Why do you put something in both the US and Massachusetts. Again why don't people read this page. |
|||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line --> |
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Carters}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Carters}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeffrey_Grossman}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mosquito_Productions}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mosquito_Productions}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TVD_Universe}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TVD_Universe}} |
Revision as of 16:15, 8 July 2018
- This is a high level category for deletion sorting. It is strongly recommended you do not add discussions directly to it. Instead, please add them to a more specific category, such as a state and/or relevant subject area. Please review the list of available deletion categories.
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to United States of America. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|United States of America|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to United States of America. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Americas.
watch |
General
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The Carters
- The Carters (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)
Contains no content that can't be included / isn't already included in Everything Is Love or the artists' respective discography articles. Chase (talk | contributions) 14:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep – As per sources searches, qualifies for a standalone article per meeting WP:GNG and WP:BAND. North America1000 15:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Their songs and album have charted, so they pass WP:BAND. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, passes WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC - #6 (is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians). Has charts, airplay, etc. The editor whose username is Z0 18:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. \\\Septrillion:- ~~~~10Eleventeen 19:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Reminder that NMUSIC and GNG are not hard rules that insist everyone who meets those criteria need articles. The point is that this is an unnecessary content fork, a stub with information that is easily contained – if not already present – in Everything Is Love (the only release by the duo as a collective), Beyoncé, Jay-Z, and their respective discography articles Jay-Z albums discography, Jay-Z singles discography, and Beyoncé discography. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect or Merge into Everything Is Love. If this duo had more albums together, I'd say Keep, but they've only had one album and single so far and there collaborations can be mentioned in the retrospective Beyonce and Jay-Z articles. editorEهեইдအ😎 21:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to Everything Is Love this is a blatant content fork of that record and it's too soon for a separate page until Beyoncé and Jay-Z at least release another album under this joint name as pretty much everything here is already covered there and/or the artists' respective discography pages. Nothing of value would be lost. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Everything Is Love was credited to "The Carters," not "Beyoncé and Jay-Z." This separates this article from The Throne (group), which was redirected to Watch The Throne because that album was credited to "Jay-Z and Kanye West." Newslinger (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Wikipedia wil be the laughingstock of social media if we delete this. 01:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)
- Keep Meets the criteria of both WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Snowycats (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep because subject easily meets WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 20:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Mosquito Productions
- Mosquito Productions (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 script clearance company, citing no reliable source coverage to get it over WP:GNG. As always, every company is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- it has to have enough reliable source coverage about it in media to get over GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. But there's no referencing being cited here at all, and the article isn't actually even trying for any notability claim stronger or more compelling than "it exists". Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Listcruft and promotionalism. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. Agreed, this does not meet WP:NCORP. = paul2520 (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. After looking at this more closely, one only person wants to keep this, and they have 145 edits, most of which about this topic. Sandstein 16:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
TVD Universe
- TVD Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG is totally unsourced and is not mentioned in any of the bluekinks on the page. Draftified but recreated without improvement Dom from Paris (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment just realised that TVD is the vampire diaries so at best this should be redirected to the series page. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to The Vampire Diaries. However, article is currently misnamed, so it should possibly be moved to The Vampire Diaries Universe first, and then converted to a redirect. But subject is not independently notable, and I'm not sure there's a WP:RS that's ever used this term. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment This page was created to fulfil the requirement of an individual page for the fictional Universe of The Vampire Diaries. Such pages already exist on Wikipedia such as that of Arrowverse which is separate from the page of the original series Arrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SameeNagi (talk • contribs) 18:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment The Vampire Diaries Universe is popularly known as "TVD Universe" therefore, the name of the page is so. Even the creator/producer of the show Julie Plec started referring to the universe as the "TVD Universe" several times after the fans created this name.
- Comment The show has expanded to a universe of 4 series (3 TV Series and 1 Webseries) as well as a list of bestselling novels and comic series by DC Comics. Clearly, the universe deserves a separate wikipedia page just like Arrowverse of Arrow. Kindly consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SameeNagi (talk • contribs) 19:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Multiple (rebuttal) points here. First, this is a WP:OSE argument. Second, use of "Arrowverse" has actually made that article controversial. However, there are actually Reliable sources that use the term "Arrowverse" (check that article's references...), so it is both 1) not-WP:OR (at least, not entirely), and 2) notable in its own right as outside sources have used the term. In this case, AFAIK, there are no secondary sources that are devoted to (or, indeed, have ever really talked about) "The Vampire Diaries Universe" (on television) as a "thing"... IOW, the subject is non-notable, and does not merit an article of its own. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: My search in Google News shows that some sources do use the phrase "TVD Universe". I am not sure if it is enough to prove notability, but just wanted to add this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Of those, the only one that's worth anything is the Variety one, and they put "TVD" in quotes (literally), and it's a incidental mention. (A lot of the rest of those are coming from comments sections, which don't count.) Like I said, even that "Arrowverse" article is not uncontroversial. But, here, we don't have even one article dedicated to the topic. Without that, I think this is not notable. This is basically a WP:Neologism AFAIAC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Understandable; just wanted to raise it to your attention.
I have no vote either way on this.Aoba47 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Since I have contributed to the discussion, I should cast a vote out of respect. I vote delete as I do not believe there is enough substantial coverage on this particular concept. Multiple shows exist within the same timeline does not make the universe inherently notable (I can think of several other universes). More sources are needed to argue for notability (just in my opinion). I am honestly leaning toward delete as I do not know if this is really a viable search term. Aoba47 (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Understandable; just wanted to raise it to your attention.
- Of those, the only one that's worth anything is the Variety one, and they put "TVD" in quotes (literally), and it's a incidental mention. (A lot of the rest of those are coming from comments sections, which don't count.) Like I said, even that "Arrowverse" article is not uncontroversial. But, here, we don't have even one article dedicated to the topic. Without that, I think this is not notable. This is basically a WP:Neologism AFAIAC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Please read the newly added information on the page. I've worked really hard on it. It includes references too in order to prove authenticity to you. However, it must be noted that the page requires more work. So, patience is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SameeNagi (talk • contribs) 20:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Please read the Creator/Producer Julie Plec's interview in this link: https://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/the-vampire-diaries-series-finale_us_58bdd9cbe4b033be1467bb14 and search for "TVDU" using 'find' in browser to save time. I hope this makes it notable. Moreover, in one of the above comments, a user provided another link of google news to prove notability. Please consider both these sources which in turn provide thousands of sources that prove TVD Universe's notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SameeNagi (talk • contribs) 20:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: @Domdeparis: Wikipedia is a non-profit organisation which strives to provide easy access to information. As Wikipedia contributors, it is our mission that the aforementioned vision of the organisation remains intact. Moreover, we must work towards making the already available information clearer and more understandable so that every user/visitor can make the most of every piece of information provided by us. Knowledge is a gift and lack of notability must never limit the expansion of that knowledge. A separate wikipedia page for TVDU (and even for Arrowverse which is now being called controversial) acts as a "compiled" source to understand this vast fictional universe. With the availability of this page/source, a reader can get hands-on information about this particular subject without having to read 4-5 pages individually. Sometimes it is not merely about "notability," it is more about well-compiled and easy-to-access knowledge and that's what makes Wikipedia special. With this I close my argument to keep this page (as well as that of Arrowverse) up and running. Thank you for your consideration. Please approve both these pages and prevent deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SameeNagi (talk • contribs) 12:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete — beyond the problematic nature of rushing to label any program that begets another program or film, etc. a "universe" (which is primarily a marketing tactic or the language of an over-enthused fandom), that term has rarely if ever been applied to The Vampire Diaries. It's a TV program, with one spin-off, and that spin-off is getting a spin-off. The fact RS don't talk about the Happy Days "universe" even though that series had multiple spin-offs should indicate something: "universe" is a more often than not a term used by some small segment of a fandom. As IJBall pointed out, even the concept of the "Arrowverse" is a controversial notion, and that is certainly more frequently used and widely known than any mention of TVD belonging to a "shared universe". Accessing information on the series that relate to TVD can be done through categories, lists, inboboxes, navboxes, and good old-fashioned links. The notion that somehow the project is lesser because there isn't an overarching article that presents on all connected series in a "well-compiled" fashion is ridiculous. Wikipedia is not Wikia, and is definitely not indiscriminate. We don't put together articles just because we can and we don't put together certain types of articles just because other places have articles of that type or format. And the existence of the "Arrowverse" article and the "MCU" article doesn't mean it's appropriate to create similar articles for every collection of linked series... again as previously mentioned, that's a WP:OTHER argument. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Richard Laymon. Content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 07:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
One Rainy Night
- One Rainy Night (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, unreferenced book from the 1990s. There doesn't seem to be any sources talking about the book other than some blog or WordPress sites. aNode (discuss) 03:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to Richard Laymon as plausible search term if someone is looking for this book - if the title hasn't been disambiguated by now, I'll assume it's not going to be more plausible as a redirect elsewhere. As it stands on its own, a quick source check doesn't seem to indicate much to establish notability independent of the author. Red Phoenix talk 04:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge with and redirect to Richard Laymon - this article is only three lines and three sentences long, and a merge should not prove too difficult. Vorbee (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge with and redirect to Richard Laymon - agree with others for merge and redirect. --Jaldous1 (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree that deletion of this article would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R because the page could be merged and redirected to the author. However, I should point out that there are sources, and these need to actually be examined, as they might establish notability. Simply searching for the name of the book is not much good, because that is not how search engines work. A "quick check" is a complete waste of time. Even this takes several pages of results to yield this. Try instead searches like: [1] [2] [3] [4] etc. Some of those results look like book reviews. James500 (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- James500, I parsed the links you posted. When I did a "quick check", I checked for books as well and everything in the WP:BEFORE toolbox, including HighBeam Research, which has an article on Laymon with one paragraph about the book and that's it. What you have in the books links are some brief mentions of One Rainy Night for its concepts, but about a paragraph in two books and just a passing mention in another. There's not a book review actually there, and passing mentions aren't enough to establish notability of the work. If there are book reviews, that's good, but we can't just assume there might be as a hypothetical. I need to see them, or my opinion to redirect the article stands. Red Phoenix talk 20:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- The passage in Gauntlet appears to be a (short) book review. Books Magazine [5] and Hispanic Books Bulletin [6] certainly both contain book reviews. NBOOK doesn't require more than two sources and it specifically states that two normal book reviews (or something similar) suffice. James500 (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- James500, I parsed the links you posted. When I did a "quick check", I checked for books as well and everything in the WP:BEFORE toolbox, including HighBeam Research, which has an article on Laymon with one paragraph about the book and that's it. What you have in the books links are some brief mentions of One Rainy Night for its concepts, but about a paragraph in two books and just a passing mention in another. There's not a book review actually there, and passing mentions aren't enough to establish notability of the work. If there are book reviews, that's good, but we can't just assume there might be as a hypothetical. I need to see them, or my opinion to redirect the article stands. Red Phoenix talk 20:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Enigmamsg 03:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Red Shoes (Choctaw chief)
- Red Shoes (Choctaw chief) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
DELETE. The article on Red Shoes, the Choctaw chief of the 1740's, is so full of unsubstantiated opinions that it reads like a junior high school essay. The article is poorly sourced, and has very few actual facts surrounding the subject. Considering that no one has added to its text in six years it seems fair to say few, if any, would miss this article.Catherinejarvis (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Procedural Note This AfD nomination was missing its template, and was not trancluded in the daily listings. I have added the template and listed it. Please consider the time of this comment as the start time for closing purposes. Monty845 02:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Article needs some cleanup but Red Shoes is definitely notable. See Encyclopedia of Alabama ("Renowned Choctaw war leader Red Shoes, who hailed from the western division, opened trade with British fur traders based in South Carolina in the 1740s and ignited the Choctaw Civil War when he killed some French traders."[7]), American National Biography Online[8], or the South Carolina Gazette of January 4, 1739. - Station1 (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - meets WP:ANYBIO for being "part of the enduring historical record" Jmertel23 (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Per my BEFORE there are multiple high grade sources covering this individual. Deletion is not cleanup.Icewhiz (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep The article needs to focus more on sources, needs a better intro to show why he is actually notable, and a general rewrite, but Red Shoes is clearly notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. His notability is clearly established. And that's what AfD is here to determine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Close, but consensus seems to be that the reviews just aren't enough. ansh666 07:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Merlin and the Book of Beasts
- Merlin and the Book of Beasts (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 "TV Movie". The first few pages of google hits is all routine stuff, no notable reviews or anything else which might confer notability. Very little in the actual article, just a plot synopsis and a cast list. No references at all, just an external link to the IMDB entry. Neiltonks (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 14:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 14:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep has reviews in reliable sources such as a Dutch film magazine and DVD Talk as shown here with these links passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - no substantial RS here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - can't find coverage of the film apart from listing sites and some reviews from non-notable critics [9][10], therefore fails WP:NFILM. Hzh (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. This isn't the strongest keep, however I think that there's just enough here to just barely push it over the ledge. As far as I know, Something Awful's reviews have usually been seen as a reliable source on here since they're so limited - the site doesn't allow just anyone on the site to post a review ala IMDb, for example. It looks like there was a Radio Times review - there's a star rating and they typically do written reviews as well, although this seems to be missing from the page. There was also a review from the OK Gazette and DVD Talk. Not the strongest, but it looks like it does pass barely. ReaderofthePack (。◕‿◕。) 18:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Whatever the Radio Times review [11] may be, it does not qualify under WP:NFO that requires
full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics
. Similarly all the others found also fail as they are not by nationally-known critics. Hzh (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)- Nationally known tends to change depending on the type of film. DVD Talk is a pretty well known and respected outlet and as stated before, Something Awful has typically been seen as a known review outlet. The OK Gazette may not be as big as say, the New York Times, but it is something that's relatively well known - we use it for sourcing in general, for example. I'm not sure why a news article from them on a topic would be a reliable source while a film review from them would not. As far as reviews not being enough to establish notability, I'm not sure if notability standards have changed that much in the year or so I've been away from AfD, but they've always been enough in the past. ReaderofthePack (。◕‿◕。) 13:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Whatever the Radio Times review [11] may be, it does not qualify under WP:NFO that requires
- Delete – you need more than just reviews to show that a TV program is notable. And just reports on "production" info doesn't cut it either. Ideally, you have both reviews and "production coverage", and possibly other types of reporting/coverage beyond that. This one is just an overwritten 'Plot' section, with a few reviews tacked on. There needs to be more than this to be considered "notable". (In general, many TV movies do not meet the requirements of notability for standalone articles.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:NFILM. -The Gnome (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Enigmamsg 05:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
List of NCAA schools with the most Division I national championships
- List of NCAA schools with the most Division I national championships (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 list of original research is a POV fork of List of NCAA schools with the most NCAA Division I championships. OCNative (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: Wow, I'm very surprising this has been nominated for deletion. Floored quite honestly. By deleting this list, we will be losing a significant amount of notable information. We would be losing information on the history of college football championships and the history of AIAW women's championahip before women's sports fell under the NCAA. Multiple lists with this same notable information would need to be created, which defeats the purpose of deleting this list. You would have to guess which teams won the before mentioned national championships and try to piece this information together instead of having it in one place. In addition, this list is well-sourced. This list is a history of college sports national championships that needs to be kept. spatms (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Full disclosure, I created this page, though I've only made one edit since 2014. I'm very surprised about this nomination. As the page states, it fulfills the need for a compilation that includes (1) men's college champions before the NCAA began sponsoring championships in the 1930s, (2) women's college champions before the NCAA recognized them in 1982, and (3) sports that have never opted for NCAA championships, including the two oldest and perhaps most notable – college football and men's rowing. The page is kept up to date, very well-sourced, and indeed cross-references many other wikipedia pages, such as Intercollegiate sports team champions#Rowing and College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS, which are themselves no more or less original research than this page. (As a side point, the latter page is probably misnamed because it includes pre-NCAA champions and current FCS teams.) As the creator of the page, I can also speak to the "POV fork" allegation that is the stated basis for the nomination, by saying that there was no disagreement of any sort, at any time, about the content of List of NCAA schools with the most NCAA Division I championships. It's an odd basis for nomination – I, as someone with an interest in history, merely saw a historic gap to be filled on wikipedia about championships outside the scope of that article. —Kgwo1972 (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- It is absolutely misnamed by using NCAA in the title along with championships. This should be the subheading of the True NCAA title list not the other way around. Complete bullshit. 2600:1700:1110:14F0:E559:4163:4F2B:F540 (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: I am extremely surprised to see this page nominated for deletion. If anyone thinks it is a duplicate of another article, they are sadly mistaken. This list is very well sourced with numerous citations. It is kept up-to-date. ( disclosure: I am active in keeping it up-to-date.) The scope of the list is much broader than just a list of NCAA title winners. This list, as others have mentioned above, includes much information about pre-NCAA winners, women' s sports winners, and non-NCAA sports winners. For this and all the reasons mentioned by others above, this article should be kept. Jeff in CA (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly notable subject. I'm not sure what nom means by "POV fork." And the POV of the article is a content dispute anyway. Smartyllama (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
The Domestic Crusaders
- The Domestic Crusaders (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)
It is questonable if this play is notable enough. The author is not notable for his own wiki-page; nor is the director. The Plot (With a keen sense of timing...) and the Reviews-section read like a part of an advertisement. The home-page is down. Sourcing is present, but only the New York Times-article can be seen as a "reliable source that is independent of the subject." I do not believe this is sufficient to meet WP:GNG, but I can be wrong. Jeff5102 (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 16:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Was easily able to find coverage of this play from Newsweek, McSweeney's, Huffington Post, and other reliable sources. The article deserves a rewrite to be less promotional, but the subject appears to be notable. --RL0919 (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Given the provision of sources, a 3rd relisting for additional discussion seems in order
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per RL0919; those references plus the existing ones are (just) enough for GNG. I've removed a bunch of the promo material. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
LasGiiDi
- LasGiiDi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NMUSIC Seraphim System (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 22:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 22:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: A few references here and there, but the content of those references doesn't signify meeting NMUSIC, and for GNG, the references themselves are either not significant or sufficient enough to meet my high bar for 21st century Nigerian musicians. Besides, I am of the opinion that NMUSIC is the safest way of accessing Nigerian musicians in this internet era, to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. HandsomeBoy (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Article has been deleted by Fastily per WP:G7 on behalf of the article creator Lalalucy123. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 17:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Ground O.N.E
- Ground O.N.E (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 only significant coverage I could find for this organization was the links from The Renewal Project, which are already used as sources. Even then, the sources aren't significant, and even seem to be rather promotional in tone. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Ground ONE has its own webpage (https://www.ground-one.org/). While I understand that that cannot be used in its article, it shows that there are links about this organization outside the Renewal Progress which were not cited. Also, please note, that both articles referenced were meant to explain the significance of the organization as opposed to promoting it. "5 Ways Students Can Become Civic Leaders" gives insight into the history of Ground ONE and encourages other youth to do similar projects, it does not directly promote Ground ONE for any monetary or publicity gain. The second article is simply a quote from one of the organization's founders in a listing of other impactful organizations. Its main focus is listing successful groups as opposed to directly promoting them. I fully understand your concerns and I will add a notice asking for the article to be revamped as soon as possible and I would appreciate it if the article is not deleted just yet. Also, I've just reviewed the list of Wikipedia policies and I can't find which polices that my article has violated. The Renewal Project is run by Atlantic Media,one of the largest media companies in the US (it also controls The Atlantic Monthly, a popular American magazine). How are my sources not significant? Lalalucy123 tccsdnew 13:44, 30 June 2018 (EST)
- You may need to read WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORP. Essentially, while The Renewal Project links are a good start, it's still only one source. Ideally, we'd need several. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Since the Renewal Project is an independent, online secondary media source, I believe that the the article's topic is inherently notable according to WP:CORP. Regarding your first rules, it is true that there isn't a whole lot of literature on Ground ONE, but that doesn't directly break the rules you showed me. None of the article's notability is derived from other wikipedia articles or the article's content itself. The article isn't ideal(I have already classified it as a stub), but I don't believe that it is objectively illegal according to Wikipedia rules. Also, the publisher Rowman and Littlefield (which has no non-business connection to me or Ground ONE) will be publishing a book on civic engagement shortly, which includes Ground ONE. I would be happy to contact them for additional reference material in the coming weeks or months. Can I please be granted a stay of deletion until then? I have also added the notice to my article asking for improvement from other Wikipedians. Also, just curious, when will this discussion continue? Lalalucy123 tccsdnew 17:16, 6 July 2018 (EST)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I have a question. Will my comments in defense of my article still be visible to those in the discussion after it was relisted? Also, I'm sorry for deleting the deletion notice from my article; I was unaware of the Wikipedia policy regarding deletion discussions. Lalalucy123 tccsdnew 20:16, 8 July 2018 (EST)
- Yes, your comments are still visible. Newslinger (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:ORG due to lack of coverage from a reliable secondary source. According to their site, The Renewal Project is an blog created by Allstate and Atlantic57 (a public relations firm), not a publication with a proper editorial process. Newslinger (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, while The Renewal Project is a collaboration between Allstate and Atlantic Media Strategies(a.k.a Atlantic57), Atlantic57 is not a public relations firm. It is, according to one of its own sites, the consulting and creative division of The Atlantic, which is most definitely a publication with proper editorial process. Therefore, isn't The Renewal Project effectively an affiliate ofThe Atlantic? Link to aforementioned site: https://www.theatlantic.com/press-releases/archive/2016/06/introducing-the-renewal-project-a-social-newsroom-at-americas-intersection-of-innovation-community-and-social-good/486371/ (please note the explicit text in the article where it says that the Renewal Project is the result of a definite partnership with The Atlantic(not just Atlantic57), which is once again a very well known publication and a reliable secondary source) Lalalucy123 tccsdnew 19:59,12 July 2018 (EST)
- For reference, here's Atlantic57's case study for The Renewal Project. I don't think that two articles from The Renewal Project would satisfy WP:ORGCRIT ("multiple reliable sources"), but perhaps others can offer a second opinion. Newslinger (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
As I said in my previous comment(backed up by the cited article), Atlantic 57 is also a direct reflection of The Atlantic publication. They even share some parts of their staff and nearly all of their publication process. The article you posted explains the the Renewal Project helps create articles and explains new initiatives (from an independent 3rd party point of view) and gives them exposure. It doesn't say that Atlantic57 is a public relations firm.Respectfully, I don't see how that goes against Wikipedia policy for source material. Regarding the need for multiple sources, I totally see your point, but it is worth noting that both the articles I referenced have different authors and different content, not to mention different reference material. Can't that count as perhaps not two wholly different sources, but two different source reference points?
Lalalucy123 tccsdnew 01:16,13 July 2018 (EST)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- After reviewing Atlantic 57's case study on The Renewal Project, I'm not changing my delete vote. The case study states that The Renewal Project is "an integrated marketing campaign [...] reinforcing Allstate’s commitment to social good." This source is inherently unreliable, even if Atlantic 57 is branded as a consulting firm instead of a public relations firm. Newslinger (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
That's fine. However, please remember that Atlantic 57 isn't even a firm in the first place. It, according to its own website, (https://www.atlantic57.com/our-story/) is the creative and consulting division of The Atlantic Magazine. Also, I fully comprehend your argument regarding Atlantic 57's Case Study on the Renewal Project. However, the integrated marketing campaign is a very small part of the actual article that you showed this discussion and isn't even mentioned past the first paragraph. Please note that the very case study that you cited also explicitly states that The Renewal Project directly reflects and creates "regular native and underwritten editorial content on The Atlantic." My point here is that Atlantic 57 is essentially The Atlantic Magazine. A bona fide part of a publication stil represents the publication. I won't deny that Atlantic 57 also does marketing, but that is only a very small fraction of everything it does. The specific articles that I used as reference on my Wikipedia article have absolutely no marketing done for Ground ONE. Lalalucy123 tccsdnew 20:16,14 July 2018 (EST)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Newslinger: doesn't pass WP:GNG, and also fails WP:NCORP (if applicable). SportingFlyer talk 06:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I've read both of the documents you've listed and they are identical to what I've already been shown. Can you please explain your position?Lalalucy123 tccsdnew 21:54, 22 July 2018 (EST)
Hello, I've grown tired of debating my article. May I have permission to take it down and close the debate until I have more notable sources? I understand that my sources aren't exactly the most notable and I appreciate everyone who has taken the time to explain that to me. Lalalucy123 tccsdnew 10:57, 25 July 2018 (EST)
- @Lalalucy123: The discussion will close around July 29. If you want to take the article down sooner, you can add the {{Db-g7}} speedy deletion template to the top of the article and an administrator will delete it. Be sure to save any work you want to retain before you mark the article for speedy deletion. — Newslinger talk 12:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I have done this. Thank you for your help. Lalalucy123 tccsdnew 17:47, 26 July 2018 (EST)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Michael Barrier (actor)
- Michael Barrier (actor) (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 actor, according to the article, is "best known for appearances as Lieutenant DeSalle on the original Star Trek series", all three of them. I'm a Star Trek fan, but I drew a blank on DeSalle. DeSalle is not mentioned in any of the three episode articles. Fails WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 10:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. G-searches are turning up nothing useful to establish notability - blogs, user generated sites like IMDb, subject's Star Trek trading cards and a few trivial mentions. CBS527Talk 08:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. I remember him as DeSalle but his brief appearances on ST don't make him notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia does not create articles on bit part actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
FireHollywood
- FireHollywood (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)
- (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)
Insufficient coverage in available sources; does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Source searches under its former and current name are only providing passing mentions. North America1000 10:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. – Lionel(talk) 10:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:NORG \\\Septrillion:- ~~~~10Eleventeen 08:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Sorted by State
Due to overflow, this part has been moved to: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America/sorted by state