimately published as a real book. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Time's Champion, Fallout: Nuka Break, Another Hope? Not suggesting they should be deleted, but I do think it points out a flaw in your rather biased opinion. --Codepony (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, not notable, not something that requires a wikipedia page. I'm sure that someone could make a page for it on a more appropriate wiki. 38.116.202.11 (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your attempts at trolling the article itself (such as this: [[10]]) have been logged by Wikipedia and are available for review by the administration. I'm sure they will give the opinions of people who vandalize their wiki all due consideration. 75.87.248.119 (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith. The argument presented is not illegitimate. -Rushyo Talk 16:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N, WP:RS and WP:VGSCOPE. The arguments I've seen presented above for keep are either not based in WP policy or directly contradict WP policy (implying WP:COI and WP:USERGENERATED). However well presented the article is, there's no argument here which suggests it is valid encyclopedic content at the moment and Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. -Rushyo Talk 15:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not that I don't love the story, but does this really deserve it's own page? I only see one fanfiction mentioned on wikipedia, and it was published as an actual book. Fallout: Equestria isn't any more notable than "Half: Life Full Life Consequences", "Cupcakes", or "Past Sins." If you really feel like you need to put this story on a wiki, put it on the mlp wiki, or Know You're Meme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flightoftheshadowbolts (talk • contribs) 15:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete At first I thought why not keep it but it is true that it does not meet notability rules. Maybe on some site like ED it would deserve its own page, but not here. However I dont think all mention of this fanfic should be wiped from Wikipedia. It should get its own section in the MLP fandom page, obviously a much condensed version of this. Racingfreak92 (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2012 (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. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Untitled Vishnuvardhan Project
- Untitled Vishnuvardhan Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER, pure speculation and only sourced to film gossip blogs. CaptainScreebo Parley! 13:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The project is going to start next week so no need to delete this page. Nothing is gossip here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeevanantham Karunanithi (talk • contribs) 2012-05-10T15:08:03
- The initialism gibberish written in the nomination is referring to Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and TenPoundHammer's Law. Uncle G (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FFS, I have linked them now, they are not initialisms but shortcuts to relevant policy, thanks for your add though, GTG ;-) CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The initialism gibberish written in the nomination is referring to Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and TenPoundHammer's Law. Uncle G (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect for now per WP:TOO SOON and, as sources are referring to it as the "Untitled Vishnuvardhan Project" (not as "unlikely" search term), we can send readers, per policy, to Vishnuvardhan (director)#Upcoming film... the one place where policy allows that it makes sense to have this written about until such time as the topic is ready for its own article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The film will go on floors on May 31 for first schedule in mumbai. Confirmed news from media. So no need to delete this page.Jeevanantham Karunanithi (Talk) 5:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not to quibble... as I am always wiling to reverse my stance... but for Indian films the term "going on the floor" is usually used for the official announcement that signals true pre-production, consisting of an announcement party, blessing, and festivities... and often a pre-release of the proposed film's planned music tracks. Can you offer a reliable source that tells us that principal filming will actually begin on May 31st? Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Refer filming section in the article.Jeevanantham Karunanithi (Talk) 5:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've read both the sources provided for that section. Behindwoods has the sentence "will go on floors in Mumbai on the 31st of this month" and Indiaglitz has the sentence "The latest is that the film will go on floors in Mumbai on May 31 for the first schedule". As above, it is the term "go on floors" that I question, as the term does not indicate principle filming will begin on those projected dates... which is why I asked for something a little more definitive. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: Per WP:NFF -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
<--
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. consensus is to delete, primarily WP:CRYSTAL, as notability cannot be established at this time (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Star Drive (4x Game)
- Star Drive (4x Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:CRYSTAL, not getting any hits from VG/RS about this game or its development, not sure it'll be notable even once it's out. CaptainScreebo Parley! 12:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The game has received some attention from press, I don't know how many of them you consider notable or not. Here's some that came up in Google: 1, 2, 3 4 5, 6, 7. It's worth noting also that while an article on Iceberg Interactive is conspicuously absent, Wikipedia does have articles on several recent games published by them: Oil Rush, Armada 2526, Nuclear Dawn, Adam's Venture, and Star Ruler. Totally agree about sources, the article does need them - did find this press release which should help along with some of the other news articles and the website itself. -- Revoranii (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this game has seen alot of attention in the last months, they raised 17 grand for their Kickstarter this January, so i believe the page should stay. -- Reagent9 (talk) 3:55, 10 May 2012 (PST)
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL point 5 – "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements". GILO A&E⇑ 00:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article has be recreated as StarDrive, with the article under discussion here, Star Drive (4x Game), now redirecting to the new page. The new page does still have the afd notice directing to this page. GILO A&E⇑ 00:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Eastshire (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 00:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted for a bit more feedback regarding notability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm tending toward Delete per CRYSTAL. This www.google.com/cse?cx=003516479746865699832%3Aleawcwkqifq&ie=UTF-8&q=StarDrive&sa=Search&siteurl=www.google.com%2Fcse%2Fhome%3Fcx%3D003516479746865699832%3Aleawcwkqifq&ref=en.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWikipedia%3AVG%2FRS#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=StarDrive&gsc.page=1 WP:VG/RS Google custom search doesn't seem to come up with anything right now which covers the content in sufficiently detailed manner to satisfy the WP:GNG. --Izno (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2012 (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 Once Upon a Forest. JohnCD (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rae Lambert
- Rae Lambert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deprodded with claim of sources on Google News. Weeding out the many, many false positives found only references to the film saying things like "This film, based upon a book by Rae Lambert…" and not saying another word about Rae. I couldn't find anything on this person at all, besides that they wrote the book Once Upon a Forest was based on. No biographical info, nor any proof beyond sales sites that "Mungo" exists. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 12:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Once Upon a Forest. He wrote a story for a notable film, the information is verifiable: [11], [12], and redirect is in my opinion better than deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from page creator: I've just taken the liberty of retrieving his official page from the Web Archive. Looking into Westlaw's News/Business sources, one article (from 2007) mentions his involvement in a court case. Beyond that, let's hope the situation improves. Otherwise, Redirect per Vej. (Blame my recent intermittent activity on several of the problems I gloss over in this Kindle Boards post.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2012 (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. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of authors by age at publication of breakthrough work
- List of authors by age at publication of breakthrough work (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unencyclopaedic, arbitrary list, which authors, why? for starters. Incoherent, I don't read his stuff but I thought everybody knew Stieg Larsson was dead when his books were published. Doesn't seem to satisfy any of the criteria at Wikipedia:List#List_articles and finally because it appears to be the article creator's whim and nothing more ("created page, because I wanted there to be a list like this"). CaptainScreebo Parley! 12:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This list will inherently be OR and synthesis due to "breakthrough" being a subjective term. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 12:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What is the criteria for determining exactly what 'breakthrough work' is? First work published, first work well reviewed, first work to receive some sort of award? This has to be defined clearly for the list to have any value.--StvFetterly(Edits) 13:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Arbitrary criteria for inclusion of authors, works. Neutralitytalk 16:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Actually interesting, but an encyclopedia is for basic facts -- not interesting ways of putting them together. Borock (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Which authors? What constitutes a 'breakout work"? Why age? Perhaps an interesting trivia topic, but inherently unencyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Prophesying the end of the article by some future inundation of entries is a Slippery slope argument; a logical fallacy. It is not impossible to stop or even turn back, let alone determine the standard of, inclusion of list articles. Anarchangel (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Without a coherent definition of "breakthrough" work, this list can only ever be personal opinions and original research. Reyk YO! 20:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I'm the page creator. Thanks for the thoughtful reactions. Captain Screebo describes my goals exactly: I wanted to find a list on this and didn't find it, so I made it. I don't think there's a strong case against the value of this information compared to other lists on the site (though of course I'm biased), but as many people have said, the "breakthrough" standard is hopelessly arbitrary. If we could come up with a more objective standard--first work to be purchased more than X times? bestselling work?--would it rise to encyclopaedic standards? As for the selection of authors, most of it is lifted from List of bestselling books. Andersem (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2012 (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 - with the understanding that many people voting on this AfD are not familiar with Wikipedia policy, please note that AfD discussions are not a matter of counting votes, but rather of gaining rough consensus based on the weight and appropriateness of policy as it pertains to the article.
As has been noted below, the subject of this article currently fails our standards of notability. Firstly, our general notability guidelines. These state that the subject of the article must have been the subject (in a non-trivial manner) of numerous, independent, secondary sources. The sources currently available on the article are PR pieces from the gentlemen's agency and small obituary notices.
The second objection to the article's inclusion on Wikipedia was that the subject fails our notability guidelines for entertainers. Specifically, this refers to the need for the subject to have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. This is simply not the case here.
I offer this long closing in the hope that those who are new to Wikipedia will understand the rational behind both the deletion votes and this outcome. However, should anyone have any questions, please do feel free to ask me on my talk page. Should anyone wish to have the article moved to their userspace, they need only ask. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Bridegroom
- Thomas Bridegroom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
May fail WP:ENT. Article was created by Shanebitneycrone (talk · contribs), who I believe was the now-deceased subject's partner. This video is of relevance to the subjects. See also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Bitney Crone. Pyrrhus16 12:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. This is an important aspect of the same-sex marriage issue and lack of marital rights regarding funeral and hospital visitation rights. but Thomas Bridegroom himself is not notable (yet). --Joshuaism (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I viewed the video posted on youtube and immediately Googled Thomas Bridegroom. Since I am an unrelated person with no ties to either him, his partner, or his family I believe his story is compelling enough and spreading rapidly enough to justify maintaining this page.--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillowLily (talk • contribs) 13:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please make an argument founded in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Wikipedia is not based upon subjective ideas of inclusion/exclusion. What you believe to be compelling is irrelevant. Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure why anyone would consider this article for deletion. Shane Bitney Crone wants to leave a mark for an amazing man, a man he loved with everything he had. A man who was taken way too soon and a man he was never able to properly say goodbye to. This article has every right to stay and should stay. Stay strong Shane! You are an AMAZING man and you deserve all the happiness in the world. I also hear Ellen has heard of your story, I hope this goes viral and that people really see what needs to be done in this country regarding same-sex marriage issue and to protect people like you. <3 comment added by cmcgalrd —Preceding undated comment added 13:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Please make an argument founded in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Your idea of articles having "rights" is nonsense. Moreover, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a memorial, nor a soapbox. Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree this page should not be deleted. - B in Georgia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.251.130 (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please make an argument founded in Wikipedia:Deletion policy that explains why. Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- UncleG, please make an argument founded in Wikipedia:Deletion policy that explains why you want this page deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.193.131 (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the sort of response one gets in a schoolyard, and daft considering that I've said nothing at all on the matter either way. Try not being silly, 69.71.193.131, and making a proper, policy-compliant, argument for what you think should happen. Uncle G (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are also sidestepping a legitimate request for the reason of your intention for this article's deletion. I again request: Uncle G, please make an argument founded in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. If you cannot, do not bother to reply. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.6.33 (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You have completely missed the point. You are asking Uncle G to justify his intention for deleting the article when he has expressed no such opinion. All he has done is point out to participants in this discussion is that arguments need to be based on policy. -- Whpq (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are also sidestepping a legitimate request for the reason of your intention for this article's deletion. I again request: Uncle G, please make an argument founded in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. If you cannot, do not bother to reply. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.6.33 (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the sort of response one gets in a schoolyard, and daft considering that I've said nothing at all on the matter either way. Try not being silly, 69.71.193.131, and making a proper, policy-compliant, argument for what you think should happen. Uncle G (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- UncleG, please make an argument founded in Wikipedia:Deletion policy that explains why you want this page deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.193.131 (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please make an argument founded in Wikipedia:Deletion policy that explains why. Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I also came across this page after seeing the YouTube video, and googling Mr. Bridegroom's name. The relevant video has a very high number of views and shares, and this trend will likely continue as the current debate about rights to same-sex couples continues, especially in light of N. Carolina's recently passed amendment. To me, this is a 'viral video' which qualifies for recognition in Wikipedia. I just checked, and the Nyan Cat has a undisputed page. Although I understand the argument that this story in itself is not entirely unique, the video made by his partner has reached a level of recognition justifying the Wikipedia entry. (At least to the extent a GIF cat made out of a pop-tart warrants.)~~Chasina R, Portland, OR~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.192.183 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete. Regardless of who initially created the article, the person has notability far outside of their profession as an "Entertainer" (WP:ENT). I do not find any sufficient arguments for deletion listed in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Scott Teresi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
As an attorney, I can state without hesitation, that this needs to remain intact. His life is not a secret, and the embarrassment of the immediate family does not constitute deletion. Gay and Lesbian persons will soon share equal rights with us all. 20 years ago we many not have believed a black president was a possibility, but our current [black] president is in support of gay marriage. There is no warrent under the stated guidelines that allows for deletion of this and, in fact, deletion would open the gates to discrimination lawsuits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hodge2011 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Bridegroom's work, and public interest after his death are enough to meet the notability guideline of the Deletion Policy. If family members of his are suggesting that this Wiki be deleted, they should be advised to instead supply additional content to this Wiki entry. ~ S. A. Talbert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan47305 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - but hold on First of all I'd like to say Keep. However, the rules of WP are that more than one independent verifiable source which provides significant coverage of the subject is required to satisfy notability so I have to say Delete. My view is that he probably is notable - but this article doesn't (yet) prove it. So - get to your local library and find some sources. To put it bluntly - if he's dead - all you need are two newspaper obituaries and your problems are solved. Cite these in the talk page, or if you don't know how to - provide the details (if it's a newspaper and not on the internet) and/or links and ask an editor to help you cite them properly on the article. With two such sources, notability should be satisfied and the delete arguments should dissipate. First4Uppingham (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is history for the LGBT community. Also Thomas Bridegroom seemed to be a notable person, hosted a TV show on MTV for example. Keverw (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The video circulating about his death has over a million views on Youtube, it's major news now whether or not it would have been significant on its own merits. Binerman (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. The YouTube video is powerful. People are going to keep googling him and coming to Wikipedia to find out more information. 184.32.6.164 (talk) audrhi —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- merge as the sensible compromise solution, but I am not sure in which direction. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- merge, as per Joshuaism's observations. It is not appropriate for a wikipedia page to be created by someone personally involved, and it appears that both members of this couple created each other's pages - the irony being that at the time they probably thought no-one would ever pick up this fact. The subject-matter of the video is highly relevant, though, for articles on the topic of recognition of same-sex couples and a reference to the video would be appropriate there (and searches for Bridegroom's name would pick this up).Orfeocookie (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions. Let me attempt to nutshell the subject: Bridegroom's main claim to fame is as the subject of a short video made by his bereaved boyfriend, who uploaded it to Youtube, where many people have watched it. Have I got that wrong? If I haven't, why even merge, anywhere? Certainly I don't immediately see signs of other notability. (Looking at the external links, I see "Model and TV Host Tom Bridegroom Tells Guys to Try SensiClear Acne Treatment" and worse.) I do understand that the video is said to be significant. Is the claim of significance (a) on the strength of what it says, (b) for its impact (as measured by press coverage etc), or (c) for its great number of views? If (a), this is not encyclopedic. (Nothing ideological about this: its opposite, a homophobic rant, would in itself be equally unencyclopedic.) If (b) (as is claimed in the article on Crone), where is this coverage? If (c), I do note that it has been viewed 1.8 million times, which does seem impressive until I consider how very many people there are who watch a great number of youtubes. "Guy Catches Laptop with His Butt", for example, has got 4.2 million views, and the short list of related videos that Youtube served me for it (and the list it gives you may differ) included eight that had had over 2 million views. -- Hoary (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Thomas Bridegroom was not notable enough and most of the information is not verified, it is a rehashing of the video, so opinions, not established facts. Emotion should not drive what is a Wiki worthy topic. Scottca075 Scottca075 (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP: The truth is that the Thomas Bridegroom U-tube video has entered and already become an important part of the gay marriage deabte on both sides of the Atlantic and is currently being shared extensively on Facebook - which very much can be verified (and justifies it being considered notable). I detect, sadly, a strong whiff of subjective prejudice and bigotry, masquerading under a rather "holier than thou" interpretration of Wiki's clear guidlines, in some of the comments above. Patricklt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricklt (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The truth is that the Thomas Bridegroom U-tube video has entered and already become an important part of the gay marriage [debate] on both sides of the Atlantic: Then please augment and improve the article so that it has reliable evidence of this truth. -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I have briefly reviewed the guidelines that instruct why and how WikiPedia articles are to be deleted; in short, I can find no reasonable explanation why this article merits consideration for deletion. In a retort above, user Uncle G suggests that the burden of proof be upon those who think that the article should be kept. It seems straightforward that the burden of proof to explain why an article should be deleted should be bourne by those who want the article removed. If this is not official policy, I think WikiMedia would do well to make it such. User Uncle G's requests to refer to specific policies officious. The article should stand for the reasons set forth by other users above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhumburg (talk • contribs) 19:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy says: Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following [...] Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed[;] Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) [...]. It seems to me that (i) a large percentage of the article (as yet) lacks verification by reliable sources, and (ii) notability ("WP:BIO") is lacking. -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: His death by itself is not notable enough to qualify for a page; However, the You-Tube video that goes along with his life is. More information should be added to this page. -- kraamerXmich (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2012
- Comment: What an interesting bunch of users there are in this AfD, including (but perhaps not limited to): Cmcgalrd (the one edit above, only); WillowLily (ditto); Patricklt (ditto); Alan47305 (ditto); Hodge2011 (the two edits above, only); Keverw (first edit in nine months, and fifth ever); First4Uppingham (indefinitely blocked by Uncle G: Disruption spree at AFD from multiple accounts); Kraamerxmich (started editing on 14 May, every edit has been about Bridegroom). -- Hoary (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I see no coverage in independent reliable sources about the subject that establishes notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or else Merge the individual user pages into a single article discussing the YouTube video and the people (Tom & Shane). I saw the video, then googled Tom Bridegroom and found the WikiPedia entry. There is journalistic / archival value in being able to learn more about the story, particularly given the large number of people who are watching the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHGrove3 (talk • contribs)
- Keep. Not only has the YouTube video about him gone viral, but a number of news services have done stories about it, including CNN ("Gay Man's Poignant Video Goes Viral", CNN Newsroom, May 15th, 2012). MishaPan (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or possibly merge. As for the argument that "attempts to find reliable sources to verify [the article] have failed," (from WP:DEL#REASON) I believe you are only looking at one (admittedly important) section of the article. His filmography, while brief, is certainly verifiable by reliable sources (IMDb, MTV). His obituary is also "reliable." I believe that, with a little effort and research, reliable sources could be found to verify the sections in question (i.e. his background, orientation, relationship, and the events occuring between his death and funeral). Moreover, CNN has already had wind of this story, so I wouldn't be surprised if more sources popped up. I do, however, think that the article also needs rewritten--it sounds more like an ad than an objective article ("the prestigious Culver Military Academy", and the entire Personal life section). However, with regard to deletion, the most important question I see is whether he has "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." [emphasis mine] (from WP:BIO) To me, it seems that he plays a significant role in only one television show, and not one of major interest. If this article were solely about Thomas Bridegroom's career as an actor, I would say he should only be mentioned in an article about The_X_Effect. However, I could argue that he plays a significant role in an "other production"--the YouTube video. I think he may deserve an article because he has two publicized roles (YouTube video and X Effect) that are very unrelated, and that drawing that link may be the main use for this article. My only qualm about this is that this is a very recent rise to "fame" (if it can be called that), and it's difficult to predict the long-term value of this article. Looking at Google Insights, I see that there was only a short spike in interest, but I also see that there still a bit of interest. I believe that this article has encylopaedic value, even if only to a few thousand people who want to research after watching the YouTube video. However, if all media coverage stops and interest in his story dies out, I would be more comfortable seeing this information merged into pages about "It Could Happen to You" and The_X_Effect. I also must say that the "Personal life" section sounds more like a transcription of the YouTube video than an informative section, and to deserve my "Keep," I think it needs revamped. (Sorry for the long comment!) Emolution (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Thomas Bridegroom hosted The X Effect on MTV, a show that has aired all over the world and still airs today. That is notable on it's own. Aside from hosting an international TV on a major network he has appeared in numerous national commercial and print campaigns. All you have to do is GOOGLE Tom Bridegroom. To say that Tom is not Notable and that Shane Bitney Crone's video "It Could Happen To You" isn't widespread enough that is incorrect. I have been following this story and following Tom and Shane and Shane has done interviews with the TV shows The Insider on CBS, E News on E!, and The Newsroom on CNN. RadarOnline featured the story as well as The Huffington Post, La repubblica (Italy's top newspaper). The video has over 2.3 million views and although the momentum has slowed down slightly it would be absolutely shameful to delete Shane Bitney Crone and Thomas Bridegroom's Wikipedia pages (Whether they created them or not is irrelevant) because their story has now been covered all over the world and it will forever be a part of the gay rights movement. Just google Tom or Shane's name and there are HUNDREDS of media outlets that have covered this story/video. Shane even said in an interview he was been approached by numerous production companies to turn this into a movie. If these Wikipedia pages are deleted it will turn into a news story itself that ONCE AGAIN Tom Bridegroom's life is trying to be erased and people are trying to erase the fact that their relationship ever existed. User: LivingSpaces 08:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingspaces (talk • contribs)
- Keep: I don't see sufficient need to delete based on section one of the delete guidelines that instruct why and how WikiPedia articles are to be deleted. The issues cited can be addressed individually. Deletion is not justified under section one. Regarding "Failing all criteria", I think he met the minimum notability based on MTV alone. SkipR 21:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryper (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
<--
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The consensus was to merge to Thomas Bridegroom, but that article has been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Bridegroom. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shane Bitney Crone
- Shane Bitney Crone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
May fail WP:ENT. Article was created by Thbridegroom (talk · contribs), who I believe is the subject's now-deceased partner. This video is of relevance to the subjects. See also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Bridegroom. Pyrrhus16 12:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. This is an important aspect of the same-sex marriage issue and lack of marital rights regarding funeral and hospital visitation rights. but Shane Bitney Crone himself is not notable (yet). --Joshuaism (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. The article says Crone made headlines in May 2012 when he released a video [...]. Where are the headlines? -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: For example here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.240.112.169 (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thank you: "Why Gay Marriage Matters". The video is not in the headline. Yes, the video (with its narrator, Crone) plays an important part in this news segment. If there were more such appearances described straightforwardly (without exaggeration) in the article, I'd be more inclined to support the retention of the article and probably other editors would too. -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your point is legitimate (and I note you asked much the same question in the related page for Tom Bridegroom). I agree there should be solid evidence re notability. Can I offer that there was a report in the Huffington Post here.Orfeocookie (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this starts to look interesting. Feel free to add it to the article ... though I think that this would then be a "BLP1E". -- Hoary (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I agree with you on that. I think it's too early to tell, frankly, whether this single video is significant enough to be the kind of 'big event' that would overcome that concern. It might turn out that way, but not yet. It would be good if the issue could be considered further in, say 1-2 months but I'm not well-versed enough in Wikipedia policy (including deletion policy) to know whether that's viable, or whether the 2 pages could be 'undeleted' if this proves to have significant staying power.Orfeocookie (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If an article on a given subject has been deleted via AfD but somebody thinks they can create an article that satisfies the objections that led to deletion, then they should contact the administrator who closed the AfD and deleted the article, explaining this. If the explanation doesn't sway the administrator, the would-be article creator can still appeal to "Deletion review". -- Hoary (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I agree with you on that. I think it's too early to tell, frankly, whether this single video is significant enough to be the kind of 'big event' that would overcome that concern. It might turn out that way, but not yet. It would be good if the issue could be considered further in, say 1-2 months but I'm not well-versed enough in Wikipedia policy (including deletion policy) to know whether that's viable, or whether the 2 pages could be 'undeleted' if this proves to have significant staying power.Orfeocookie (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this starts to look interesting. Feel free to add it to the article ... though I think that this would then be a "BLP1E". -- Hoary (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your point is legitimate (and I note you asked much the same question in the related page for Tom Bridegroom). I agree there should be solid evidence re notability. Can I offer that there was a report in the Huffington Post here.Orfeocookie (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thank you: "Why Gay Marriage Matters". The video is not in the headline. Yes, the video (with its narrator, Crone) plays an important part in this news segment. If there were more such appearances described straightforwardly (without exaggeration) in the article, I'd be more inclined to support the retention of the article and probably other editors would too. -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: For example here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.240.112.169 (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E in conjunction with WP:NOTNEWS. His importance to the same sex rights is not established. The coverage is of course recent as it cannot be anything but. More importantly, the coverage is not widespread and so is simply a news item. Yet another report on a popular Youtube video. -- Whpq (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 00:07, 27 May 2012 (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. CSD G7, author's request. The article has been withdrawn by the only significant contributor.(I would however not suggest reposting.after the Declaration, unless there's some truly independent reliable substantial press coverage DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Larusia
- Larusia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable fictional subject. No sources external to the creator that I could find. Syrthiss (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The island is real, and the declaration of independence is set to take place on August 11th 2012 with full local media coverage. BobaHat 13:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, you've come to Wikipedia for all the wrong reasons. Your subject hasn't been documented by the world, doesn't even exist outwith the heads of its inventors; and you've come to Wikipedia to (a) try to make the subject exist, (b) document the undocumented, (c) promote your own creation that has not objectively become part of human knowledge, and (d) abuse Wikipedia as a free hosting service for the made-up stuff associated with a micronation. This is an encyclopaedia. You wouldn't go into a library and scribble things that you and a group of chums have just made up off the tops of your heads into an encyclopaedia there. Don't do it here. Go and get the world to independently and reliably document you, before even thinking of coming to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a free hosting service, nor is it for "cool" ideas that a gang of friends have just made up on the WWW one day. If the island were a real geographical feature, then a Wikipedia article would deal in the real geographical and political information about the island. Fact, not fiction. Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable made up. For the record, "Larusia" is the uninhabited Danish island da:Flæskholm. The article and website give no coordinates or real name but the map and photo is of Flæskholm which has the right area and location. Flæskholm at Google Maps. A real Danish page: http://www.sydforfyn.dk/flaeskholm.htm. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't appreciate being accused of 'abusing' Wikipedia. This was never our intent, and we would like you to accept that. We do, however, see your points, and we accept the deletion of this article. After our declaration of independence, we will return and re-post the article - with outside sources and links to media coverage of the event. BobaHat 8:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- WP:ILIKEIT. Sorry Boba, unfortunately the rules don't allow cool stuff like this. I recommend declaring war on random countries and invading them, that should be a quick way to get media coverage and notability per WP:GNG. Arcandam (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2012 (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. Unsourced BLP Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reda Hafez
- Reda Hafez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced BLP. I tagged it as such but the tags got removed. Links in the article are not related to the subject directly: they are either self-published or links to forums or homepages that do not mention the subject. Abanima (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, in case the community agree that this article should be deleted, please consider also its clones on creator's personal and talk pages.--Abanima (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your concern about the article, but why should we worry what the user puts on his user and talk pages? --Joshuaism (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the Project:Biographies of living persons policy applies to every namespace, not just the encyclopaedic content namespaces. Userspace drafts are not magically free from the rules. Of course, simple blanking is sufficient for a user page or a user talk page, no use of the deletion tool required. Uncle G (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All awards appear to be limited to those awarded in his academic studies. No inline citations of sources are provided. None of the sources provided are RS. Nothing provided suggests Reda Hafez can meet the WP:ARTIST guideline. --Joshuaism (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tango multitouch suite
- Tango multitouch suite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unfortunately, I was unable to find enough reliable coverage for this suite. While I think that it may be a good idea and a good product, there just isn't enough coverage for it to warrant an article (at least until there is more coverage). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is some kind of weird self-promotion, done by the same guy who created the logo for the product. The article doesn't even have any citations, no official site for the product, nothing. I deleted all that gibberish in the middle because there was no link to the "Tango" product. Softlavender (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no references, no indication of notability for this software, created by an SPA as likely spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. --- Whpq (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2012 (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. I'm withdrawing my nomination, but please add those sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Genius Factor Games
- Genius Factor Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As none of its games are notable , I don't see how the company has any notability either. DGG ( talk ) 08:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the author, the company has been around for a significant period of time, has received decent press in the industry (on its releases and the company) although not yet cited (I'm didn't include as I interpreted those as "advertising" (perhaps incorrectly). The company and its titles are on par with other iOS developers who have been listed in Wikipedia for some time, and seem to have met the notable requirement. Specific examples include (I'm sure I can find many others):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appy_Entertainment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_(mobile_application) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Toys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreshGames
Everything included in the article is factual, verifiable, and I believe genuinely notable (specifically Gravity Well (product) and Riese. I am still very new to how Wikipedia works (so please excuse my ignorance on process), is there something specific I can do offer further proofs of notability? --Frontalnugity (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It may seem like a reasonable objection, but the fact that similar articles exist is one of the arguments to avoid. It'd be better to focus on finding independent reliable sources. There's a couple of useful Google News results ([13][14]), but I'm not sure that's enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Do you have access to any offline sources (newspapers, etc)? DoctorKubla (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the follow-up, and from reading the general guide lines, still believe in earnest that it is notable. Although not the primary argument for notability, I do believe in the interest of fairness that similar articles is still a valid factor in consideration. More specifically though, the company (and President) been cited multiple times in print, newspaper, magazines and other online sources in regards to discussion and opinion on the industry. Specifically (and in addition to the 2 references you noted) the following are independent sources that appeared prominently in print, and can be seen online as well:
[15], [16], [17], [18], [19] (BC Medical Journal), [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], plus many product reviews not listed for reasons I mentioned above.
Should these (if accepted as "notable") be included as cited links in the article? --Frontalnugity (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Good enough for me. I've added a couple of them to the article. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2012 (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) 15:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2012 (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. Opinions are equally divided between keep, merge (although it's not clear where to) and delete, so... no consensus. Sandstein 13:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Favorite betrayal criterion
- Articles for deletion/Favorite betrayal criterion
- Articles for deletion/Favorite betrayal criterion (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Favorite betrayal criterion (3rd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Favorite betrayal criterion (4th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Favorite betrayal criterion (5th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Favorite betrayal criterion (6th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Favorite betrayal criterion (7th nomination)
- Favorite betrayal criterion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete: No reliable secondary sources. Markus Schulze 08:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is not a single paper in a peer-reviewed journal that mentions this criterion. Markus Schulze 05:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. I see that I said "Keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Favorite betrayal criterion (2nd nomination), with a link showing many uses of the term. The current version has what looks like a reliable secondary source. I don't think this is really a suitable stand-alone article, but as a used criteria in discussing voting methods it should be mentioned somewhere,
such as Tactical_voting. I see that the other criteria listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Favorite betrayal criterion remain deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Voting_system_criterion#Favorite_Betrayal, where there is already a direct mention, referenced to the one decent source. As this criterion is demonstrably used many times according to google, this is a plausible search term. This target seems to place this criterion in context with others. I think that the other criteria tend to be bloated with excessively detailed examples - if that stuff doesn't come from reliable sources, it is WP:OR and should be cut back. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Including the old article history, there are now a number of sources which attest to the use of this term. I can also personally attest that on the election-methods discussion list, I've seen literally over a dozen different people (people who often vehemently disagree with each other about many issues) use the abbreviation FBC without even feeling the need to define it, which shows to me that it's well-accepted jargon within that community. I don't think merging is the right idea because, in general, each criterion has its own article here on wikipedia, as that gives a chance to give examples of different systems failing the criterion. Such examples would be annoying trivia in any possible candidate merge articles. I recreated this article as a stub because I knew it would be considered for deletion almost immediately, but if it survives the process, I expect that I and others will expand it in various ways including failure examples. Homunq (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC) ps. Here's another clearly reliable source attesting to the use of the term: a math textbook which includes "Investigate other fairness criteria such as the favorite betrayal criterion..." as a homework problem ... not exactly the kind of source you'd cite in the article, but good evidence that the term has an accepted, notable meaning. pps. I feel that the other criteria originally deleted with this one should remain deleted; they are well-defined, but unlike this one they are not widely-discussed enough to be notable in my judgement.[reply]
- One more source I found: Ossipoff, M., and W. D Smith. “Survey of Voting Methods That Avoid Favorite-betrayal.” Preprint Available at Http://rangevoting. org/FBCsurvey. Html (2005). ... Although this is a preprint and thus not in itself peer-reviewed, it has been cited twice by Steven Brams, an acknowledged expert in the field, in peer-reviewed publications of his; I'd argue that such citation constitutes some weak degree of peer-review. Homunq (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In 2005, Smith and Ossipoff thought about writing a paper on FBC (Survey of Voting Methods that avoid Favorite-Betrayal). But then they never did write such a paper. Markus Schulze 18:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One more source I found: Ossipoff, M., and W. D Smith. “Survey of Voting Methods That Avoid Favorite-betrayal.” Preprint Available at Http://rangevoting. org/FBCsurvey. Html (2005). ... Although this is a preprint and thus not in itself peer-reviewed, it has been cited twice by Steven Brams, an acknowledged expert in the field, in peer-reviewed publications of his; I'd argue that such citation constitutes some weak degree of peer-review. Homunq (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The term is widely used. There are reliable sources (especially in comparison to the other criteria articles like Majority criterion). --Arno Nymus (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. isfutile:P (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to more general article. Although notable, this is an aspect of something else. Sorry I can not be more specific, but I know almost nothing about the subject. Readers would be better informed with an article that gives the context of the entire topic. Borock (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tactical voting seems like it might be the place to merge. Borock (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge whatever can be sourced, otherwise delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The source provided shows that it was coined by the author and there are no other sources to show that the term has caught on. TFD (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean, "the author"? Certainly not me, the person who created this page; nor Arno Nymus, the other person who contributed significantly. Homunq (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC) To elaborate: I've never met Mike Ossipoff and I only know him from arguing with him on the Election Methods list. I did not participate in any of the previous incarnations of this article or the deletion discussions in any way. I just think it's an article that should exist, in parallel with the other voting system criteria articles. Homunq (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a manufactured term; fails WP:GNG. Despite the plethora of previous discussions reliable sources have not been produced to stand this up as a notable term. TerriersFan (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2012 (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 Boldly merged to Luna Halo, most notable work. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cary Barlowe
- Cary Barlowe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The sources added by Colapeninsula right before the first AFD don't cut it. The first only indicates that Cary Barlowe was on a panel of judges; the second says literally nothing about Cary Barlowe, just naming him as the writer of a notable song; and the third is only a chart listing verifiying that said song ("American Honey") went to #1. The statement that he "has had five #1 songs with tobyMac" is inaccurate, as "Made to Love" is the only one of the five that Cory actually co-wrote. His Grammy nomination is a valid assertation of notability, but it was split among four writers, lessening the impact.
I searched and could not find any sources that said anything other than "Cary Barlowe wrote song X". The best I could find was this, which is a primary source. Colapeninsula later said that they could only find directory listings and sheet music. There's no denying that he meets WP:COMPOSER, but WP:COMPOSER is not ironclad; it's entirely possible to write several notable works and/or get a Grammy nomination, but not be notable yourself.
I'm hoping someone will actually !vote this time, as the last AFD was open for three weeks with no !voting whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to American Honey (although I'm open to other merge-target suggestions). All of his claims to be notable in his own right seem to go against WP:NOTINHERITED. My !vote is weak, though - if someone finds sources that suggest more notability, I'm open to change. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (e/c)Merge & Redirect- to American Honey, which should have been attempted prior to returning to AfD. Notability of work seems uncontested, individual seems notable but insufficient sourced material to justify a biographic article; willing to reconsider if additional sources are located. Valid search term should lead to most notable or best sourced work to date "written by Cary Barlow[ref], who has also written songs for a,[ref] b,[ref]...". Revisit when a substantive article can be sourced. Dru of Id (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about this since American Honey is not the only song he's known for. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nadim Kobeissi
- Nadim Kobeissi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This person is not notable, there are no major contribution by this individual in the field of computer security. He has only created Cryptocat which is not significant or novel in the information security world. There are no novel publication by the said individual. The individual is known for his self-promotion and the promotion of Cryptocat. It would not surprise me that the individual creating this article, "Chargerqueen", is a close individual or the same person of this article. ManWithTheBlackHat (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is marginal, as cryptocat is notable but obviously that's not inherited. However I think the NYT and the BBC interviews place enough emphasis on him personally as an interview subject to swing it. In contrast, the NYT Bits piece doesn't, as that's merely using him as a source of commentary about 'Sabu'. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A credible request by Nadim Kobeissi (and obviously I don't count the user:Kaepora account alone as sufficient proof of ID) to delete this would, IMHO, be a good reason to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (unless there is a request for deletion from the subject). I went to the article today to read about Kobeissi after seeing him mentioned by Denver Nicks in his Private: Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks, and the Biggest Exposure of Official Secrets in American History (2012). Nicks writes that Kobeissi was an early member of the Bradley Manning Support Network, and the way he writes it suggests notability: "Others were brought in, including Nadim Kobeissi, the Montreal-based, Lebanese-born hacker, freedom of information activist, and former friend to Adrian Lamo ..." (p. 223). SlimVirgin (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: he was profiled by The New York Times last month, [25] so he's clearly notable enough for an entry, on the understanding that he doesn't mind. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, though being (past-tense) friends with Adrian Lamo isn't notable in and of itself.♥GlamRock♥ 13:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It was that Nicks used the definite article: "Nadim Kobeissi, the Montreal-based, Lebanese-born hacker ...". It implied to me a degree of notability. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is nothing notable for the contributions Kobeissi has made in information security except for minor mentioning in various articles and opinion pieces, none of which shows contribution any significance for information security. Again, in the interview he is in, he isn't being interview for something novel and does not show his expertise, it only shows he is a good self-promoter at best. The article show just self promotion and nothing about the individual's novel contribute to information security. Being mentioned that he was associated with an individual but without any note of contribute Kobeissi has made does not suggests notability.
ManWithTheBlackHat (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The creator of the AfD (ManWithTheBlackHat) seems to have a personal bias against the subject. Is there any credibility to back their claims?
- Keep notability established by the NYT article cited. --Kvng (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There look to be enough sources to support notability, especially the NYT profile. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As others have stated, notability has been established by ongoing mainstream press interest, as well as interest from notable computer security and cryptography researchers. Unless the subject has a stated objection to the article, this article should be kept.♥GlamRock♥ 13:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Easily meets the minimum criteria for personal notability. The allegation that he is a good self-promoter at best is unproven, unlikely, and in any case not a crime here unless there's an attempt to use Wikipedia for that purpose, and that's even less likely given the passions of the subject for moral use of the web. I note on the other hand that the proposer appears to be a single-purpose account whose only activity to date is to raise this AfD, for which they are the sole supporter. Andrewa (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Justin Frazier
- Justin Frazier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an unsourced BLP about an MMA fighter that fails WP:MMANOT#Fighters. Winning a very minor organization's state championship does not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are no sources and he doesn't meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters. Mdtemp (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mdtemp ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The subject has only a single fight with a notable organization. The article is unsourced other than links to Sherdog's record of their fight history. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sources for many statements for a biographical article on living persons Koopatrev (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2012 (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. JohnCD (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bec Hyatt
- Bec Hyatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Female MMA fighter who has 2 professional fights. She has 1 victory and no title fights. She doesn't meet the level of notability inidicated for male MMA fighters at WP:MMANOT. Article was created by an SPA and fails to give any reason why this fighter is notable. Papaursa (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dl2000 (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The MMA fight source and the newspaper source have editorial oversight and significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. However, article is puffy and could be improved. isfutile:P (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any coverage that isn't WP:ROUTINE, such as pre and post fight interviews and results. WP:MMANOT#Fighters says fighters need to have fought 3 fights at the highest level to be notable, and she isn't even close to that level. Papaursa (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's nothing to show she's a notable MMA fighter. There's some routine coverage, most of which involves her being knocked out, but nothing that shows she's at the level required by WP:MMANOT or passes WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Beyond the sources in the article, found five other sources that cover her. Article needs improvement but subject appears to pass WP:GNG. Sources I've identified include:
- Rowdy wants to make noise in USA Geelong Advertiser (Australia) - April 17, 2012 Length: 436 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) ``ROWDY Bec Hyatt has her eyes set on establishing herself in America after a stunning victory at the Australian Fighting Championships. Hyatt monstered her debutant opponent Daniela Marjanovic, ending the fight just 21 seconds into the first round. The result meant the 22-year-old became the first woman to win a MMA fight in Victoria. Hyatt capitalised on a solid right hook that hit Marjanovic flush, sending her crashing to the floor. ``We...
- Female fighters ready to dish up tough stuff Geelong Advertiser (Australia) - April 14, 2012 Length: 222 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) BEC Hyatt and Daniela Marjanovic are tough. Really tough. So tough, in fact, telling someone they fight like a girl is high praise. Hyatt and Marjanovic will square off in the ring at tonight's MMA Australian Fighting Championship at The Arena. The bout will be the first women's MMA fight held in Victoria and Hyatt said she was ready to set the ring alight with her freestyle technique. ``I'm confident. I've trained...
- Canberra Times: Captured by the cage - Duke Didier is back at the scene of his biggest triumph Canberra Times (Australia) - February 18, 2012 Length: 481 words (Estimated printed pages: 2 Captured by the cage Duke Didier is back at the scene of his biggest triumph By Lee Gaskin Mixed martial arts ADDICTIVE: Canberra's Olympic judo hopeful Duke Didier will take on Sydney's Hugo Miller in a mixed martial arts bout tonight. Photo: STUART WALMSLEY Forty-three seconds was all it took for Olympic judo hopeful Duke Didier to be hooked on cage fighting.That's the amount of time the man dubbed the "Duke of Canberra" needed...
- Canberra Times: Fighting for Olympic dreams Canberra Times (Australia) - January 29, 2012 Length: 403 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) Fighting for Olympic dreams By MICHAEL INMAN Adriana Smith, 19, is one of four Canberra women heading for the national boxing titles. Photos: KATE LEITH THEY'RE the striking beauties of Australian sport and this week they'll battle for the right to represent their country at the London Olympic Games. More than 42 female boxers will contest the national boxing titles, across eight weight divisions, in Hobart. It is the first time female fighters will box at...
- Funding fighter - Don't let the name fool you Jessica-Rose is one tough cookie Townsville Bulletin (Australia) - December 1, 2011 Length: 630 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) A running joke has turned into a challenge for local fighter Jessica-Rose Clark. Clark, 24, has been joking about how she might get to Sydney to train with Mixed Martial Arts veteran Jon Leven. ``I had been joking to friends for a while that I was going to ride a pushbike to get there, Clark said. ``The more jokes I made about it the more it stuck in my head and I really wanted to do it, so I rang Adam Washbourne from Fighters Against Child Abuse Australia and... LauraHale (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the snippets you give don't even mention the subject, let alone provide the "significant" coverage required for notability. The coverage all seems to be passing mentions or routine sports coverage. WP:ROUTINE says routine sports coverage doesn't show notability, nor are routine sports matches notable, nor is "coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it." That's generally been accepted to include pre and post fight interviews and coverage. Papaursa (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete They don't meet the requirements of WP:MMANOT. The individual also fails WP:ATHLETE in that they have not competed at a "professional competition at the highest level". Her only two fights are for a relatively unknown promotion. If her fights had been with a more notable promotion for women's MMA (even if not one of the top tier promotions listed at WP:MMANOT), there might be an argument for keeping the article. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only source provided in the article that gets close to reliable and independent is the one from the The Mercury (here) and that is very clearly just routine coverage of a sports event. Interestingly it puts the event in Hobart and not Launceston (as the article has). So at this time she does not meat the WP:GNG, IMO there should be no bar on recreation if and when she does pass WP:GNG. Mtking (edits) 00:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The GNG requires that the subject be discussed in "significant detail" in multiple reliable, published sources. The posted snippets don't qualify, I'm afraid. Ravenswing 01:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing other than non specific routine coverage,and barely one WP:RS.Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. one win in a minor tournament is hardly grounds for notability. LibStar (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While her Sherdog record actually lists her at 2-1, she has never had a match in either a first or second tier organization, has not fought anyone remotely notable themselves, hasn't cracked the top 10 in her weight division on any credible ranking site to my knowledge (and honestly even that wouldn't be reason enough if she had in my opinion), and has no separate claim to fame. She falls exceptionally short here. I'm fine with this deletion. Beansy (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2012 (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. JohnCD (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Payphone (disambiguation)
- Payphone (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I think there's no need to create a disambiguation page for payphone and the red telephone box and payphone are both the same but different name for the British and American, respectively. j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 03:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete DAB seemed to be created for the Maroon 5 song alone, when a hatnote in the main payphone article certainly suffices, as is currently done, and RTB is currently linked in payphone article. Not needed, just an extra layer of unneeded disambiguation. Nate • (chatter) 06:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nate. The Maroon 5 song can be hatnoted. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These are not different names for British and American payphones. "Red telephone box" refers to a structure usually found in the UK that may contain a payphone (but many payphones are not in red boxes, and some, such as those in shopping centres, are not in boxes at all). Peter E. James (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2012 (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. JohnCD (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nijel Binns
- Nijel Binns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has a lot of puffery and lacks supported claims of notability. Subject has self-published books, an appearance in one movie as a stuntman, and supposedly did research for documentaries. There's no evidence to show he's notable as a martial artist, author, actor, or sculptor. Papaursa (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see a lot of claims (not all of which would indicate notability), but no reliable sources that support any of them. Mdtemp (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Autobiography with essentially no other contributing editors. Article is full of puffery and peacock terms, but has no real claims of notability and no reliable sources to support the claims that are made. Astudent0 (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Les Miller Field
- Les Miller Field (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Miller Field Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a non-notable college ball field.
The only mention in reliable sources is passing mention in obituaries about the field's namesake. Articles that are cited as coverage of the field are either promotional articles issued by FieldTurf (see here) or are articles published by the UIC Flames (see here and here. Bongomatic 02:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep.- The venue, as the home field of a Division I program in a major college sport, is notable. No, college baseball is not football or basketball, but it ranks a clear third in total attendance and media coverage (college hockey is too regionally limited to be considered a nationally notable sport). Its regular season, postseason, and championship are extensively televised on ESPN and ESPN2 (separating it from, say, track & field, whose coverage on ESPNU would of course not make it notable).
- Considering the standards afforded the venues of college basketball (a major Division I sport), I argue that Division I college baseball venues are inherently notable. With college basketball venues, MEAC, SWAC, and NEC venues receive little to no coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Yet, no one doubts their notability because they assume Division I college basketball venues to be inherently notable given that they serve a major Division I sport. Again, I am not trying to equate college baseball with college basketball, but I argue that college baseball has a level of notability that affords its venues similar treatment.
- Even if you do not accept the premise of the above argument, you've ignored the source from the Chicago Tribune. No, the article does not focus solely on the field, but GNG clearly states that "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Normally, I take issue with editors who hold articles to the standard of the New York Times, but here, coverage (albeit irregular) in a major national newspaper isn't even an issue. Best, Kithira (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The Tribune happens to be the local paper, so it's not a "paper of record" in this case—it's reporting on high school baseball. Moreover, only two fact about the field (rather than St Ignatius's use of it) are that it's owned by UIC and that it has artificial turf. This is far less than "more than a trivial mention". Bongomatic 15:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. per Kithira. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billcasey905 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 10 May 2012
- Keep. I can see no benefit in deleting verified, uncontroversial information about a Division I stadium. This is exactly the kind of information anyone interested in UIC sports, or in Horizon League baseball, would expect to find. (I note that this field is the location of this year's Horizon League Baseball Tournament, which starts in a couple of weeks.) At minimum, pretty much everything in this article would be appropriately included in a section of UIC Flames. Given the level of detail, I'd be inclined to leave this as a separate article, but a merger discussion could be had outside of the AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Significant coverage in multiple third party sources which are accurately referenced. Satisfies WP:GNG. Copy is terse and non puffy. More would help, but can't see an argument to delete. isfutile:P (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - While the article needs to be updated and expended it is a Division I schools home field and there is no reason it should be deleted. ben_b (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I think the consensus is clear enough after 2 relistings DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Claire Burke
- Claire Burke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No assertion of notability per WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN or WP:AUTHOR; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; sole claim to notability appears to be that she married into a notable family. Scopecreep (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have attempted to contact this user (including on their IP page), but no response. I'm sure they are well-intentioned, but probably don't realize how quickly all their hard work can be deleted. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I too would like to WP:Assume good faith, but the page's creator is not making this easy by doing things like repeatedly removing the notability tag while logged out [26] [27], swapping the notability tag for a redundant cleanup tag [28], removing the failed verification tag from a bogus reference while adding another bogus reference [29], etc. At this point I'm not surprised that you've had no response. Creator has only begun editing today, but one of their first edits was to add a piped link to a template[30], so I suspect that this isn't a novice editor. Scopecreep (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, current version shows no clear claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2012 (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) 01:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no evidence she's notable as an author, or for anything else; could merge a small amount of content to Kennedy family but not sure she is close enough to the family to merit that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2012 (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 Libertarian Party of Canada where the subject is mentioned. The debate has some calls for deletion, others to merge or redirect. On merits, the reference to WP:POLITICIAN is relevant, and the usual criteria for inclusion (statewide or higher office, or significant press coverage) have not been met, election to a local council is insufficient for a Wikipedia biography. Consensus is against a separate article, and is supported by the notability guideline. Since the guideline further suggests redirecting politicians that fall short of our notability guidelines to a relevant article, such as the office sought, I will not call this an outright deletion. In this case, the party he led seems to be the most relevant target. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jean-Serge Brisson
- Jean-Serge Brisson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, lead a party that has never held a seat. West Eddy (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Brisson has been elected (to municipal office). In any case, election is only one criterion for *inclusion*; not being elected is not by itself a criterion for deletion. GD04 (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any past consensus to "keep all leaders of political parties" has long since been overridden by Wikipedia's core requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore. Keep if the article is improved by close; redirect to the party if it isn't. Notability is a question of the quality of sources that are or aren't present in the article, not a question of blanket "all X are notable" proclamations — if the sources aren't there, then an article does not get to stay. Bearcat (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2012 (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) 01:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no " requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore" , There is a requirement that BLPs have a RS, which I interpret as a sufficiently RS to provide WP:V for at least some of the key claims. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For some reason Bearcat is only applying this criterion to minor Canadian politicians, so it's clearly not a universal requirement even by their standard. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason I'm "only applying this criterion to minor Canadian politicians" is because minor Canadian politicians are the only articles there happen to be at the moment that are both on AFD and inside my range of topical interests and familiarity — a person can only realistically be expected to participate in AFDs that they know about. If there were twenty poorly sourced articles about marginally notable chimney sweeps on AFD which were brought to my attention, then I'd apply the same criterion to poorly sourced articles about marginally notable chimney sweeps. But there aren't. Bearcat (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The core requirement to meet notability rules on Wikipedia is that the person has been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources. The fact that the article cites one source which mentions Brisson's name once or twice, but isn't really about him in any meaningful way, may certainly be sufficient sourcing to make an article ineligible for speedy — but it is not sufficient sourcing on its own to mean that the article must necessarily be kept in a full AFD discussion. Bearcat (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For some reason Bearcat is only applying this criterion to minor Canadian politicians, so it's clearly not a universal requirement even by their standard. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and trim to Libertarian_Party_of_Ontario page. That seems to be were (any) notability originates. isfutile:P (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as is. I removed this from the article, which is substantially negative material that is unsourced. To write a descent article on this person requires facts that are negative and/or controversial about him and/or others. While waiting for somebody to source this, I suggest it be stubified, removing all be the two lead sentences. As said elsewhere, I don't agree with the "sourced to the hilt" standard. But the content of this bio is such that it really does require better sourcing than most articles. --Rob (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. LibStar (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2012 (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. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Miguel Figueroa
- Miguel Figueroa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. West Eddy (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Add citations and keep or redirect to Communist Party of Canada. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any past consensus to "keep all leaders of political parties" has long since been overridden by Wikipedia's core requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore. Keep if the article is improved by close; redirect to the party if it isn't. Notability is a question of the quality of sources that are or aren't present in the article, not a question of blanket "all X are notable" proclamations — if the sources aren't there, then an article does not get to stay. Bearcat (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article was created in 2007 and is grandfathered in under the old BLP policy, unless I am mistaken. Carrite (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2012 (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) 00:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2012 (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) 01:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Leader of the Communist party of Canada. One of the historically most important minor parties. I accept that the leader of a subnational unit of a party is possibly not notable if that's the major accomplishment, but this ia a national leadership. The sourcing is adequate. And there is no " requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore" , There is a requirement that BLPs have a RS, which I interpret as a sufficiently RS to provide WP:V for at least some of the key claims WP:BLPPROD. Such is present, and whether we think it sufficient for notability is a matter of our own judgment. The question of notability is whatever we decide here. Bearcat, provide some evidence for your statement please--I cannot find the phrase "sourced to the hilt" on any WP policy page, or anywhere in WP except your own repeated unsourced assertions at AfDs . DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, last I checked people were allowed to paraphrase policy in an argument, and were not restricted to quoting it verbatim — so the fact that you can't specifically find the exact phrase "sourced to the hilt" in a policy document is irrelevant. The fact is that our notability policy quite explicitly requires that the article topic has been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources; almost every one of the minor politicians that have been discussed here has an article which quite explicitly fails one or both of those two criteria. And further, I've voted an unqualified keep in every single case where the article had sufficient sourcing in valid sources — and even in the ones where the sourcing wasn't up to scratch, I've still been quite clear that a political party leader's article is eligible to be kept if it gets improved with sufficient coverage in reliable sources. While the ability to point to one article in one reliable source might certainly be sufficient to make an article ineligible for speedy, cursory coverage and/or unreliable sources do not confer sufficient notability to necessarily pass a full AFD if nobody's willing to take the time to spruce it up to a properly keepable standard. So I'll thank you kindly to stop misrepresenting my position.
- And just for the record, the sourcing here is not adequate. All three of the cited references, in fact, were dead links which couldn't be salvaged, because they were bare URLs without complete reference information — which means that all three of them had to be removed and the article now contains no properly verifiable sourcing at all (except for one magazine article that's inappropriately placed as a direct external link instead of a proper reference, and which certainly verifies a few basic facts but fails to support most of this article's content at all.) Bearcat (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:DGG, but I note that although the phrase "sourced to the hilt" is not necessary, neither of your interpretations of the rules are entirely correct here. DGG, yours is only an omission: you left out that any potentially controversial assertions must be sourced or removed. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I believe that articles on political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders should be retained regardless of size or ideology. This is information which should be in a good encyclopedia. The CPC has been around since something like 1922, by the way... Carrite (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - There is way too much unsourced talk about infighting between members within this political party and other communist parties and it is repeated elsewhere(see George Hewison, William Kashtan). So much of it sounds like WP:BLPGOSSIP that I would worry about WP:LIBEL. Maybe these guys really don't care about airing their dirty laundry but I seriously wonder if this isn't some Wikipedia:COATRACK to discredit them and their parties. --Joshuaism (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Here's a source:
- How the Communist Party changed Canadian elections forever, This Magazine - includes a profile of Figueroa.
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 13:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That link is already in the article as a direct external link, and I've already noted in this very discussion the reasons why it's not good enough to be the article's only source citation — just to reiterate, it's certainly better than nothing at all, but it doesn't properly support large chunks of our article's actual content. Bearcat (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2012 (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. I don't have access to the paywalled refs - however, there's no consensus here as to whether the subject has "received significant press coverage" or not. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ed Vanwoudenberg
- Ed Vanwoudenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, lead a party that has never held a seat. West Eddy (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any past consensus to "keep all leaders of political parties" has long since been overridden by Wikipedia's core requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore. Keep if the article is improved by close; redirect to the party if it isn't. Notability is a question of the quality of sources that are or aren't present in the article, not a question of blanket "all X are notable" proclamations — if the sources aren't there, then an article does not get to stay. Bearcat (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Wikipedia notability is NOT (as stated in the comment directly above) based upon ..."a question of the quality of sources that are or aren't present in the article...". Rather, the actual notability guideline, per WP:NRVE is that topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, and not upon whether or not they're present in Wikipedia articles. AfD is not cleanup. Perhaps consider working on the article, instead of stating that if other's don't, then it should be redirected. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not my job (or anyone else's) to go out of my way to work on any article that I don't choose of my own free will to work on, based on my familiarity with the topic and my knowledge of where to find valid and useful sources. But that certainly does not mean that I'm not even allowed to have an opinion when an article comes up for discussion that nobody's willing to take the time to improve. Bearcat (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not; I understand your point and sorry if the presentation of the prose in my comment above reads as dry or judgmental (not the intention). I should have included in my comment above the point of the above !vote not conferring with WP:DEL-REASON, part of Wikipedia's Deletion policy. The article currently has one source, which doesn't make it an unsourced BLP. However, the source just mentions Ed Vanwoudenberg as the Christian Heritage Party's first leader. Importantly though, per WP:NRVE, topic notability is a matter of available sources, and not whether or not they're present in articles (which is distinctly contrary to your rationale above). See also WP:IMPERFECT, Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:31, 16 May 2012 (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) 00:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2012 (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) 01:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Keep Very minor party, but national head. there is no " requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore" , There is a requirement that BLPs have a RS, which I interpret as a sufficiently RS to provide WP:V for at least some of the key claims WP:BLPPROD. Such is present, and whether we think it sufficient for notability is a matter of our own judgment. The question of notability is whatever we decide here. Bearcat, provide some evidence for your statement please--I cannot find the phrase "sourced to the hilt" on any WP policy page, or anywhere in WP except your own repeated unsourced assertions at AfDs.
- Er, last I checked people were allowed to paraphrase policy in an argument, and were not restricted to quoting it verbatim — so the fact that you can't specifically find the exact phrase "sourced to the hilt" in a policy document is irrelevant. The fact is that our notability policy quite explicitly requires that the article topic has been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources; almost every one of the minor politicians that have been discussed here has an article which quite explicitly fails one or both of those two criteria. And further, I've voted an unqualified keep in every single case where the article had sufficient sourcing in valid sources — and even in the ones where the sourcing wasn't up to scratch, I've still been quite clear that a political party leader's article is eligible to be kept if it gets improved with sufficient coverage in reliable sources. While the ability to point to one article in one reliable source might certainly be sufficient to make an article ineligible for speedy, cursory coverage and/or unreliable sources do not confer sufficient notability to necessarily pass a full AFD if nobody's willing to take the time to spruce it up to a properly keepable standard. So I'll thank you kindly to stop misrepresenting my position. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding what to the previous post is an "explicit" "fact", I cannot verify that WP:N has the word "substantial". The WP:N nutshell says that "notable topics" are "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time...". As per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material".
- WP:Notability is a guideline, not a "policy".
- The word "confer", when used in an AfD discussion, generally has the effect of taking attention away from the idea of notability, since the word means "bestow", and notability is not something that is bestowed. Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference between "substantial" and "significant" isn't nearly as profound you think it is; the terms are synonymous, actually.
- Guidelines are binding in the absence of a compelling reason to ignore or override them. In fact, Wikipedia specifically defines its guidelines as documentation of how policy is actually carried out in practice, which means they operate in tandem with policy and are not ignorable just because they're guidelines.
- Notability is not an unconditional entitlement to keep an unsourced or poorly sourced piece of crap, either. It's a judgement on the quality of an article as written, not an inherent characteristic of the topic. Bearcat (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, last I checked people were allowed to paraphrase policy in an argument, and were not restricted to quoting it verbatim — so the fact that you can't specifically find the exact phrase "sourced to the hilt" in a policy document is irrelevant. The fact is that our notability policy quite explicitly requires that the article topic has been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources; almost every one of the minor politicians that have been discussed here has an article which quite explicitly fails one or both of those two criteria. And further, I've voted an unqualified keep in every single case where the article had sufficient sourcing in valid sources — and even in the ones where the sourcing wasn't up to scratch, I've still been quite clear that a political party leader's article is eligible to be kept if it gets improved with sufficient coverage in reliable sources. While the ability to point to one article in one reliable source might certainly be sufficient to make an article ineligible for speedy, cursory coverage and/or unreliable sources do not confer sufficient notability to necessarily pass a full AFD if nobody's willing to take the time to spruce it up to a properly keepable standard. So I'll thank you kindly to stop misrepresenting my position. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- no case has been made for deletion The concept of wp:notability exists independently of the existence of an article on Wikipedia or the content of any such article. While I agree that it is impossible to prove non-notability, the process of inductive reasoning needs data points which create a pattern of evidence to support the hypothesis of non-notability. Regarding the nomination logic, a reasonable argument that a topic fails WP:POLITICIAN means nothing if the topic passes WP:GNG, Wikipedia:notability doesn't care why a topic is notable—and the nomination does not attempt to explain whether or not the topic fails WP:GNG. Nor is there guidance in the nomination as to whether or not there is WP:V reliable material that needs to be merged. Just by reading the arguments here, there is a presumption that (1) we don't want to delete the redirect, (2) there are no content problems that would be a reason to delete the edit history, and (3) there is a target for the redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Here's some sources from Google News: link. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - More sources added to the article. They're paywalled. This topic appears to meet WP:GNG.
- McAteer, Michael (August 16, 1986). "Christian Heritage is Canada's new party Platform will be based on Bible its leader declares". Toronto Star. Retrieved May 16, 2012.
{{cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) (subscription required) - Kenna, Kathleen (November 19, 1987). "Newest political party to follow Biblical values". Toronto Star. Retrieved May 16, 2012. (subscription required)
- "Christian party predicts it'll win 7 seats in election". Toronto Star. Nov 22, 1987. Retrieved May 16, 2012.
{{cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) (subscription required)
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 08:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- McAteer, Michael (August 16, 1986). "Christian Heritage is Canada's new party Platform will be based on Bible its leader declares". Toronto Star. Retrieved May 16, 2012.
- Keep per User:Northamerica1000. Me-123567-Me (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete / redirect as per WP:POLITICIAN - PLUS Others like Heather Stilwell should all be redirected to Christian Heritage Party of Canada candidates, multiple elections or Christian Heritage Party of Canada. Moxy (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2012 (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. Perhaps a discussion on the talk page (a redlink as I write) on the possibility of merging this into the party's article could be held. While it may not be desireable to have a "permastub" BLP, there is no consensus to delete this article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Cavilla
- Charles Cavilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, lead a party that has never held a seat. West Eddy (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any past consensus to "keep all leaders of political parties" has long since been overridden by Wikipedia's core requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore. Keep if the article is improved by close; redirect to the party if it isn't. Notability is a question of the quality of sources that are or aren't present in the article, not a question of blanket "all X are notable" proclamations — if the sources aren't there, then an article does not get to stay. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2012 (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) 01:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Keep Very minor party, but national head. there is no " requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore" , There is a requirement that BLPs have a RS, which I interpret as a sufficiently RS to provide WP:V for at least some of the key claims WP:BLPPROD. Such is present, and whether we think it sufficient for notability is a matter of our own judgment. The question of notability is whatever we decide here. Bearcat, provide some evidence for your statement please--I cannot find the phrase "sourced to the hilt" on any WP policy page, or anywhere in WP except your own repeated unsourced assertions at current AfDs. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, last I checked people were allowed to paraphrase policy in an argument, and were not restricted to quoting it verbatim — so the fact that you can't specifically find the exact phrase "sourced to the hilt" in a policy document is irrelevant. The fact is that our notability policy quite explicitly requires that the article topic has been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources; almost every one of the minor politicians that have been discussed here has an article which quite explicitly fails one or both of those two criteria. And further, I've voted an unqualified keep in every single case where the article had sufficient sourcing in valid sources — and even in the ones where the sourcing wasn't up to scratch, I've still been quite clear that a political party leader's article is eligible to be kept if it gets improved with sufficient coverage in reliable sources. While the ability to point to one article in one reliable source might certainly be sufficient to make an article ineligible for speedy, cursory coverage and/or unreliable sources do not confer sufficient notability to necessarily pass a full AFD if nobody's willing to take the time to spruce it up to a properly keepable standard. So I'll thank you kindly to stop misrepresenting my position. Bearcat (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I believe it to be in Wikipedia's best interest to include articles about political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders without regard to size or ideology. This is the sort of information which should be in encyclopedias. Carrite (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete coverage simply isn't there so the subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Arguments along the lines of "I reckon this should be in Wikipedia" have no basis in policy and are specifically discouraged per WP:ILIKEIT. Valenciano (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable as a former leader of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada. Per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, find sources and improve the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine as long as it actually happens. The problem with such rationales is that it often doesn't, with the result that we end up keeping articles that still stay looking like this — which is why there needs to be a hard deadline beyond which they get redirected to the party if the necessary improvement doesn't actually show up pronto. Bearcat (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please read WP:NRVE, which delineates that topic notability is not based upon whether or not sources are in articles, it's based upon the availability of sources. See also: WP:IMPERFECT, Wikipdia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There has to be an actual hard deadline beyond which an article gets canned if nobody's willing to actually take the time to actually improve it, because otherwise there's no impetus for anyone to actually do the necessary work. This article is now seven years old and it's still really, really bad — and it's never going to get any better if we don't light a fire under people's butts. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There's no policy or guideline about Wikipedia content as stated above whatsoever. See also WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, where it's stated (in part), "Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and does not require the Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians." Northamerica1000(talk) 06:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say that was policy speaking — I said that's how we need to actually treat these matters if we value the idea of Wikipedia ever actually being a good source of comprehensive content about the topics we write about, which is a very different thing. There's no real value in keeping an article on the basis that it can be improved, if it never actually does get improved. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There has to be an actual hard deadline beyond which an article gets canned if nobody's willing to actually take the time to actually improve it, because otherwise there's no impetus for anyone to actually do the necessary work. This article is now seven years old and it's still really, really bad — and it's never going to get any better if we don't light a fire under people's butts. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine as long as it actually happens. The problem with such rationales is that it often doesn't, with the result that we end up keeping articles that still stay looking like this — which is why there needs to be a hard deadline beyond which they get redirected to the party if the necessary improvement doesn't actually show up pronto. Bearcat (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2012 (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 Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jean Blaquière
- Jean Blaquière (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, lead a party that has never held a seat. West Eddy (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any past consensus to "keep all leaders of political parties" has long since been overridden by Wikipedia's core requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore. Keep if the article is improved by close; redirect to the party if it isn't. Notability is a question of the quality of sources that are or aren't present in the article, not a question of blanket "all X are notable" proclamations — if the sources aren't there, then an article does not get to stay. Bearcat (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2012 (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) 00:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2012 (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) 01:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment there is no " requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore" , There is a requirement that BLPs have a RS, which I interpret as a sufficiently RS to provide WP:V for at least some of the key claims WP:BLPPROD. Such is present, and whether we think it sufficient for notability is a matter of our own judgment. The question of notability is whatever we decide here. Bearcat, provide some evidence for your statement please--I cannot find the phrase "sourced to the hilt" on any WP policy page, or anywhere in WP except your own repeated unsourced assertions at AfDs DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, last I checked people were allowed to paraphrase policy in an argument, and were not restricted to quoting it verbatim — so the fact that you can't specifically find the exact phrase "sourced to the hilt" in a policy document is irrelevant. The fact is that our notability policy quite explicitly requires that the article topic has been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources; almost every one of the minor politicians that have been discussed here has an article which quite explicitly fails one or both of those two criteria. And further, I've voted an unqualified keep in every single case where the article had sufficient sourcing in valid sources — and even in the ones where the sourcing wasn't up to scratch, I've still been quite clear that a political party leader's article is eligible to be kept if it gets improved with sufficient coverage in reliable sources. While the ability to point to one article in one reliable source might certainly be sufficient to make an article ineligible for speedy, cursory coverage and/or unreliable sources do not confer sufficient notability to necessarily pass a full AFD if nobody's willing to take the time to spruce it up to a properly keepable standard. So I'll thank you kindly to stop misrepresenting my position. Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2012 (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 Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Hnatiuk
- Jim Hnatiuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, leads a party that has never held a seat. West Eddy (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any past consensus to "keep all leaders of political parties" has long since been overridden by Wikipedia's core requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore. Keep if the article is improved by close; redirect to the party if it isn't. Notability is a question of the quality of sources that are or aren't present in the article, not a question of blanket "all X are notable" proclamations — if the sources aren't there, then an article does not get to stay. Bearcat (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2012 (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) 00:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2012 (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) 01:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Keep Very minor party, but national head. there is no " requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore" , There is a requirement that BLPs have a RS, which I interpret as a sufficiently RS to provide WP:V for at least some of the key claims WP:BLPPROD. Such is present, and whether we think it sufficient for notability is a matter of our own judgment. The question of notability is whatever we decide here. Bearcat, provide some evidence for your statement please--I cannot find the phrase "sourced to the hilt" on any WP policy page, or anywhere in WP except your own repeated unsourced assertions at AfDs. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, last I checked people were allowed to paraphrase policy in an argument, and were not restricted to quoting it verbatim — so the fact that you can't specifically find the exact phrase "sourced to the hilt" in a policy document is irrelevant. The fact is that our notability policy quite explicitly requires that the article topic has been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources; almost every one of the minor politicians that have been discussed here has an article which quite explicitly fails one or both of those two criteria. And further, I've voted an unqualified keep in every single case where the article had sufficient sourcing in valid sources — and even in the ones where the sourcing wasn't up to scratch, I've still been quite clear that a political party leader's article is eligible to be kept if it gets improved with sufficient coverage in reliable sources. While the ability to point to one article in one reliable source might certainly be sufficient to make an article ineligible for speedy, cursory coverage and/or unreliable sources do not confer sufficient notability to necessarily pass a full AFD if nobody's willing to take the time to spruce it up to a properly keepable standard. So I'll thank you kindly to stop misrepresenting my position. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I believe that as the world's most comprehensive encyclopedia Wikipedia should automatically keep all articles about political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders without regard to the party's size or political ideology. This is, to me, a common sense matter; in policy terms I would cite WP:IGNOREALLRULES. Carrite (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely, if they're properly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2012 (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 Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Webb (Canada)
- Jim Webb (Canada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. West Eddy (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I got a note because, apparently, I created this page 7 years ago. When I got the note, I was like "who the hell is Jim Webb" so on those grounds, I will not oppose any deletion. Nickjbor (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any past consensus to "keep all leaders of political parties" has long since been overridden by Wikipedia's core requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore. Keep if the article is improved by close; redirect to the party if it isn't. Notability is a question of the quality of sources that are or aren't present in the article, not a question of blanket "all X are notable" proclamations — if the sources aren't there, then an article does not get to stay. Bearcat (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2012 (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) 01:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- very weak Keep Very minor party, but one of the founders. there is no " requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore" , There is a requirement that BLPs have a RS, which I interpret as a sufficiently RS to provide WP:V for at least some of the key claims WP:BLPPROD. Such is present, and whether we think it sufficient for notability is a matter of our own judgment. The question of notability is whatever we decide here. Bearcat, provide some evidence for your statement please--I cannot find the phrase "sourced to the hilt" on any WP policy page, or anywhere in WP except your own repeated unsourced assertions at AfDs. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, last I checked people were allowed to paraphrase policy in an argument, and were not restricted to quoting it verbatim — so the fact that you can't specifically find the exact phrase "sourced to the hilt" in a policy document is irrelevant. The fact is that our notability policy quite explicitly requires that the article topic has been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources; almost every one of the minor politicians that have been discussed here has an article which quite explicitly fails one or both of those two criteria. And further, I've voted an unqualified keep in every single case where the article had sufficient sourcing in valid sources — and even in the ones where the sourcing wasn't up to scratch, I've still been quite clear that a political party leader's article is eligible to be kept if it gets improved with sufficient coverage in reliable sources. While the ability to point to one article in one reliable source might certainly be sufficient to make an article ineligible for speedy, cursory coverage and/or unreliable sources do not confer sufficient notability to necessarily pass a full AFD if nobody's willing to take the time to spruce it up to a properly keepable standard. So I'll thank you kindly to stop misrepresenting my position. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I believe that as a party founder, esoteric and small though the group may be, this is a biography which belongs in an encyclopedia. There are plenty of places to cut junk from WP — articles about political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders should not be one of them. Policy reference: WP:IAR. Carrite (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely, if they're properly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2012 (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. In view of the low participation, this is a WP:SOFTDELETE; as with a PROD, the article will be restored on request at WP:REFUND, but may then be renominated. JohnCD (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heriberto Mora
- Heriberto Mora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't think this is a notable artist... The article is single-sourced to artnexus.com, which I can't find any evidence of having editorial oversight... it seems more like a gallery catalog. The article claims that his work is hung all over the place, but I can't find any verification of it. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 22:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2012 (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) 01:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Artnexus.com isn't a reliable source, it's basically just advertising/listings. I can't find any other good references. My only caveat is that there may be spanish language references, though I can't see any that look non-trivial. But at the moment, delete as non-notable seems the only option. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2012 (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. No clear agreement, but it does appear the writer made the NYT bestseller list, so while neither position gained clear traction here, it seems appropriate to apply the usual default to keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lora Leigh
- Lora Leigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Claims to be a best-selling NYT author, which I can not authenticate; gives no references; I am unable to establish general notability. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 20:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm going to see what I can do, but I want to take this opportunity to once again draw attention to my suspicion that someone from Macmillan Publishing is paying someone to add articles on their authors to Wikipedia. If one checks out their website, they'll see that recently they've been adding links to Wikipedia entries for their authors, many of which have suddenly started getting entries on here. This was something I noticed quite recently when an article for the author Charles Brokaw came up for deletion. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Brokaw.) Nothing was done about it at that point, but I highly, highly recommend that an admin look into this. I have a very sneaking suspicion that there's been some very promotional adding here on Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I second this, as I've come across an entire spate of poorly sourced non-notable author pages and promotional pages very recently, enough that it's taken me in to the uncharted realms of BLP-patrol, something I've tried to avoid in the past for obvious reasons (i.e. Youreallycan). St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 03:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I also want to add that listing an author's books is NOT self-promotion or promotion in any format. If you look at entries for authors such as Stephen King, Laurell K Hamilton, or any number of noteworthy authors, you'll see that they have their bibliographies posted. Lists like that are appropriate for Wikipedia entries, so I'm going to re-add it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, when it's a notable author and restricted to books that have their own pages or notable series (such as Stephen King's Dark Tower), it's not - but the entirety of the article, literally more than 90% of the text, is a list of non-notable books. Indeed, some people, in contravention of WP:NOTABILITY, believe that an author's notability rubs off on all of their works; except for a very, very few (Stephen King, JRR Tolkien, JK Rowling, Stephanie Meyer, etc. etc.) who have become true celebrities in their own right, it's not the case. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 03:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral/Delete. I'm torn between neutral and delete, as I've found sources but not anything that I'd consider meaty enough to be notable beyond a reasonable doubt. She's won an award, but not anything that I'd consider to show notability. There's book reviews, but nothing so exhausting that I'd say it shows lasting notability for her work. I'm rather torn about this. This is pretty much a good example of a popular author that's someone who is known and sells insanely well, but doesn't fit Wikipedia's notability criteria for authors.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2012 (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) 00:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've added some more references. If negative views and opinions are included, this needn't be a promotional article. Add in the NYT bestseller status and the wide coverage in other websites (not all 100% reliable), and she's clearly one of the top writers in her field. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2012 (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) 01:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The new york times best seller status is irrefutable proof of notability. Ths list of books is appropriate--what other information would be more important in an article on an author, to the extent that if not present, the article is woefully incomplete, and the information must be added. . DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete At the moment - The NYT source is a good one, but multiple instances of significant coverage are required for WP:GNG. I don't think the other sources (in terms of those appropriate for examining for the purposes of notability) offer significant coverage. However, one more source like the NYT one should be enough. isfutile:P (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alejandro Felipe
- Alejandro Felipe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actor has only had bit parts. Not notable per WP:NACTOR. West Eddy (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actor starred in main role of La viuda de Blanco in 100 episodes, which is how many episodes it showed between 2006-2007.--Mjs1991 (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Comment Almost every actor has had small roles in their careers, so we do not judge notability by the least of them and instead consider the overall career. And in looking at an overall career,[31] among his many roles, we find 5 episodes of Mujer, casos de la vida real (2002-2005), 100 episodes as a lead in La Viuda de Blanco (2006-2007), and 4 episodes in a named role in Corazón salvaje (2009). WP:ENT appears to be met. Simply requires expansion and sourcing to be done through regular editing. Input from Mexican or Spanish-language reading Wikipedians, please. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:28, 7 May 2012 (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) 01:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clear evidence of major role in significant series. MQS is right of course that we judge notability by the most improtant thing someone has done, not the least important. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In addition to those mentioned above, he also plays a lead role in Amarte así, which was also commonly known as Amarte así, Frijolito or simply Frijolito, because of the prominence given to Flores' role, and then he reprised the role (although as an angel) in Amar de Nuevo. There are many results coming up, and even after taking out those that were just passing mentions as a cast member, we are left with enough to meet notability somehow comfortably [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]. Note that the results encompass the US, Mexico and Spain — Frankie (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Betty Azar
- Betty Azar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find any evidence that Azar passes any one of the multiple SNGs that might apply to her (academic, author, etc.). Nolelover Talk·Contribs 15:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Although this one doesn't qualify for A7, since it asserts she's written potentially notable books, there's no indication of her actually having notability. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Azar's books on English grammar have had significant impact on higher education (PROF #4) and have arguably had a significant impact on her scholarly discipline (#1), English as a foreign or second language. For example, here is a conference web site that declares to English teachers, "Betty Schrampfer Azar is the name we've all seen on the classic blue Understanding and Using English Grammar textbook for years." I'm not at the office so I can't access Web of Science right now, but according to Google Scholar 278 works cite her English Grammar and 140 cite Basic English Grammar. (It is also my subjective impression that Google Scholar under-rates books, relative to journal articles. To add just a dash of objective evidence to that impression, GS says Understanding and Using English Grammar is "cited by 6", yet the first ten GS results include eight papers citing the book, some of them in turn cited dozens or hundreds of times.) Cnilep (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2012 (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) 01:21, 3 May 2012 (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) 01:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I consider Cnilep's information to prove notability under WP:PROF. Probably notable as WP:Author also. (see WorldCat library holdings [39] DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cnilep. Her textbooks are widely used in teaching ESL. If you try searching online for esl grammar textbooks, they crop up in pretty much every list. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:44, 14 May 2012 (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 Withdrawn now that he has been selected to First All-Star team. -DJSasso (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Sgarbossa
- Michael Sgarbossa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable junior player who fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he meets NHOCKEY or otherwise achieves notability. Was deprodded with the comment that leading scorer meets nhockey which is not true. Per nhockey he must be one of the top 10 scorers in lead history, not just a single season. DJSasso (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep Plenty of sources - 1, 2, 3, 4. Definitely notable. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 12:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Routine coverage and his team bio? Not really significant coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with DJSasso, except maybe the 3rd source. The first two are just game summaries and the last is not independent (nor is it significant, as it is basically just the player stats). I think the article about earning a spot on Team OHL counts for something towards meeting notability, but in itself (or even if there was one other article of similar length/quality) hardly represents "significant coverage." Rlendog (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2012 (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) 01:23, 3 May 2012 (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) 01:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, First team all-star selection. http://www.bayshorebroadcasting.ca/news_item.php?NewsID=46327 Patken4 (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2012 (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 without prejudice. Can be recreated or restored upon request at WP:REFUND. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Robby Mignardi
- Robby Mignardi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable junior player who has yet to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Was prodded and the prod was removed stating that playoff MVP met NHOCKEY but all player awards minus First-All Star Team were removed from the qualifications to meet NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he meets WP:NHOCKEY. DJSasso (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If he was MVP in the regular season rather than the playoffs I would say keep, since regular season MVP is clearly more preeminent an award than All-Star (of course, most regular season MVPs are also All-Stars so the issue is generally moot). But playoff MVP is not necessarily at that level, so he would require significant coverage to meet WP:GNG, and there might be although I haven't done a thorough enough search to decide one way or another. If anyone is inclined to look deeper, a few articles I did find that may be relevant are here and here. But I think more than this is necessary to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2012 (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) 01:23, 3 May 2012 (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) 01:09, 10 May 2012 (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. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pulse Recording
- Pulse Recording (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advert for company. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, most current sources do not verify claims and none provide significant independent coverage of Pulse Recording. Notability is not inherited from clients. Current article is a textbook example of using bombardment to mask the lack of notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2012 (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) 00:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A third edit has been made to this article to avoid any characterization that it is an advert or a bombardment as stated by User:Duffbeerforme. Pulse Recording is not promoting or selling a product or service, and this article was drafted in accordance with other Music publisher articles including: Downtown Music Publishing and Water Music Publishing. The subject of "notability" has been further addressed with a list of awards that the company (not its clients) has been presented with over the past 3 years. It is troubling that Pulse Recording's notability has been questioned by this user, but an article from a similar company such as E1 Music Publishing is not questioned. In a second edit of this article, numerous in-line citations were made to directly connect clients to referenced works, addressing User:Duffbeerformes original concern of sources "not verifying claims." Those in-line citations have now been removed in the third edit of this article, addressing User:Duffbeerformes new claim that they were a "bombardment." I ask that a fair judgment be made, considering that an effort has been made to make this article unbiased, informative, and most importantly consistent with other American Music publisher articles. Thank you kindly (Jpoindex (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- "awards that the company (not its clients) has been presented"? Pulse thinks otherwise. ASCAP Awards – Pulse Clients Honored. Plus they are not major awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a perfect example of a wiki user being completely uninformed about the music industry and making judgments about the level to which an award shall be judged. It is the publishing company that is presented with these type of awards, which are attributed to a client's work. The ASCAP and Broadcast Music, Inc. awards recognize songwriters, and in the songwriting world (not the performing and selling of music world) these ARE major awards (Jpoindex (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete. I agree with the nom that this is a clear case of bombardment intended to mask the lack of notability. The article (as of my writing this) has 14 references, but looking into them it's clear that nothing there amounts to significant coverage in reliable independent sources:
- source 1 (Universalmusic.com) is a press release
- 2 is Google Maps
- 3 is the company's own site
- 4 (ASCAP), 5 (LA Weekly), and 6 (Rolling Stone) don't mention Pulse Recording
- 7 (ASCAP) confirms that a song was published by Check Your Pulse (and another company) without any coverage - it's just a list
- 8 (losangeles.citysearch.com) is a listing in a directory, much like the Google Maps listing;
- 9 (Downtown Music Publishing), 10 (Music Connection), and 11 (MV Remix) are press releases;
- 12 (ASCAP) is the same as 7 and 13 (ASCAP) is the same as 4
- 14 (BMI) doesn't mention Pulse Recording.
- Even if the company represents people who have produced or written for Lady Gaga, U2, Britney, JLo, etc., as the article asserts (without sources), notability is not inherited. There's no evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, therefore notability has not been established. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A fourth edit has been made to address the concerns raised above by User:Dawn Bard (Jpoindex (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Source 1 is now an article from Variety (magazine)
- Source 2 is now an article from the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
- Source 3 is now an article from Downtown Music Publishing
- Source 4 (ASCAP) indicates client Paul "DJ White Shadow" Blair as a writer for Lady Gaga's "Born This Way" and The Edge of Glory"
- Sources 5 (LA Weekly) and 6 (Rolling Stone) provide significant media coverage of client Bonnie McKee's relationship to Katy Perry and Taio Cruz. Source 14 shows CYP Two Publishing (i.e. Check Your Pulse Publishing) as belonging to Bonnie Mckee
- Source 7 is now an article from Music Connection Magazine (story titled "Pulse Recording: Rapid Readings")
- Source 8 provides record that Pulse Recording is a registered business in the city of Los Angeles
- Source 9 is now an article from All Access Music
- Source 12 (ASCAP) is from 2011, and indicates client Tim Pagnotta as a writer for Neon Trees's "Animal (Neon Trees song)" and that Check Your Pulse Publishing is his Music publisher
- Source 13 (ASCAP) is from 2012 (i.e. not the same as Source 12) and indicates Tim Pagnotta and Check Your Pulse Publishing's second award for Neon Trees's "Animal (Neon Trees song)"
- Source 14 (BMI) mentions CYP Two (i.e. Check Your Pulse Publishing) as the Music publisher for Bonnie McKee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpoindex (talk • contribs) 18:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article in Variety Magazine seems to be the only news source that talks about Pulse Recording in any detail. Some other sources talk about the subsidiary, Check Your Pulse, but not Pulse Recording. Article does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for businesses WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Pulse Recording is the parent company, registered business headquarters, and trademark of Check Your Pulse Publishing. In simply trying to understand Wikipedia's notability criteria (with the hope of improving this article accordingly) have the other companies referenced E1 Music Publishing and Water Music Publishing passed the notability test? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpoindex (talk • contribs) 21:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From my quick look at those two, IMO no they haven't. I may nominate them later. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 5th edit. I have made further edits to this article in the hope that a fair judgment will be made. I ask that a precedent be considered with notability criterion for all Music publishers before this article becomes a scapegoat for the industry, where client success always dictates company success. If the ultimate goal is to deter the creation of new articles, it wouldn't seem wise to have examples (i.e. E1 Music Publishing, Water Music Publishing) continue to exist for authors to be inspired by when creating new articles for similar companies. (Jpoindex (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Source 2 added from UBM plc for further news related to Pulse Recording
- Management section has been removed all together to avoid the suggestion that Pulse Recording is assuming its notability
- Awards section indicates more awards that Pulse Recording/Check Your Pulse Publishing was honored with at the 2012 BMI Pop Awards on May 15th, 2012
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stewart McPherson (geographer)
- Stewart McPherson (geographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:PROF/WP:ACADEMIC. The subject has only 5 peer reviewed papers according to GScholar, and has a very low h-index of 4 as per citations-gadget. The article mentions a discovery made with Alastair Robinson, but the paper in which they described the discovery has only 10 citations to be considered an important one. Finally the primary author of the article User:Jeljen has contributed mainly to articles related to Alastair Robinson and the subject, which suggests a possible COI. Propose to delete. Westeros91 (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Very clear notability both as WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Writter of standard works in his subject. Additionally, people who describe multiple species are usually considered notable . Low citations are typical of taxonomy--there are only a few sp-ecialists at a time in anything. Even if he wrotye it himself,he's notable . COI isn ot a reason for rejection. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Major authority on carnivorous plants, of which he has formally described at least 13 species (see List of carnivorous plants). Has made important contributions to the taxonomy of the group: with Donald Schnell he carried out a comprehensive revision of the genus Sarracenia, and in 2009 he published a monograph on Nepenthes, "to date the only publication dealing with the genus Nepenthes throughout its geographical range ... outstanding and [without] precedent" (see [40]). The discovery of Nepenthes attenboroughii that you mention was covered by countless news media worldwide, including the BBC (see [41] for others). McPherson has been interviewed on numerous radio channels (see [42]). See also the number of incoming links to his article for an idea of his contributions to the field. mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And from a recent paper I was just reading: "For the reconstruction of relative peristome width, the literature data from McPherson (2009) were used because only this data set comprised all species included in the phylogeny." mgiganteus1 (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I can only reiterate DGG's stance, and McPherson is regarded as significant in his field. Regarding assertions of COI, many editors carry out good faith edits on pet-projects because we have the time and/or access to specific information (I work in a botanical library that receives notices of all new species published, in addition to copyright titles) - it was when I was asked by members of the Linnean Society for information on Stewart McPherson (geographer) and Alastair Robinson that I realised that these individuals are making waves in modern botanical exploration and probably merited inclusion on Wikipedia. I am not wedded to their inclusion, and do not benefit from it. But I ask you, is it better that someone run a search for either party (look at the logs - people do search for these names) and come up with nothing, or to actually arrive at a useful page with useful information on it? Westeros91 singles out only these two, interrelated individuals (COI?), but has overlooked over 50 other botanists on Wikipedia with extremely vague entries - would these articles would be more acceptable if references were stripped and information cut out? Clearly not. My point is, if this section is in need of revision, which is a valid topic, it merits consensus and discussion, and these are not the two articles I would start of with. Thank you for your input. Jeljen (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG and mgiganteus1. Nothing more to add on this other than to say that although I was canvassed by Jeljen, I would have made my way to these AfDs on my own. Rkitko (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Concur with above arguments; it makes more sense to retain this page than to delete it. McPherson is noted in the field and his inclusion in Wikipedia quite appropriate. Attenboroughii (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of IT companies in Hyderabad
- List of IT companies in Hyderabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
What's the point of this article? It is a list of global companies with supposedly a presence in the city. No sources to confirm any of them. These global companies have a presence in many cities in many countries. And the point is? I left a notice in the article's talk page a month ago asking for comments before the AfD. No takers. I say it serves no purpose. Delete. Alexf(talk) 00:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Software industry in Andhra Pradesh. Don't nominate this one also for deletion. Hyderabad is known as the IT hub. Having a list of companies in it is not a crazy idea. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Or merge with List of IT companies in India. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it has been tagged as unsourced for more than six months. I doubt if we could get list sources for IT companies in a city, as every city is booming in IT (Hyderabad is not the only one) and the whole of India is experiencing a new economic growth in the 21st century, due to the presence of tons of IT companies. We cannot have a list for all that, can we? Secret of success (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources can be found. Maybe not a single source like a directory. But individual homepages would have sources. (Added one for Accenture.) These cities, Hyd, B'lore, Noida, etc. are known as IT hubs globally. They are known as places where all work outsourced goes. Ofcourse there is an IT company in every town. But maybe we can define the list in a better manner to get just limited enteries. Maybe on turnover (i doubt such info is available) or employee strength (that is bit possible). §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: List looks good, but doesn't sounds encyclopedic. Firstly half of them are not Indian owned, hence a category will be great but not the article space. Secondly, HCL is based in Noida, while Infosys is based in Bengaluru. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The list doesn't claim that these offices are India head offices. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So that's the reason I had claimed that the list doesn't looks encyclopedic. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 11:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes it unsuitable for a category - the categories are only for companies' main locations such as head offices or registered offices. A list also allows additional information such as origin. Peter E. James (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So that's the reason I had claimed that the list doesn't looks encyclopedic. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 11:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The list doesn't claim that these offices are India head offices. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, as renamed to Glove problem. I have deleted the original title as an implausible redirect, having replaced the only significant link to it in the List of mathematics articles. JohnCD (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Safe sex makespan
- Safe sex makespan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completing nomination for User:Lawikila. On the merits, I have no opinion. The original rationale, posted at the article's talk page, is copied verbatim below. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No modification to the article have been made. Google scholar does not return any result for "safe sex makespan". One may grant that the problem is a legit OR problem, but if it has not a single hit on google scholar, possibly does not belong here. Though a simple google search of 'makespan' brings one here. The concept of 'makespan' is better explained in Job Shop Scheduling. I have nominated the article for deletion again. --Lawikila (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. I've moved the article to Glove problem. --Lambiam 23:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to Wikipedians: "OR" here means "Operations Research", not anything in wikijargon... Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's possibly better known as "glove problem"[43] or "condom problem" (Vardi, I. "The Condom Problem." Ch. 10 in Computational Recreations in Mathematica. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 203-222, 1991, cited here); both of these return some hits though notability isn't certain. Condom problem is currently a redirect. If someone wants to rewrite and move to a more well-known title, that may be the best option. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that sounds very sensible, in which case it's a keep and rename? As it stands it's unsourced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with keep and rename to the glove problem. The original deletion discussion came to the same decision but close to 6 years on nobody had changed it. I volunteer to put in as much information as I can for this if we decide for a keep and rename.--Lawikila (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2012 (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) 00:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and just change the title as suggested. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with DGG, Colapeninsula, Lambiam, and the many people from the first AFD discussion.
Lawikila, you had all of the tools to enact the prior AFD consensus yourself. You can edit and rename articles, and you don't need some sort of magic permission to do so, certainly if enacting what a lot of people clearly think to be the best course of action. Don't follow in the footsteps of the no-effort people, such as the person above you on the article's talk page, who go around complaining that other people aren't making any effort, ironically putting more work into their complaints than would be needed for them just to do what they want done. And only nominate things for deletion when you want use of the deletion tool, that you do not have, and certainly wasn't needed in any way to do what you wanted done here. Remember: If "nobody has done anything in 6 years", then you yourself are part of the problem when you, too, do nothing with your tools. You have the tools. Use them! Uncle G (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree with Uncle G, or at least as far as he agrees with me :). I've moved the article to Glove problem. (As far as I'm concerned, the resulting redirect can go, it being an utterly implausible search term.) --Lambiam 23:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alessandra Gianatti
- Alessandra Gianatti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per OTRS ticket 2012050210009563, the subject of this article is requesting it be deleted for privacy reasons. The subject wrote: "The information about me are completely wrong and false." Tiptoety talk 17:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely? What's about the given references? I can't get her, sorry.--Gamsbart (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2012 (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) 00:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete while I'm a bit confused about the subject statement about the article being "false", I don't think she meets WP:ATHLETE. And with the subject of the article with extremely borderline notability requesting deletion, we should honor the request. Secret account 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - while articles are not automatically deleted at their subject's request, that is a factor to consider where notability is marginal, and I think this is such a case. JohnCD (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2012 (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 Given to the Wild. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel to Follow
- Feel to Follow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This track is not independently notable despite being the product of a notable band. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect This fails WP:NSONG for a standalone article, charting on any chart is not enough, it has to be a national or significant chart and prove it has other significant impact for a stand alone article Newmanoconnor (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2012 (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) 00:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Given to the Wild, the song's parent album. The album article already notes the song's release date and UK chart peak, so very little from the song article would be missed. I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources for the song; just brief mentions within articles/reviews on the album as a whole. Gongshow Talk 17:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Salman Aditya
- Salman Aditya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. References do not meet the criteria for reliable sources, non-notable musician, fails WP:MUSBIO and is he even taken seriously as a musician? Does this sound like music to you? (click this link): [44], scroll down to hear his music under 'Top Tracks', then you'll know what I mean. Hiddenstranger (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It is absolutely irrelevant if the music is any good or not (see William Hung). What is relevant is that there is no soverage in reliable sources which was the same problem last time. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salman Aditya) -- Whpq (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Clearly fails WP:MUSIC and lacks any reliable sources. It looks exactly the same as last time.--SabreBD (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2012 (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 United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2010#District 4. There is no consensus, yet, that candidates from major parties should be exempt from WP:POLITICIAN (and there would be problems of definition in countries where the distinction between major and minor parties is less clear-cut than in the US). JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keith Rothfus
- Keith Rothfus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet notability criteria per WP:POLITICIAN Arbor8 (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Failed candidates are not normally notable. All the references on the article refer to his candidacy; it's conceivable that he's done something else notable, e.g. at the Department of Homeland Security, but this would require demonstration. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 01:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2010#District 4, where he is already appropriately mentioned, although it needs updating. Dru of Id (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 00:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep major party candidates for a national position should be considered as notable--the advantages of this is that it would save a lot of arguments, and we coyuld systematically make them ourselves as a matter of cpourse and not have to be dependent on the pr agents profession. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2010#District 4, subject has no independent notability worthy of an article. Valenciano (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2012 (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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zakiya Cox
- Zakiya Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this singer. The Talented Teens awards aren't verified by the appropriate site before 1996, and I can't find a news article mentioning the award. The rest of what I found were self-published sources and Wikimirrors. Additional sources welcomed, as always. joe deckertalk to me 00:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I had better luck searching on just "Zakiya", although false positives become a nuisance. Under that name, both she and her album have entries in Allmusic, although no bio or review. And the article's claim that two of the singles charted is backed up by Allmusic. However, their chart positions were low and on a genre chart. I don't see much reason to be impressed by the talent show victory. I cannot verify that her group Faces even existed. Other than this article and its mirrors, I can't really find any substantial coverage at all, WP:RS or not. And her very small audience at Last.fm does not suggest that I'm overlooking anything. Happy to look again if anyone can uncover better sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Slither (software)
- Slither (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is an "application" with no true notability. According to the article, it tracks worms in a laboratory environment, but I do not see notability asserted. Does not pass WP:GNG. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 00:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alastair Robinson
- Alastair Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:PROF/WP:ACADEMIC. The subject has only 8 peer reviewed papers according to GScholar, and has a very low h-index of 5 as per citations-gadget. Although the article mentions a discovery made by Robinson et. al., the paper in which they described the discovery has only 10 citations to be considered an important one. The subject is the brother of actress Zuleikha Robinson, but since notability is not inherited this isn't a good reason to keep the article. Finally, the primary author of the article User:Jeljen has contributed mainly to articles related to the subject, which suggests a possible COI. Propose to delete. Westeros91 (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Major authority on carnivorous plants, of which he has formally described at least 7 species (see List of carnivorous plants, where he is listed under the botanical abbreviation "A.S.Rob."). The discovery of Nepenthes attenboroughii that you mention was covered by countless news media worldwide, including the BBC (see [45] for others). mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question He seems like a serious scientist, however is there a reliable secondary source which covers his work? The Google link you provide above links to Stewart McPherson who is not the subject of this article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Salimfadhley, despite being a rather specialised niche in taxonomic research, the 2007 paper in cited as an excellent source of paleogeographic evidence by a number of other peer reviewed papers in good journals and academic books. Although the OP would contend that the number of citations is low (this number does not include book references), this is a function of subject specialism. Moreover, the 2009 McPherson monograph on Nepenthes, which is described as "to date the only publication dealing with the genus Nepenthes throughout its geographical range ... outstanding and [without] precedent" (see [46] - reference kindly provided by mgiganteus1), acknowledges Robinson as the authority responsible for preparing all of the species entries and for editing the work in its entirety. Outside of academic literature and print articles, online agencies also highlight his role in the discovery of Nepenthes attenboroughii, among others (see [47]). Jeljen (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Major authority for carnivorous plants. To address the points of the OP, it is common knowledge that the h-index index is skewed towards particular areas of science; the WP:PROF/WP:ACADEMIC page even takes the time to explain that such indices "should be approached with considerable caution since their validity is not, at present, widely accepted". The same page states that it is very difficult to make clear requirements of numbers of publications or their quality, the criteria varying enormously by field. This is especially true of taxonomy, and in this instance, the scientist in question has published additional peer reviewed papers to the 8 cited by the OP, but in academic books, whose cross-citations are not indexed like journals. Moreover,WP:PROF/WP:ACADEMIC, which "is a guideline and not a rule", states that academic books are acceptable and that "Criterion 1 can be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea" - a read of [48] puts forward palaeogeographic proof for an important theorized historical migration route of Nepenthes in a paper that is favourably reviewed by members of the Linnean Society in their annual highlights for the same year. It is not our place to decide who that information is important to, but the theory and proof certainly seem to be important information in this topic of research. Regarding assertions of COI, many editors carry out good faith edits on pet-projects because we have the time and/or access to specific information (I work in a botanical library that receives notices of all new species published, in addition to copyright titles) - I felt that the research of Alastair Robinson and Stewart McPherson (geographer) (also singled out by the OP) merited inclusion in Wikipedia - particular as both parties are each named a dozen times on various articles within Wikipedia. I am not wedded to their inclusion and do not benefit from it, but I do believe that it is better that someone running a search for either party (the logs show that people do search for these names) or following through from other Wikipages actually arrives at a useful page with useful information on it rather than nothing at all. It is in the spirit of access to information for all that current, even niche, areas of research - and their instigators - be accessible where there is a context for it. Westeros91 singles out only these two, interrelated individuals for deletion, but has overlooked over 50 other botanists on Wikipedia with extremely vague entries and no internal cross-linking within Wikipedia; would the two nominated articles be more acceptable if references were stripped and information cut out? Clearly not. My point is, if any articles within the botany/bio sections are in need of revision, which is a valid topic, they merit consensus, discussion and improvement, rather than outright deletion, and these two articles are far better referenced and cited than those of many of their current and erstwhile counterparts. Removal of these two articles leaves dozens of references on Wikipages to both authorities pointing at nothing. Thank you for your input. Jeljen (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Certainly an authority in the discipline. As User:DGG said in the associated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart McPherson (geographer), "people who describe multiple species are usually considered notable. Low citations are typical of taxonomy..." Rkitko (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Artifacturing
- Artifacturing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This appears to be a neologism, or at least a rarely used term for the more common rapid prototyping and 3D printing.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to 3D printing. It looks like may also be the name of a company so maybe it's a Kleenex type situation where people have confused the concept with a specific brand? SÆdontalk 22:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 00:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This doesn't appear to be a neologism but as incidental or accidental under-the-radar promotion. All occurrences of this name on the web point back to a blog of the same name. And then there is a company of the same name, but with few back-links. Nageh (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nageh and per WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2012 (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 this AFD smells. If somebody wishes to renominate this in good faith then be my guest. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandra Fol
- Alexandra Fol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete - Not nearly notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia MrFishy99 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Delete, not notable --173.13.148.1 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not encyclopedia notable --67.180.179.175 (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 2. Snotbot t • c » 18:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 00:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Young classical music composer and teacher. The boston.com article is decent, but others all seem to be primary or trivial. If better sourcing can be found, happy to look again. Even if deleted now, could yet become notable, so no prejudice towards article if recreated.--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am with withdrawing from participating in this AfD, as I suspect that it is being conducted in bad faith by the nominator--suspected sock puppetry. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2012 (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 Parodius (series). Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Little Pirates
- Little Pirates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable game. It's been speedied (and denied because its a software product not eligible for speedy). It's been prodded (and that was removed by the author without explanation). So let's try AFD. Really, this is just another brand of Japanese slot machine. No indications of notability in the article or to be found elsewhere. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Parodius (series) until such time as sufficient RS exist to justify its own article. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2012 (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) 16:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2012 (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, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Parodius (series). Its already mentioned there, and there really isn't much information here worth saving. There's really not much information on this particular pachislot, as far as reliable sources go, so I don't see this ever being notable enough to have its own article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or delete. I found no worthwhile coverage from reliable sources, just this WP article and its derivatives, sales sites, directory entries, and stray mentions. Very new article, so I'm not even sure a redirect is in order. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. However, I do agree that not every episode of a notable TV series should have a standalone article so I recommend a merge discussion be started on the main article's talk page or at one of the relevant wikiprojects. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lucky (Parks and Recreation)
- Lucky (Parks and Recreation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable individual episode. all plot. no refs. no critique Gaijin42 (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with your criticisms, but don't think the article should be deleted, simply revised. JPX7 (talk)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2012 (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) 00:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Parks and Recreation episodes. I don't see how this can be salvaged any other way, but if someone manages to WP:HEY this, I will be impressed.- Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's an article for literally every other episode of Parks & Recreation (well, except the one that aired 14 hours ago). Deleting this one random episode would be silly. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an interesting argument - is it WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (which doesn't work) or WP:COMMONOUTCOMES (which might)? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'm aware of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. But in this case, deletion of this one article would be so bizarrely arbitrary -- it's different from saying, "Oh, we should keep this bad article about a movie, because there are lots of other bad articles about movies". This topic is part of a finite set of dozens of topics, virtually all of which have exactly the same level of notability and whose articles would be subject to the exact same complaints. It just makes no sense to delete this one without deleting all the others; the result would be a long list of episodes where every single one is linked to an article except for some reason, the eighteenth episode of the fourth season. ("Why doesn't that one have an article?" "It was deleted." "Was it especially bad, or something?" "No, it was exactly like every other article that's still here.") If you don't see that as ridiculous, I'm not going to be able to convince you why it is. But fine, here's another argument: it's notable as the subject of coverage and analysis from multiple reliable sources, as a Google search for "lucky parks and recreation review" shows. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So in other words, what you're saying is that we should keep this because WP:COMMONSENSE says that that should be the WP:COMMONOUTCOME, especially since you feel it meets WP:GNG. Okay, I'll buy that. Striking my previous !vote. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the otherstuff - I was using this episode as a trial balloon, to see the outcome to probably propose the deletion of the bulk of the other episodes as well, so common outcome I think does not apply, as the rationale used here will be echoed on other pages. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's sort of the point - we're saying that WP:COMMONSENSE says that keeping these should be the common outcome. If you'd like to do a few more (the worst ones you can find, please), by all means go ahead. Let's see if consensus is consistent. If it is, we'll consider it the beginnings of a common outcome, yeah? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This episode, as well as almost all of the episodes for this show completly fail WP:EPISODE WP:GNG etc. WP:COMMON sense says we should follow the guidelines which are very clear about content which does not belong on wikipedia. WP:COMMON is not an appeal to keep because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As for finding the worst examples, I think that is somewhat of a misdirection per my argument above, but in this case, it is pretty easy, since they are literally an entire collection of unsourced all-plot. Campaign_Shake-Up, Sweet_Sixteen_(Parks_and_Recreation), Dave_Returns etc. The closest any of the articles gets to anything useful is a regurgitation of nielson ratings, and one line snips from WP:ROUTINE reviewers that review every episode of every tv show - such coverage does not show notability of individual episodes, unless we are to dramatically change the rules of WP:ROUTINE - in which case I fear the flood of articles on every episode, every song, every birth/death/wedding, every high school sporting event, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's sort of the point - we're saying that WP:COMMONSENSE says that keeping these should be the common outcome. If you'd like to do a few more (the worst ones you can find, please), by all means go ahead. Let's see if consensus is consistent. If it is, we'll consider it the beginnings of a common outcome, yeah? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:39, 16 May 2012 (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.