Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimedia Foundation
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Illogistical Resource Dept. - Catharsis
- Illogistical Resource Dept. - Catharsis (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 references, band article has no references either. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Article has been updated with References. Soundtweaker —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lack of significant coverage, even with the sources added. Not really enough to establish even the band's notability, and certainly not enough to show the album as independently notable. Ducknish (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 02:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Darkwind (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stars (Serbian-private aerobatic group)
- Stars (Serbian-private aerobatic group) (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 aerobatic team. FallingGravity (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, they're rather notable (Radio Television of Serbia, Večernje Novosti, Politika). However, if the author of the article doesn't care enough to spend fifteen minutes providing basic sources and information, why should we care? No such user (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can not find an article on the serbian Wikipedia, But I was just guessing what the title would be. The refs mentioned seem to only make passing mention. Fails WP:GNG Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep The EB precedent seems conclusive. Warden (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimatum
- Ultimatum (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 wrote much of the current text in 2006, but under our current standards it's a no-go: it's unsourced except for a 1911 EB link, and it's pretty much only a WP:DICDEF. Sandstein 21:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have to oppose this as the word "ultimatum" must be a plausible redirect to something. That said, I think that this expression may have a technical meaning in diplomacy and international law ("a final demand as an alternative to war"). That is the sort of thing that I found when I typed "an ultimatum is" and "an ultimatum means" into Google Books. See, for example, Grimal, Threats of Force: International Law and Strategy, Routledge, 2012, p 103, who offers two technical definitions given by other authors and specifically applies it to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. James500 (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Having looked further, I think that it is very clear that "ultimatum" (aka "ultimata") is a highly notable technical term of art in international law. See, for example:[reply]
- Strong keep and expand.James500 (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The entry in the Eleventh Edition of Encylopedia Britannica contains a great deal more than a dictionary definition. James500 (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Participants in this AfD may like to note that the nominator removed much of the article during the week or so before he nominated it. This is the article just before he started doing so. Not that much better, but not quite so much of a DICDEF. Of course, the real question in an AfD like this is not so much whether an article is currently a DICDEF or not notable for some other reason, but whether it can be improved to avoid these problems. My feeling is that it can be, but I must admit that corresponding articles on other Wikipedia are a long way from showing this. PWilkinson (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, can easily be expanded upon with reliable secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In particular, diplomatic usage with regard to unfriendly acts etc. is a notable topic. The article should probaly also link to Coercive diplomacy but the topic seems to be notable in its own right. --Boson (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this page and the ersion of it pointed out above are purely WP:DICDEF, don't see how any editing of it can be anything but a definition of the word. J04n(talk page) 18:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 02:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm not sure if we have a policy stating this exactly, but any topic that has an article in Encyclopedia Britannica should be considered notable. Ryan Vesey 02:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it's a notable concept, and there are sources in every book on diplomacy , not to mention anything covering the history of the 20th century. Several editors have been adding them since the AfD started, and anyone who has voted delete previously should take a look at them. The real problem here is that the use of the old EB as the primary source for a article should no longer be tolerated. I think those here when the decision was made to rely on it made the wrong decision, and what we need to do is rewrite every such article. (That said, the material in here from the EB wasn't actually all that bad as a preliminary outline, but article should never be left at that point --and, by current rules on plagiarism, the exact material from the EB needs to be indicated--a general statement that some or all of the article is \vcopied from it or based on it is not sufficient--just as it would not be sufficient for any other source. ) DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was now out of venue scope. The page has been moved from Wikipedia space, and deletion no longer appears to be on the table (and if it is, should be conducted through PROD or AFD now), so there's nothing to do at MFD now. Merge/redirect discussion should happen on the talk page of the affected article(s), with merge/redirect or speedy tags added to taste. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Banton, Romblon Bantoncillo Island
Wikipedia:Banton, Romblon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)- Bantoncillo Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is an article in the wrong namespace. But no point in moving to article space because the article Banton, Romblon already exists. Strangely the content is actually about Bantoncillo Island, but this info is also already at Banton, Romblon. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Banton, Romblon. Someone just moved Bantoncillo Island to Wikipedia:Banton, Romblon, quite inappropriately. I've put it back at the previous title, adjusted its MFD tag appropriately, and changed the pagelinks here at this discussion. I'm also going to transclude this discussion at AFD, since we're discussing an article. Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Speedy Close - MFD is complete, and it's not really appropriate to redirect WP space to article space. Really, there need to be some higher quality April Fools jokes that aren't outright vandalism, and even as a participant in the AFJD discussions...well, isn't this getting a bit old? Something more clever perhaps? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a joke, MFD isn't complete, and I'm not suggesting that we redirect projectspace to mainspace. This page existed in mainspace for several years, someone inappropriately moved it to projectspace a few days ago, someone else nominated it at MFD, and I moved it back to mainspace. I'm suggesting that we redirect Bantoncillo Island to Banton, Romblon. This whole process would have gone exactly the same way if it had happened yesterday or tomorrow. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I realized it wasn't a joke, but I did not realize that this was not the side effect of a poorly executed joke. I'm sorry, I could have been clearer. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ...not to mention that I could have read this a bit closer. =O.o= I'm gonna have to change my vote. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Banton, Romblon. Make sure to include the meaning of the name in the target after it is redirected. Ryan Vesey 03:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per above discussion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 05:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Akiko Omae
- Akiko Omae (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 just created article does not meet any criteria for notablity. No wins in a $35,000+ ITF tournament, No main draws on the WTA tour, No jr. Slam champion, etc... So unless I missed something this one is just one of countless thousands of ITF tennis players with no notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you for this note. Last time I checked, a criteria for notability was that the player in question had been ranked in the Top 200. However, as this is no longer relevant, Akiko Omae does seem suitable for deletion. To avoid confusion which may occur around contributions in the future, I will be sure to refresh myself on the notability criteria immediately before creating any new articles. Pbr123 (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbr123 (talk • contribs) [reply]
- One that often slips through our eyes is Fed Cup or Davis Cup participation. Those count too and often a low ranked player will make say... the Antarctic Fed Cup team. After posting this I went and double checked and Omae wasn't on the Japanese team. If you feel it's likely she could be soon, then save this article in your user space before it gets deleted, and bring it back if she becomes wiki-notable. Since I notice that this page was already deleted once before it should be speedily deleted this time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As others have said, the article can be saved in a userbox for if and when she becomes notable. The notability criteria haven't changed since this article was last deleted. Spiderone 13:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although the opinions are fairly evenly divided, the policy based opinions favor deletion. J04n(talk page) 00:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bonchester Bridge television relay station
- Bonchester Bridge television relay station (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 are no sources given that suggest any kind of notability of this generic relay station. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I do not see how a relay station can be notable except as a structure, and there's no information here about that. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I suspect that there are a lot of such articles. The relay station will often be a landmark and thus worth an article. Or is this a sample nom, to be followed by a wholesale deletion nom? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I highly doubt a structure with a height of 17 meters qualifies as a landmark. Most trees are higher than that. We have articles about some, but not many relay stations (try the search function if you're curious), and few of them bother to explain what makes them so important. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For whatever reason, there's a whole template of TV Transmitters in the UK, and most of the transmitters on the template have articles. It seems that it would need to be there for the sake of completeness. Listmeister (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguements above are moot and not policy based (not to mention many of these articles are of dubious notability). Secret account 05:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tattaglia family. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rico Tattaglia
- Rico Tattaglia (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 fails to meet WP:GNG. Web search provides links to pictures & quotes from the film but no scholarly results. Better suited for inclusion in a List of characters from The Godfather series article. AldezD (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Tattaglia family. Gamaliel (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley 18:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 16:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Holton Rower
- Holton Rower (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 created by a gallery owner, featuring lots of buzzwords (such as "featured") but little substance. There is next to nothing in terms of coverage--a few mentions on some art websites and his name is dropped in the NYT once or twice, and a Dutch paper opines in four sentences that his "pour paintings" might make a fun family activity. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley 17:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not meet relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This does seem to read a bit like an advertisement, I think.Sophiahounslow (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Suite Life of Zack & Cody#Maddie Fitzpatrick . J04n(talk page) 00:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maddie Fitzpatrick
- Maddie Fitzpatrick (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)
While this article is fascinating its subject is not a very notable character. Furthermore its only source violates WP:WPNOTRS. Wlmg (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A merge or redirect to The Suite Life of Zack & Cody or Ashley Tisdale would be more sensible than deletion: regular character in the former, important role for the latter. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This seems appropriate, a short paragraph in the show article while the expanded description is broken out into a character article. Gamaliel (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Suite Life of Zack & Cody#Maddie Fitzpatrick without prejudice to future re-creation. The subject is a major character on the show, but this article consists almost entirely of trivia with only one source cited and that being an episode of the show. No secondary sources have been provided at all. The article is unsatisfactory as it stands from the point of view of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the show's main article. There's no need for this one character to have their own article, when the main article is doing a fine job. Ducknish (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the other main characters get their own page, so why not her? I have undone the edit of the person who redirected the article, because I do not think this discussion is over. Arilicious (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Not counting J04n's opinion, as I'm unable to understand what argument they intend to make. Sandstein 18:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
White Hat Rally
- White Hat Rally (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 charitable organization. See WP:NOBLECAUSE. Only "press" has been in computer magazines, which does not meet the cross-spectrum requirement to establish notability. As beneficial as this event might be, it's not encyclopedic at this point (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As original creator of the page I had waited until I thought the event / organisation had gained enough notability. I notice that others have contributed to the content, and I'm sure it will be expanded further. The references given are largely from the computer press as that's where my knowledge is, and it is the sector targeted given the origins of WHR. Within the Information Security sector WHR is widely known in the UK, and I've seen online references as far away as Australia. There are 40+ pages of search results on google, and, while not recognised, many press interviews on youtube. Much of the coverage is electronic, and therefore transient. There have been articles in printed press (outside the IT industry), such as the Rutland Mercury and other local newspapers, council publications, and several times in Business Link Magazine. WHR is part of a larger organisation, White Hat Events, that have combined coverage that hasn't been referenced as citations used were about the rally specifically. WHE includes a ball for almost 1000 people each year in London, a London marathon team, and other events. We receive a lot of media attention due to our supporters, such as BT, KPMG, Deloitte, IBM, NCC Group plc, LLoyds, and others. Hopefully others more familiar with daily papers will come forward with evidence to allow this page to be retained. Much of the media coverage is not online, so not readily verified. If the articles where scanned and placed online (recognising the copyright owners) for the purpose of this discussion, would that help? Let's see what the community think. Ml-crest (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In order to demonstrate some of the harder to find media articles I've added some links to the Rutland Times article from 2012 (I was the interviewee), and from 2011 an interview on Isle of Wight Radio with member of the Mini Medics team.Gambler2073 (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I located this article from the Rutland and Stamford Mercury local newspaper Rutland news Ml-crest (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Radio interview - Isle of Wight Radio interview Ml-crest (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - has coverage in both local and tech news, as well as overseas. – SJ + 02:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete There are sources, but most are just passing mentions. Not fully convinced this is notable enough for inclusion. It is telling that an editor has to upload a local article to drop box to claim its notable. SalHamton (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have deleted the link to the Rutland Mercury article both here and in the article because it is a copyvio and links to copyright violations are not allowed an Wikipedia. It is acceptable to reference the article, and I would have left the reference in the article, if only some usable details had been given such as date and page number. References do not have to be online, if they can be viewed in a library or accessible archive that is good enough. Same goes for the IoW Radio interview. SpinningSpark 15:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nominator's claim that "cross-spectrum" coverage is not supported by our WP:GNG so I see no reason to discout those sources. J04n(talk page) 10:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; I think what BWilkins means is that the sources are neither reliable nor independent of the subject (i.e., corporate or industry). Industry publications are known for their lack of editorial oversight. What I don't see in this article's sources are links to mainstream media. Miniapolis 13:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 05:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LiMax Coal Process
- LiMax Coal Process (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)
LiMax Coal Process does not appear to be notable. The article fails to cite any reliable sources. I have not found any sources that indicate notability. Way2veers 10:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article appears to have been written from a promotional point of view. If this is a notable topic, the article can be re-created using a neutral point of view. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shouldn't have never been relisted with a strong deletion nomination like that and no keep comments Secret account 05:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leonardo Rocco
- Leonardo Rocco (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 a hairdresser to celebs that, in keeping with earlier creations by User:Misty2010 and User:Misty2011 (see also the current AfD/Kike San Martín [2nd nom]) bulges grotesquely with promotional flatus. Sample: Rocco recognizes that his passion, enthusiasm, energy, commitment and strong work ethic have allowed him to capture the attention of perfectionists and this is reflected in his celebrity clientele. His clients seek him when making a change to their image and the driven stylist that attains his inspiration from film, people on the street, shows, and other professionals, manages to consistently satisfy the exquisite tastes of those that request his services. Conceivably, Rocco merits an article. (The sources adduced are in Spanish and PR-aromatic English. I don't pretend to understand the former [or trust Google Translate], but take a dim view of the latter, one of which reads in its entirety: The eighth annual Miami Hair, Beauty & Fashion 2012 By Rocco Donna event showcased the latest hairstyles, makeup looks, and clothing designs with a celebrity fashion show and VIP party at the spa at Viceroy on November 8, 2012.) Let's suppose for a moment that Rocco does merit an article. Then the current article is not at all promising as a starting point. It would be less work to start afresh than to start with this -- if there's something that merits writing up, of course. Hoary (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability is doubtful but this article is so full of peacock terms and advertising, that it is better to apply some TNT The Banner talk 11:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 02:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 15:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
View from nowhere
- View from nowhere (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)
Blog-specific term co-opted from one otherwise-nonnoteworthy academic term. Used plenty on blogs, but not much exists to support it as an actual article worthy of inclusion.
- The term did not originate on blogs. It started with a 1989 book my Thomas Nagel which I have added to a new "Further reading" section. I wonder if there should be one article for both the book and the term, or if The View from Nowhere should be a different article on the book. EllenCT (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - View from nowhere#References includes articles from Margaret Sullivan (journalist) (the New York Times Public Editor, writing as such), Jay Rosen (frequently syndicated NYU journalism professor), Glenn Greenwald (a "top 10" opinion journalist per Newsweek writing in The Guardian), Mathew Ingram (GigaOm), Conor Friedersdorf (The Atlantic), Susan Madrak (Crooks and Liars), and other nationally known journalists. Plus there are at least 60 Google News items. Therefore I believe the term is notable. EllenCT (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of those article are about the term? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- [1], [2], and [3] mention it in their titles. [4] mentions it in a heading. [5] cites the Nagel book and quotes a paragraph by Rosen near the top. EllenCT (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 1 is a blog from the guy who came up with the term. 2 and 3 are blogs. 4 is not about the view from nowhere, but rather a basic media criticism. 5 is also sourced directly to the guy who came up with the term. The book in question is a philosophy book, not a book on the media. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- [1], [2], and [3] mention it in their titles. [4] mentions it in a heading. [5] cites the Nagel book and quotes a paragraph by Rosen near the top. EllenCT (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of those article are about the term? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but... - The article as it stands is rather unsatisfactory. It gives very little context, covering only the recent use of the concept in relation to journalism and not its longer, and probably rather more notable, academic use. Also, it was created completely unreferenced, with the creator only coming back months later to provide references which are still not properly integrated into the article. However, enough of the references (the Greenwald article in The Guardian, the Friedersdorf one in The Atlantic and the Sullivan one in the NYT, at least) are reliable enough to show notability, and the Jay Rosen ones quite likely would be if they weren't primary as regards journalistic discussion of the concept (or at least the term). However, having said that, Sullivan, while referring to Rosen, actually talks about the topic as false balance, and in journalistic arguments, the two concepts do appear to be almost identical. The only reason I am not suggesting a merger is the prior use of the concept in academic discussion - see the GBooks link for several hundred examples. It should be perfectly possible to rewrite the article to be properly sourced and to cover both the original academic concept and its journalistic development. PWilkinson (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 02:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a mildly interesting rehtorical device, and a useful summary of something a lot of people in journalism need to think about. Too useful to delete--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But where are the independent sources about it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know. Ask the authors. I am a satisfied user.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But where are the independent sources about it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ballads 'n' Bullets
- Ballads 'n' Bullets (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 album, fails WP:GNG (referenced only to sources associated with the band), and therefore fails WP:NALBUMS. Referenced content may be mergeto the article on the band In Legend. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS. I do not see any inherent notablity. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Kww(talk) 16:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Holistic Management International
- Holistic Management International (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 fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, especially as to coverage by unrelated parties that is actually substantial. This article's existence can be explained by blatant WP:COI editing (see history). JFHJr (㊟) 01:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as it was me who added the 'notability' clean-up tag way back when. There was little subsequent improvement and I can't see any independent coverage i.e. not a press release, a HMI publication or something directly related to Allan Savory. Fails WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as the person who dug a little deeper into Savory and the related company articles, as another BLPer eloquently put it "a walled garden of spam", a lot of COI editing and, basically, no particular notability for these organizations. CaptainScreebo Parley! 14:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lets actually do some research into this. First four secondary sources I found mentioning the HMI and their work NRCS, Seed of Texas Magazine, Otago Daily Times, Albuquerque Business First and plenty more considering that institute is 28 years old[6]. So easily passes WP:CORPDEPTH. --Salix (talk): 21:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's actually check those sources. NRCS is the awarding body reporting on its own grant, not third party coverage, but WP:PRIMARY. Seed of Texas Magazine does not mention HMI. Otago Daily Times likewise does not mention HMI. Albuquerque Business First represents some coverage. It reads like a press release on the grant, but does something for WP:CORPDEPTH, though not enough in my estimation. JFHJr (㊟) 02:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On the Otago Daily Times, he's a certified holistic management educator, guess who did the certification? Training trainers is one of the primary activities of the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salix alba (talk • contribs) 13:25, 2 April 2013
- Comment in its 28 years its been renamed twice so we also need to consider sources for its previous names and is dependant organisation
- 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 (a subsidiary org from 1992 to 2010)
- --Salix (talk): 07:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Giving us pieces like Lewiston Morning Tribune, 1995 showing a close link with Washington State University and a $1.1 million grant for holistic management.--Salix (talk): 08:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A good non trivial source is Fears, Robert (February 1, 2012). "A Whole View". The Cattleman. You need a HighBeam Research account to read it. It give a potted history of the group, its methods and a case study.--Salix (talk): 13:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What reliable source indicates the name changes? That alone would show quite a bit of corpdepth. If the renaming does not appear in third party sources, we might as well ignore the notion. This AfD is about HMI. JFHJr (㊟) 15:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also point out that your own comments at the talk page belie your apparent lack of confidence as to how these entities are related. Your comment seems to be the product of speculation, WP:OR, or some kind of WP:SYNTH of primary sources. Notability isn't aggregated among orgs by a shoestring. It's all centered around Allan Savory anyway. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 15:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically I'm trying to find out as this progresses. There is a lot of literature about this topic which needs dissecting. What is now true is that Savory is no longer part of HMI with his own institute. Any source about HMI after 2009 has nothing to do with Savory.--Salix (talk): 16:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis is a influential and is gaining momentum. One would wonder why the all of Savories work is suddenly under attack? Because of the Ted Talk? Because of the successes of people like Joel Salatin? Because of the seminars by the USDA in Texas? The Universities all over the world starting to teach HM principles? [7] Why would controversy somehow make this less relevant? However, if it doesn't reach Wiki's notability requirements, then at least merge with HM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.189.106 (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC) — 68.12.189.106 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]- I wanted to add this ref to the above paragraph I wrote but somehow I was unable. [8] and this [9] Sorry I am new at this.68.12.189.106 (talk) 07:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC) — 68.12.189.106 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- It is not an attack. It's a lack of notability through coverage of Holistic Management International. The learningstore PDF link you provided does not even mention HMI. The press release by the usda has been discussed above: it is coverage by an associated organization, which gives the HMI grants. It is not third party coverage. Please see WP:IRS. JFHJr (㊟) 14:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize if I am not following a procedure you wanted. I chose the learningstore link to show the influence of the WORK on the mainstream educational system. If you scroll down you will find a book by Savory on holistic resource management in the suggested further reading section. Anyone researching grazing systems will inevitably run across Savory's work eventually. I realize the work is not the same as the organization promoting the work. But they are related and wiki just took down the page for the actual management system. (Which I am now attempting to rewrite in accordance to wiki guidelines). But I am a new at this. So please allow some leeway for me to learn the ropes. Oh and BTW I posted the USDA link because you said the reuters news release of the same event was not sufficient. So I posted the source of the same event released by USDA and not any organization related to HMI. I see now that Salix beat me to it!Redddbaron (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not an attack. It's a lack of notability through coverage of Holistic Management International. The learningstore PDF link you provided does not even mention HMI. The press release by the usda has been discussed above: it is coverage by an associated organization, which gives the HMI grants. It is not third party coverage. Please see WP:IRS. JFHJr (㊟) 14:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect this, and all alternative or early names, to the article on allan Savory where they are sufficiently discussed. It's reasonable that somebody might know the name of the organization and nothing more, and this will provide the information. as the reasonable solution. I think there's a certain prejudice here regarding names that include the word "holistic"--I sympathize entirely, but there are steps sort of outright deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep this page. It's a real non profit organization that's been around for over 25 years. Here are several articles from non-HMI publications... [10] [11] [12] [13] [14][15][16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgl11453 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC) — Sgl11453 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Wrong. HMI runs holisticmanagement.org. That's about half of the sources you've offered. The Press Releases are not coverage by unrelated parties, but an agency tooting its own horn. the Heritageradionetwork.com episode doesn't even mention HMI at all (WP:FAKE is a theme here!). Barkingcatfarm is likewise not reliable coverage: it's the blog of a group reporting on itself being selected by HMI. Not coverage of HMI! Countryworldnews does give some passing mention of the company, but it does not come close to WP:CORPDEPTH. JFHJr (㊟) 15:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Request: Please re-list this debate for a more thorough consensus. JFHJr (㊟) 00:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Undecided I'm searching for sources at the moment, and have found a few which might be good. I'll add them to the article, but I just wanted to add a note here in case someone comes along and closes the AFD. SmartSE (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I found a few more references which I think are just enough to meet the GNG. It's not possible to access all of them in full, but I think that these are sufficient to show that HMI is notable and is distinct from Savory. The $4.8m grant in 2010 also demonstrates some importance. That there were COI problems with the article in the past is not a reason to delete it. Salix alba is also right to point out that the organisation has been known by several other names in the past, and there may well be other sources that I haven't found. SmartSE (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note User:Redddbaron has !voted on the talk page. I'll take the liberty to copy their keep rationale here. SmartSE (talk) 09:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep: At least for now. I just rewrote the Holistic management page to meet wiki standards. It took me a week but a lot of the research is overlapping. I agree the article doesn't meet wiki standards, but I will try to clean it up and see what people think. The reason I posted that in the talk page instead of here is that I have voted a weak keep here already (before I had my own wiki account) and already entered the discussion as redddbaron the same day I opened my account but was working on the other page first. Notability of an organization requires that their WORK be considered first, then if that WORK is notable, AND the organization can be sourced properly, then it deserves a place in wiki on its own page IMHO. The USDA link establishes at least enough notability to keep it up for now. If not, then I agree it could be merged as a small paragraph on BOTH the Savory (co-founder) and the Holistic management pages. But from the organizational standpoint, it would seem to me a stand alone article (rewritten to wiki's high standards) would be preferred over writing things twice (or more). So give me a few days please. I have a good weather day and might not get much done today, but more rain is coming, and that will give me time to do a rewrite, or at least try.Redddbaron (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- OK I added several links. Here is some more. http://hi.wiser.org/organization/view/1ee053013be43654dd575ee1a7ff9803/section/main http://www.sustainable-properties-forsale.com/sp_hm.html This says Africa Centre of Holistic Management is a regional office of HMI. http://www.ecoagriculture.org/case_study.php?id=75 but when I google ACHM I get Savory Institute instead? I think they possibly could still be linked somehow? Plenty of notability in the other links I already added to the page, but if Savory Institute is still linked somehow that would nail it...as the Buckminster Fuller award....Or maybe that is just before the split?Redddbaron (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I don't know what's going on, I made the changes and added plenty of links, yet someone else crossed my keep out. Well my vote is still vote is still keep. Just because it wasn't perfect originally doesn't mean it isn't plenty good enough now to keep. It still probably isn't perfect. All wiki pages get edited and change over time, hopefully for the better. It is certainly good enough now to keep.Redddbaron (talk) 06:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You can only vote once and as you say you previously voted as an IP it counts twice. Probably the thing to do is strike out the IP vote with <s>...</s> so only one vote is counted.--Salix (talk): 07:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for describing the proper procedure to me.Redddbaron (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You can only vote once and as you say you previously voted as an IP it counts twice. Probably the thing to do is strike out the IP vote with <s>...</s> so only one vote is counted.--Salix (talk): 07:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Allan Savory. This page is really straddling the border of notability. I think the best bet is to add a section into Savory’s page and keep a close eye out for COI edits. In the future if it receives more coverage it can be split off. J04n(talk page) 10:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 05:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coolligraphy
- Coolligraphy (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'm not sure if this is promoting a new artform, or simply about it. Either way, neither this nor its creator (who appears to be the article's author) appear to be notable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability by our criteria. 09:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)
- Delete: Only one passing mention in the news, a 2007 Philadelphia Inquirer mention. Nothing suggesting notability. Article creator is also Coolligraphy creator, created in good faith, I am sure, but simply not aware of Wikipedia policies.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Coolligraphy" often misspelled as "cooligraphy." Please see: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=cooligraphy&oq=cooligraphy&gs_l=hp.3..0j0i30.1521.3690.0.4274.11.8.0.3.3.0.129.813.5j3.8.0...0.0...1c.1.8.psy-ab.TNBp--uyKYo&pbx=1&fp=1&biw=1284&bih=806&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&cad=b — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindalyc (talk • contribs) 21:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Please alse look at google image under cooligraph : http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gs_rn=8&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=cooligr&cp=11&gs_id=16&xhr=t&q=cooligraphy&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44770516,d.dmQ&biw=1284&bih=805&wrapid=tljp1365207205930020&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=nmhfUY-KEce64APc9YDQCQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindalyc (talk • contribs) 00:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Reference: http://connection.membershipsoftware.org/article.asp?article=324049&paper=67&cat=226 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.86.162 (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 05:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Darryl Wezy
- Darryl Wezy (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)
Also nominated, article on the subject's album:
- Maze of Fears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No indication that the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. Neither of the sources in the article are independent (the author of ref 1 is the co-founder of the subject's record label [17]) and searching is not bringing up any coverage in reliable sources. January (talk) 09:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both as non-notable. Neither article makes any claim that would qualify the album or the artist under WP:MUSIC, the sources would not qualify either as notable, and despite all the efforts being made by the articles' creator, no arguments for keeping have even been attempted. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep for Maze of Fears I'm not in a position to judge this guy's place in the Indonesian music scene. However, based entirely on the album cover, I think Mayumi Haryoto ought to get his own article. The artwork on that cover is amazing. I wanted to keep the album article just to it up there, and this article is Haryoto's only mention in Wikipedia. Listmeister (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 04:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nexersys
- Nexersys (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)
Reads like an advertisement. Wikipedia is not a vehicle of promotion. bender235 (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete References are to company PR or to general studies not about the firm/product. I can find indication of product placements (for example into A.N.T. Farm, again PR based) but this appears to be insufficient evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If the only refs are PR, then it's a safe bet that this isn't notable - yet. That might change in the future, of course. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I kept hearing the phrase "Now how much would you pay?" as I was reading the article. Listmeister (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. With socking allegations being thrown around, it is impossible for me to determine a clear consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Lalić
- Peter Lalić (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)
2131 is not in anyway an exceptional chess rating in the scheme of things. Another 169 points are required just to be an FM. Writing articles for CHESS magazine does not a notable person make (I have had an article published in a well known publication, believe me when I say that you haven't heard of me!), and neither does being the son of a Grandmaster. Personally, I am within a few Elo points of this person, and I am strong enough to understand how little I know about the game. Given that this person's entry on wikipedia relates to them being a chess player, they should at least be of FM standard to be afforded an entry. Mendoza2909 (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hesitant Delete; there don't seem to be enough sources to establish notability at this point. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 13:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- At most Weak keep -- It looks as if he is on his way to bigger things. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- Personally, I am also within a few Elo points of this person, and I agree that his Elo rating alone does not make him notable. However, I think being the youngest ever regular contributor to the CHESS magazine and the youngest ECF certified coach makes him notable. M701 (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep -- Peter is certainly notable, firstly because his FIDE ELO rating is >2000, which makes him an "expert" class chess player at the International level and he has also received the United Kingdom/British Chess distinction of "National Master." He has a massively popular YouTube Channel with more than 600 chess video analysis uploads, and his channel has been ranked as one of the top 10 chess YouTube channels in the World by a major chess news and analysis blog. That's not just notable, but an absolutely remarkable achievement since only a handful of people have maintained a prominent YouTube Chess Channel successfully. Peter is also the son of two Grandmasters...certainly a very notable distinction considering I've heard of no other expert class or better chess player having BOTH their parents as Grandmasters...Peter's father, Bogdon Lalic has written chess books, and his mother, Susan Lalic, was the top British Woman Grandmaster for the majority of the 80s and 90s. Because Peter has followed in their footsteps, his relationship to them is obviously significant. And certainly his age alone qualifies him as a prodigy since he achieved expert level at the age of 16 or 17. I actually question why Peter's article is up for deletion in the first place. The first comment from Mendoza2909 sounds very berating and does not acknowledge any of Peter's very notable characteristics, which makes his position clear: it's not a very open-minded critique of Peter's notability in the chess world, and a total disregard for all the citations and public references supporting all these points of notability. It seems to me someone doesn't like Peter and is using this speedy deletion nomination process as a troll-like reprisal. There are more than enough publicly-verifiable sources to establish this emerging prodigy's notability, and this article is very informative. Keep this article by all means. Piewalker Piewalker 19:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Without regard to this particular article--I do not understand the ranking system well enough to trust my judgment about it-- we have normally been very reluctant to accept notability on the basis of being a prodigy-- at having attained a respectable level but not one which would have qualified an adult for an article. I could probably make a good case for doing otherwise, and accepting such notability, and similarly with youth awards and youth competitions of all sorts, and in fact I tried doing so when I came here 6 years ago. I didn't get anywhere then, and I doubt I would get anywhere now. It would be a significant change in our interpretation of notability in many areas, and I am pretty sure there would not be consensus at this time to broaden it to that extent. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply
Several points - 1. 19 years old is way too old to be an emerging prodigy. Actually it's not a prodigy at all. I am in my early 20s. Maybe I am not emerging any more, but do I still get to be a prodigy, given my rating of over 2100?
2. Apparently my first sentence sounds very berating. I would reply that my rating is within 10 Elo points of Peter so actually, I am completely honest as I know exactly of what I speak. Our ratings are close enough that if we played 100 games, our current ratings indicate that Peter would win about 51-52 and I would win 48-49. (Feel free to correct me anyone, but I'm not far off). In reality, there is enough margin of error in the elo rating system that it is impossible to detect a real difference in our standard. As I said, I know enough about the game and my own place within it to know that I am not an expert. At a stretch I would call myself a very good club player. By extension, I would call Peter a very good club player, no more.
3. National Master is a title created by the British Chess Federation. It is not internationally recognised. Once you have reached a certain standard, you pay a fee and you get awarded the title. Many players don't bother and save a few pounds. In my view it is there to create a bit of extra cash. All due respect to Peter for having earned this title, but he has such a long way to go before reaching an internationally accredited title. I'm sure it's a very impressive thing to say at parties to non-chess players, but chess players should be under no illusion that it is anything other than recognition of a strong club player. If he ever reaches FM I'm sure you'll find that National Master title disappears from his CV very quickly.
4. You say that Peter Lalic is an "expert" class chess player at the International level'. I would bet a lot of money that Peter will never play in a senior international competition for Britain on merit. Glorney and Faber doesn't count in my book unfortunately.
5. Is being 153rd ranked chess player in Britain a notable achievement? Really?
6. Chessgames.com... hmm... Play in an international open tournament and your games will likely end up on a database. Especially if you played a GM in the first or second round (because your seeding is that low) and lose.
7. The guy obviously loves chess, wants to improve and submitting articles to a chess magazine is a part of that. But it's something anyone of certain standard can do. Write enough articles and eventually they'll get published. Doesn't mean I'm a good player. Or that anyone over 2200 won't just skip over the stuff he writes. Yes, I've read some of it.
8. This person William Stewart. He ranks Peter's channel as one of the top 10 chess channels on youtube. Apparently he is famous. I have never heard of him. Believe me when I say most people haven't heard of him. He doesn't have a Wikipedia page (a general indicator of notability) despite being ranked 150 points higher than Peter. He is however a chess coach, like Peter. Maybe they have heard of each other. Maybe they have even met each other. Who knows? Anyway, I will repeat he is not famous, nor a chess player that the general chess public will listen to, therefore his opinion should not be counted. This should be higher up the list, but I am on a roll.
9. I have never met Peter Lalic. I have no reason to dislike Peter Lalic. I dislike this Wikipedia page as it attempts to portray a strong club player as something he is not.
10. It is obviously significant that he is the son of two notable chess players, but this significance should surely come after the fact of establishing his own notability. I therefore disregard everything you say on the matter of his parents, although I will say...
11. Susan Lalic is not a Grandmaster. She is a Woman Grandmaster. The standard for achieving the title of WGM is lower. As a WGM, IM and 5 time British Champion (respect!) she is certainly deserving of an entry on Wikipedia. I am a man for the details!
Apologies for the formatting if it isn't good. By the way, I think myself a good player, but I know exactly where I stand among the greats, and that is precisely nowhere. I know enough to appreciate their greatness and to strive for it myself, even if it's only for one game.
Mendoza2909 ( talk ) 16:03, 8 April 2013 (GMT)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Definite keep -- There seems to be absolutely no harm in keeping such a person, and no good reason to try to remove him. As somebody else pointed out, he is the youngest person ever to become an official coach of the English Chess Federation, and also to write for a reputable magazine (which even I have heard of!). According to this website (http://www.everymanchess.com/chess/books/Play_the_Accelerated_Dragon), he has also been contracted by this well-known book company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.155.106 (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Reply -- Found on the English Chess Federation website. How to become an ECF accredited coach. http://www.englishchess.org.uk/coaches-2/
ECF Accredited Coaches ECF Accredited Coaches have fulfilled the following requirements:
1) They hold an Enhanced CRB Clearance, which is less than three years old.
2) They have supplied two professional character references to the satisfaction of the ECF.
3) They have supplied the Manager of Coaching with details of previous coaching or teaching experience.
4) They are a current ECF member.
Actually this is ridiculous. He is touted as the youngest ever coach in the ECF. All he had to do was have previously taught in schools and pass a criminal background check. So much about this article screams mediocrity (compared to anyone, you know, notable). 2131 ranking, 17th in British championships, National Master, Board 3 of the U-18 team. He played in the British championships, therefore his games will get onto chessgames.com. (The highest rated player he beat in that competition was 2271. Nothing special. I've beaten a 2400. I'm sure he has too.)
Altogether it adds up to an above average chess player (and not more). By the way, the Glorney Cup only involves Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England, so again his board prize sounds impressive until you realise that he was competing for it against 3 other people.
I realise it does sound like I have some sort of vendetta here. I don't, have never met the guy. As regards playing strength, the internet does have a habit of providing anonymity, but if you choose to believe me, my Elo of >2100 means I know what I am talking about. I think this page is an abomination and that is why I am still here, writing this message. Every playing achievement listed here has been painted in a far rosier light than is actually the case. So has the coaching achievement. He's not a chip off the old block, as it is unlikely he will ever reach the playing strength of either of his parents. That's the way chess goes, it is a young (wo)man's game.
If you think that contributing regularly to a magazine makes him notable then so be it (How regularly is regularly?). If that is the case, then can I suggest a substantial rewrite of everything else here, as he should be listed primarily as a chess contributor. Or perhaps as a chess coach. Certainly not as a chess player though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mendoza2909 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's no inherent notability, like for pro athletes in football, for being a chess player at this level. way below the top, and certainly notability cannot be inherited from mom and dad. There is no inherent notability for being a contributor to a specialized magazine. Most of the refs are very specialized and only have score listings or brief mention. Has a source such as the BBC or the Times had significant coverage? Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO at this time, though if he advances in the field he might in the future. Edison (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The notion he's a notable chess prodigy is downright silly; here is a list of the strongest players born in 1994, and Peter Lalić is nowhere to be seen. (He's #313 in the world among players born that year, and perhaps the top eight or so might reasonably be called chess prodigies. Of the top ten, only five have articles at the moment - the top five, as it happens.) In short, he isn't notable as a prodigy or as a chess player... and for him to be notable for his magazine or YouTube contributions, he'd have to meet WP:AUTHOR, which he does not. Sideways713 (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Piewalker (talk), who strongly advocated keeping this article, is using his YouTube channel to advertise Peter Lalić and his coaching services and would thus seem to have a conflict of interest here. Sideways713 (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seems notable for age/family. Plus given immediately prior sockpuppet case and chess AfDs continuing April 1 with User:Lampenstein see no reason to encourage easy deletions here. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I personally think it's too early to recognize Peter Lalic as notable. I seriously doubt, if it weren't for his name and famous parents, that the world outside of the UK would know much or anything about him. It could only be through his regular monthly CHESS column, which is decent enough, but has only a kind of 'bits and pieces' type content that most strong club chess players could put together with a bit of application. Hence, if he is to justify an article, then I would say he needs to have his books/writings highly acclaimed in some sense, and/or gain the IM title (not just the FM title), or train a very successful player, if coaching is a route he pursues. Right now, I'm not sure he knows himself which activity he wishes to specialize in and we will only find out with the passage of time. As a long-time editor here, I am only applying the criteria that we have always used as a rule of thumb, and that is, (1) minimum GM title or (2) IM title with notable skills in some other chess-related activity. Clearly, there will be some exceptions (where someone has no chess title but is a leading figure in their field, e.g. the current FIDE President); however, right now I would put him in a category that is aspiring to meet the second criteria above, and he is not there yet. Brittle heaven (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable present. For those that think "expert" is a high chess title, other than World Champions, there are players with the Grandmaster title, then International Master title, then FIDE Master and Candidate Master. "Expert" is generally the same as "candidate master", a lower title. The chess project generally considers grandmasters to be notable. An International Master or below is not considered notable as a player, but they might be notable in some other way. I don't think that applies here - not enough to assert notability at this time. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability criteria: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" Lalic simply does not meet these criteria. No significant chess accomplishments and a rating insufficient to overturn the basic criteria. Sasata (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficient notability. I agree with Brittle's "bits & pieces" observation; an article trumpeted on that basis gives feeling WP is being exploited for promotion by well-wishers. (Blech!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Nomination is by a sock puppet of indef-blocked User:OGBranniff. He's socked before recently, so this behavior isn't new. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OGBranniff. Quale (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Hello. I appear to have registered this account and nominated this article for deletion at precisely the wrong time as it obviously looks suspicious. How would you like me to prove that I am not who you think I am? Mendoza2909 (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This nomination is getting a bit sinister! A closer inspection of the nominator has recently revealed some suspicious activity. Not only is he a known sock-puppeteer, but some of his reasons for deletion resemble a smear campaign! I don't know what this user has against Lalic, who just seems to be an honest chess person working up the ladder. It is obvious that the article doesn't claim him to be a prodigy; what makes him notable is the breadth of his contribution to the game: playing, coaching, writing, lecturing, etc. Many International and Grand masters cannot boast such an impact on English chess, especially at such a young age. Why delete the page when in a couple of years he will be titled anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.2.25 (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are very weak "Keep" arguments. And I supposed the opposite of a "smear campaign" is a promotional one. p.s. I don't care if the Devil himself or herself was the nominator, this article merits removal. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in strongest possible terms. Hello. This article is obviously nothing more than a "puff piece" manufactured by pro-Slavic partisans in the British chess world. The subject's chess rating hardly rates him mention in his local Church Easter newsletter, much less on Wikipedia. And yes, his mother may be a "Woman's Grandmaster," whatever that is, but that hardly makes him notable on his own. Furthermore, his "contributions" to some chess publications merit no more notice than the "Letters from Readers" submissions in Boys Life magazine circa 1972. Those "arguing" keep here are regurgitating nothing more than pabulum. Thank you. Runsledale (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey OGB! (This isn't obvious? By intent or incompetence, that is what I long to know ...) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi! How are you, Ihardly? More of the latter, however, I have no idea who this "Mendoza" fellow is, or why he is trying so hard to imitate Wiki_brah. In any case, have a good day. Thank you. Runsledale Bang some sluts! 01:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey OGB! (This isn't obvious? By intent or incompetence, that is what I long to know ...) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Runsledale is another sock of indef-banned user OGBranniff and block-evading sock Mendoza2909 (the nominator); again see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OGBranniff. Quale (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Runsledale has been blocked. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sasata. "Bang some sluts!"—he had to let us know. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect into Combat Zone (studio). Looks like this is a consensus solution: nobody insists that the article should be deleted (rather than merged), and the arguments that no notability according to WP:CORP and WP:GNG has been demonstrated, was not counteracted convincingly. The info would be kept, and the redirect would make the info functional.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Filly Films
- Filly Films (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 porn company, of fairly recent establishment. Appears to fail WP:ORG guideline, lacking of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Cavarrone (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone (talk) 08:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Cavarrone (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, received recognition with nominations as candidates for multiple different awards. — Cirt (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no rule in our guidelines saying that a company that received some award nominations is inherenty notable. The only relevant guidelines here are WP:CORP and WP:GNG, and pornographic companies are not exempt from them just because American adult industry is used to have awards with dozens of categories and hundreds of nominations. Cavarrone (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How about a merge with the apparent parent company Combat Zone (studio) instead of just deleting all the info from this page? Just a suggestion... Guy1890 (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Those industry award nominations aren't really examples of outside coverage. Ducknish (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All these nominations show is that the company has taken out ads with the "awardgiving" organization. The only "article" cited about the company is a press release. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree with Guy1890 (talk · contribs), above. If the information from this page is to be lost, please Merge with page Combat Zone (studio) and retain this page as a Redirect. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no prejudice against a merging, but it is acceptable only if the link with Combat Zone (studio) is clarified. The "apparent parent company" connection needs to be documented. Cavarrone (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The two companies (Filly Films & Combat Zone (studio)) were started and are owned by the same guy (Dion Giarrusso). All of the films generated by Filly Films are distributed exclusively by Combat Films [18]. The two companies in question are even located at the exact same address in Chatsworth, CA (porn valley) [19]. I don't see what the issue would be here with a potential merge. Guy1890 (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Significant recognition. LenaLeonard (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this opinion does not address the concerns. A company is defined as notable by our guidelines only if it received significant, non routine coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I've found only several press release, if you want this article kept please provide us such coverage. Cavarrone (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nom - check of news source indicate that there is no independent sources with sufficient neutral information to expand this article per WP:V. What little info there is - is puffery (i.e. opinion) and not facts BO | Talk 17:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Combat Zone (studio), agree that the page doesn't meet stand alone notability but can preserve the info in the page of the parent company. J04n(talk page) 00:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Darkwind (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sudan Relief Fund
- Sudan Relief Fund (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'm unable to find good sources for this NGO. Dejakh~talk!•did! 11:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Two references and an External link to an effectiveness assessment now added to the article. AllyD (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Every one of the references suffers from one or more of the following problems: not an independent source; only mentions the subject in passing; does not mention the subject at all. My own searches have failed to turn up anything better. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 17:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simple Declarative Language
- Simple Declarative Language (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 evidence of notability through extensive coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. A Google Scholar search for 'sdl "simple declarative language"' returns about a dozen hits, but most of these seem to be for other languages of the same name, and those that are for this particular SDL merely cite it rather than discuss it in detail. Psychonaut (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on the other Talk page (I really don't understand how these weird "discussion" pages on Wikipedia are supposed to work), SDL can hardly be considered non-notable considering that it's used by such high-profile companies/projects as Oracle, Bank of America, JTest Framework, and Swing. Remember that buzz (and especially searching exclusively in "Scholar" circles for buzz) is not the same thing as notability. Nitrode (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't keep articles on software packages on the basis of their buzz and popularity, nor on whether or not large companies use them; all that matters is establishing notability, as we define it, through evidence of extensive coverage in reliable sources. If you are aware of such sources for this software, please list them here or add them to the article. We don't maintain articles which can't be sourced in this manner. Psychonaut (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was unable to find any secondary sources for this topic. There are two articles on SDL at TechHui, but these are blogs by an author associated with the company that sponsors this data serialization format. There is a mention at O'Reiily, but this was just a short paragraph and not in depth. There are several language bindings/libraries for the format for Ruby, .Net and Java/Swing, but these are all sponsored by the company that sponsors this data format. That SDL exists and that the format is as the article claims is verifiable in the primary sources, but the topic does not meet notability standards either for general notability WP:GNG or software notability WP:NSOFT. SDL is worth a mention at Serialization#Serialization formats, per WP:PRESERVE. But unless secondary sources are found, the article cannot stand. --Mark viking (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There really is no solid information out there for SDL; the only thing you can find is mostly buzz. I was only able to find a few (3 or 4) books specifically on the subject and not just referenced as part of a known programming language (C++, .NET, etc.). I am with Mark on this one, this does not meet notability standards to remain. --Karverstudio (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, did you say you were able to find three or four books specifically on SDL? If so, then it should easily pass our notability requirements. Could you list the books here or in the article? —Psychonaut (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I will happily change my recommendation if there are such sources. We need to be a little careful, however, because SDL is an overloaded acronym. There is a much more popular SDL in the form of Simple DirectMedia Layer and there are books written on this, e.g., the list at the SDL wiki. But I haven't seen any books for the simple declarative language. --Mark viking (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 17:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Appium
- Appium (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)
Cannot find reliable sources to support notability Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sources that may support notability: [A blog post from a company that hosts Appium as a cloud service] [News coverage mentioning another company hosting Appium as a cloud service] [A presentation featuring Appium at PyCon] [Another blog post about Appium (not by an Appium creator)] [A presentation on Appium (also not by an Appium creator)] Sahazel (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable software article with no RS references - blogs and presentations do not establish notability, and 'cloud-computing-today.com' is a blog, not 'news coverage'; created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Same story in Dr. Dobbs], in case that counts as an RS reference. 70.36.236.168 (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I think this is just too new. I like the idea, but it needs to establish a bit more. Once that's done, we can bring this back, yesno? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 possibility of userfication for the purposes of a merge. SpinningSpark 00:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gerard Sundberg
- Gerard Sundberg (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 reliable sources, and fails WP:MUSIC. Declined PROD pbp 00:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like doing this part, but I gotta go delete on this one. Closest I can see is WP:MUSIC #5, but CD Baby is not one such indy label - and beyond this, there's nothing else to work with that I can find. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dennis - I found an album Sundberg has on the Telarc label, hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.96.146 (talk • contribs)
- Delete - I cannot find sufficient reliable sources about him -- Foetusized (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteComment - I wish people would not nominate pages like this one. It was factually accurate, hurt nothing by existing, and was valid encyclopedic content. Once challenged at AfD, it becomes a search for multiple substantial independently published sources — which will end in GNG failure, deletion, and loss of nomination about this music professor and recording artist. No one here, least of all the nominator, should be proud of themselves over this outcome, which is a failure of the AfD system. Carrite (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - Some articles start small with limited information. Let's give it some time for other people to find the article and contribute what they know about Sundberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.96.146 (talk • contribs) — 69.211.96.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- This is best left in the hands of the article creators. Frankly, if you don't fix it, who will? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. I found a lot of local press stories announcing concerts with him, but little to no in-depth coverage (such as reviews of those concerts) that would pass WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I am the article's creator. I have met Sundberg personally and he is definitely a notable musician and academic. At present, I am having difficulty locating sources in digital form (though I have some in print - newspaper clippings and so forth). I would appreciate some more time to conduct my research. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erru il 1988 (talk • contribs)
- Erru il 1988, this needs to be proven per our guidelines. Also, you have a week from the start of the AFD. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, you should read this. It's not a policy, more a true guideline, but this will tell you how to deal with this particular issue. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. SalHamton (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncertain I think this is borderline. Wheaton is a very respectable school, and if they made him a full professor I would trust their judgement. But Erru, there is no need at all for sources to be online; the article says he was a soloist in some performances that might have been reviewed, and it's those reviews that would make the case for notability . ( unsigned: DGG)
- Trust Wheaton's judgment on what? Are they in the business of writing encyclopedia articles on their faculty? 66.108.176.187 (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think DGG means trust their judgment on notability and productivity. We do this all the time: we trust Pulitzer Prize boards, Major paper's obits, etc. to have a grasp of the notability of the subjects. We trust the judgment of majors schools (and Wheaton is one when it comes to music) in awarding tenure and especially the full professorship to notable researchers, performers, etc. Sometimes they get things wrong, so we never completely defer, but the bar (at least for me) is lower at that point. It is why we defer completely in the case of named chairs, distinguished professors, etc. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Trust Wheaton's judgment on what? Are they in the business of writing encyclopedia articles on their faculty? 66.108.176.187 (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is no real claim of notability and the article is not supported by a single WP:RS, but rather only personal webpages and websites selling recordings. Agricola44 (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep, or at least Relist Notability is impossible to prove or even define, but it seems clear that he was significant in the history of the Wheaton College Men's Glee Club. To be fair, that august Club's article is also dinged for questionable notability, but in my opinion any organization that lasts for 100 years is notable enough for a wikipedia article. I say, give Erru more time to prove significance. Listmeister (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are well-established conventions for assessing notability, one of the most important of which is that the subject must have been "noted" by reliable sources, like citations to their work, secondary articles about them, etc. Being associated with a club is not notable per se, nor is notability associated with being in existence for a certain length of time. Sources are what are needed – many eyes have looked, but none have found. Agricola44 (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Neutral, leaning Weak Delete by both WP:PROF and CREATIVE. A full professor of voice at a strong college music program is usually enough for a Keep (as the "Uncertain" voter (DGG) notes), but I could not find sufficient documentation of a performing or recording career -- the Telac recording (a major label) would be enough if he were a soloist or part of a smaller group, but one of 10 or more singers on a 3 minute piece is not enough. The other two recordings, where he is the main or featured performer are not of sufficient notability to affect the outcome. Given the academic position, it wouldn't take much more to be found to push him to the Keep camp, but I just don't see it. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Wheaton College Men's Glee Club, seems a shame to lose the information on the page. J04n(talk page) 00:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete opinions are clearly more convincing, particularly in light of WP:BLP - poorly sourced articles about living people are to be avoided. Can be userfied or incubated at will. Sandstein 18:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gina Bramhill
- Gina Bramhill (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 the subject of substantial coverage by reliable sources (WP:GNG, WP:BASIC). I've found mostly passing mention. Nor does she pass under WP:NACTOR on the basis of her minor appearances: 6 of 37 episodes of Being Human, and 6 of 8040 of Coronation Street. Her appearances in other contexts are decidedly insignificant. JFHJr (㊟) 22:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Bit-parts in 14 episodes of 4 soaps does not constitute notability, not (apparently) minor parts in films. Being an actor is not sufficient to make a person notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Actress meets WP:ENT. She appeared in six of the eight episodes of the Being Human season she was signed up for and was a major focus of the story arc of that season. I hardly consider that a 'bit-part.' Silver Buizel (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. I'm not entirely sure that eight episodes of an established show is enough, if she only appeared in it and wasn't a billed star. She seems pretty new. If Frontier gets past pilot, then I'd say keep, for sure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:40, 1 April 2013 (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)
- (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)
- (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)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Comment: This new article is only two weeks old, and is almost worth keeping per WP:HOTTIE. It is rare that any artricle starts out perfect, and in fact perfection is not required. In building an encyclopedia we are allowed (even encouraged) to have start and stub class articles that may be expanded and improved over time and through regular editing. What we have here is an actress only recently joining the club, and as stubby as the article is, we can verify her significant-to-plot-and-story roles as Araminty Finch in Mid Life Christmas (2009), as Venus in Propane (2009), as Judi Cale in Red Lights, as Gemma in 3 episodes of Without You, as Jodie Woodward in 4 episopes of Coronation Street, as Emily in The Frontier (2012), as Bella in Lotus Eaters, as in 6 episode of Being Human, and others seen in the article, and verifiable. Note: That some of her projects do not (yet) have articles is not a cause for deletion, nor an indicator of non-notability. More a reason to create new articles on those topics. While Bramhill is beginning to push at the intent of WP:ENT, she has so-far managed to keep a low media profile (bless her). As she is now gaining attention, perhaps best we either incubate this or userfy it (without prejudice) to its author for continued work. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She's 23, and her career is gaining momentum. We'd probably have to create an article about her soon anyway, and once deleted, it's fairly difficult to resurrect. If she goes nowhere, re-nominate for deletion. Listmeister (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like you're admitting it's WP:TOOSOON. Your comment also sounds like WP:ATA#CRYSTAL and maybe WP:PLEASEDONT. Do you have a notability-based or policy-based reason for keeping? JFHJr (㊟) 18:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading my statement, I think I misrepresented my position. My intent was not WP:CRYSTAL. I'm saying it's a borderline call on the "Notable enough" question, so, I'm saying let her potential push the decision in her favor.Listmeister (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate WP:TOOSOON at this point. J04n(talk page) 01:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - speedy deleted by Drmies. (Non-admin close) Stalwart111 05:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Force Start Comedy
- Force Start Comedy (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 subject seems to fail WP:ENT - very new group without significant coverage in 3rd party sources; haven't played to large crowds or demonstrated a significant following. Slashme (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article states that they are new and amateurs and do local shows. Checked their links, announcements for local shows. Per WP:BASIC. --Ben Ben (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. They're not notable at this point and there's nothing to say they are. =( --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.