Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjun Coomaraswamy. using TW |
one relisted procedure wasn't transcluded properly |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> |
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chantelle Chuah}}<!--Relisted--> |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjun Coomaraswamy}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjun Coomaraswamy}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maile Misajon}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maile Misajon}} |
Revision as of 16:31, 9 April 2012
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chantelle Chuah
- Chantelle Chuah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject is notable only for one verifiable event. Coverage of individual is minimal and not well documented in reliable sources. Does not meet criteria - WP:N WP:BASIC.Differ (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fairly obvious attempt at self-promotion. Entry was created by user Chantelle1984. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.40.204.245 (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Failed beauty contest participant who is now trying to start up a chocolate business. Once had a lifestyle section article written about her. Other refs I found are trivial, non-WP:RS, or (mostly) both. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing notable and it reads like a promo. West Eddy (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arjun Coomaraswamy
- Arjun Coomaraswamy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not seeing notability here. He appears to be just one of a seemingly neverending procession of "up and comers". --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No evidence of notability here whatsoever. -- WikHead (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - The main body text has been reverted due to a copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. He did get coverage here, and that was the material that was copied into the article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Eden's Crush. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 16:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maile Misajon
- Maile Misajon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No notability outside Eden's Crush. Has released one solo album but it was on an indie label and not reviewd by anyone. Fails standalone notability as a singer. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Eden's Crush, as WP:BAND suggests. I can find no evidence of notability for this person independent of the group. Gongshow Talk 19:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect with Eden's Crush per WP:BAND; although her page has some referenced content, she's not done much as a solo artist and therefore should be covered on the band's page. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect – All coverage of her that I'm able to find consists of brief mentions in the context of Eden's Crush, and no coverage of her solo album. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirectt to Eden's Crush. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pahari Ground
- Pahari Ground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A single line stub on a non notable topic with no references at all (also no reliable source online). SMS Talk 15:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS Talk 16:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found nothing that shows that this is anything but a non-notable local park. SL93 (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I think it is no more an article with one line and without references. It is also a name of area around park includes some populated place. Many events take place in it.-- Assassin'S Creed T - E - C - G - 08:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: per WP:HEY, there've been improvements after nomination. Also per WP:FIVE #1 "gazetteer". --lTopGunl (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keepper sources added by User:Assassin's Creed. BusterD (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Comment Even after addition of sources it fails WP:GNG. One source is of a forum, second one where anyone can add an entry for a place, third a police site defining area of jurisdiction, which fails General Notability Guideline. --SMS Talk 12:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm striking through my keep assertion. I'll have to concede I didn't click through each source. Looking at my contribs, I spent less than three minutes considering my assertion, and that's unlike me. I'm clearly distracted today, and so I'm taking a break. I still think that as a specialty encyclopedia, hence a gazetteer (as mentioned above), we should have articles on notable places, but I can't find sufficient sources (other than the many photographs and videos shot on the park) to say this passes GNG. I suspect offline sources exist in Urdu, but I can't presume they do, based on a reasonable search. It's clearly a verifiable place, but not proved notable. Sorry User:Smsarmad for my hasty assertion. BusterD (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 04:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Antinori
- Paul Antinori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable local Florida attorney. The extensive references provided are scans of articles posted on the subject's own website - in many cases, the links are incorrect and result in 404 errors. However, in the references that can be found, Antinori is found to be a run of the mill defense attorney and later state's attorney with little to claim of notability. In later life, he appears to have become something of a gadfly seeking support for his proposal to amend to US Constitution. This article appears to be part of the campaign to give that proposal legitimacy. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Strong case that article's subject is not notable. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As above, no evidence of notability.TheLongTone (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transcension Hypothesis
- Transcension Hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. I can't find any reliable sources on this subject that are independent of John M. Smart's paper, so I don't think that this hypothesis passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Transcension already gets a (generous, in my opinion) one-line mention at Fermi Paradox#They tend to experience a technological singularity. As far as I can tell, Smart's work hasn't gotten the third party attention needed for any further coverage here per WP:UNDUE. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I didn't see that. I'll withdraw my nomination and redirect it there now. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The arguments that there are insufficient sources to support the content are compelling. WP:V is a core policy and brooks no compromise, even for subjects where sources are difficult to find. Sandstein 05:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Five Base Yogas
- Five Base Yogas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Perhaps some of this could be merged into the Yoga article. JoelWhy (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:When I nominate an article for deletion, am I supposed to also "vote"? Or, is it just assumed I'm in favor of the deletion based on my nominating the article? In any case, I'm not sure whether I should waste my time editing the revisions made today (which are full of unsubstantiated claims) or just wait until it's deleted in its entirety.JoelWhy (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Struck delete !vote above from the nominator. The nomination also counts as your vote, and users are only allowed one vote. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The editor is a domain expert working in good faith to improve this article about a non-western culture. Yoga has for most of its history been disseminated oraly and has few written sources. So the sources presented may well be reliable. I am certain that with more encouragemnt notability and good quality can be established. It is the nominator who has not demonstrated good faith here - if he sees problems he should cooperate with the editor and use his editorial skill to point out specific problems WP:RESPTAG to indicating the most glaring ommisions - otherwise how can the editor make a better article? In a case such as this Afd should be the alternative of last resort. BO; talk 11:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|Parlez ici 00:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've not demonstrated good faith? What the hell are you talking about? Aside from a per se violation of WP:AGFC, your comment is patently absurd. I suggested the content be merged with the Yoga article, rather than outright delete, as this didn't seem notable enough to warrant its own page. I placed an extensive list of tags for improving the page based on the original train wreck of page that it started with. I've done a copious amount of editing on the article to improve it and remove the extensive violations of NPOV. So, next time, do a little research before making baseless criticisms.JoelWhy (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment III've looked at the newly added references. None of them appear to be reliable. We don't allow for special pleadings to determine the reliability of references saying that the traditions are 'passed down orally' and therefore we can use random blogs to reference them. If the editors have to resort to random blogs for references, it further highlights that the topic isn't notable. There must be 1,000,000 books, journals, articles, etc. on Yoga[citation needed]. Either someone will find some noteworthy ones discussing "Five Base Yogas" or else it will evidence that it should, in fact, be deleted.
- Rebuttal — thanks for informing me about the WP:AGFC. I reviewed the entire history before making my statement above. I find it ironic that you did not examine the history and sources in detail before launching this diatribe — so please don't claim a higher moral ground.
- Least you have forgotten, you placed the Afd notice before making any suggestions for improvement. You used only article wide notices so offered the other editors no indication where and what the NPOV, or other issues are in this article - nothing in the talk page and no inline citations. On the other habd the original editor has addressed the issue of context, content and has researched additional sources. He may also surprise you if you bother to discuss these problem. AFAIK The publications of books on yoga in the west date from 1960 — oral dissemination is still the main format or transmitting this vulnerable tradition. This certainly has bearing on what would be viewed as a reliable source by Wikipedia. However I will ask my mentor to look into this matter - since he speaks and reads Sanscrit. Merging into Yoga? This isn't the correct forum for that discussion but since you entertain this alternative than I'd suggest that Yoga is already long enough so Five Bases should be in its own article.BO; talk 14:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Yes, I placed the Afd tag a full 4 minutes before tagging it. Oh, what an unjust world we live in...
- I'm doing new page patrols and I don't have time to go line by line through every article noting every single fault. If it's a half-decent page that needs work, I put in the effort. But, for this? I googled "Five Base Yogas", and you know what I found? Next to nothing. Right now, the number 1 hit for this topic on Google is this Wiki page. The first non-Wiki page with this title is a spam page selling pants. After that? NOTHING. It's just pages that have content from this newly created Wiki page. So, why didn't I spend more time discussing this with the author? Because, when you have a page that seems to be so conclusively non-notable, you put an Afd tag, giving the author the opportunity to make improvements, and then you move on.
- It's a bit frustrating to do this and be met with accusations of bad faith, followed with unsupportable arguments that this is an oral tradition, so we shouldn't expect much in the way of reliable sources. Oral dissemination, are you kidding me?! Amazon has more than 4,000 books dealing with yoga (but none mentioning "five base yogas," AFAIK.) Google Scholar has scores of articles discussing Yoga, its history, etc. Articles discussing "five base yogas"? I didn't find a single one.JoelWhy (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I've found no sources for "five base yoga" in google/gbooks or anywhere else. Of the links in the article:
- - [1] - doesn't contain any mention of "five base yoga", although it talks about bases in yoga. (It does however show seven chakras.)
- - [2] - This link shows five things (Life Force, Biomagnetism, Body, Mind, and Sexual Fluids), but these do not match up with the 'five bases' described in the article. Again, there is no mention of 'Five Bases Yoga' in this source.
- - [3] - This link describes five 'sheaths of the mind' (bodily needs, emotional thoughts, function and results of life-force, link with Universal function, realization of Truth and communion with it), but these do not match up with the 'five bases' described in the article. Again, there is no mention of 'Five Bases Yoga' in this source.
- - [4] - This article talks about seven chakras and six elements (Space, Air, Fire, Water, Earth, Mind). This seems to match up with some of what the article is talking about, but still contains no reference to 'Five Bases Yoga'.
- In conclusion, as it currently stands the article has no valid sources and it appears to be WP:OR.--StvFetterly(Edits) 15:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Has it crossed your mind that this editor is not a native speaker of English (looked at his user page)? Perhaps your failure with a google search might have been an indicator or his odd sentence formation. Try searching for '"five elements" yoga'
- Comment - Which editor are you referring to? And what does the editor's country of origin have to do with the lack of valid sources which support the article?--StvFetterly(Edits) 16:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty on "five elements" and yoga. If that's what he meant, than it changes the discussion entirely. (I'm not convinced that this is what he meant, but I certainly am open to the possibility.) But, the fact that you're still trying to make it seem as if I didn't do my due diligence because I didn't realize that "five base yogas" actually means "five elements of yoga" says less about me as an editor and far more about you and you're inability to simply apologize and admit that you're wrong. (Ironic, given that you're apparently studying yoga, a discipline which is supposed to teach enlightenment.)JoelWhy (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the article needs work but it does convey the basic concept of 5 elements being the base of some yoga paths. "The text opens with a description of the absolute dimension of Kunjed Gyalpo, the primordial state of bodhicitta, whence everything manifests: the five elements as the base of samsara and nirvana". The problem in finding references is related to the many different ways of stating the same concept, while also dealing with language & culture issues> Jeepday (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Katniss vs Peeta
- Katniss vs Peeta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't think we need the book's subplots to have their own Wiki page. Plus, this wiki page is a train wreck. JoelWhy (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete: no indication of notability (as independent from the book as a whole) per nom. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Plot-only summary of a work of fiction with no indication of how this subject is independently notable. I might have suggested a redirect to The Hunger Games trilogy but it seems like a stretch to think that this title is a plausible search term. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not encyclopedic, as written it is original research. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect. Already has been redirected without complaint. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 15:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Santoni
- Santoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NN company failing WP:CORP. Unable to find any decent sources to back up any of this info. Toddst1 (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and return to redirect for Santones. I created an article page under this lemma only as a redirect for the Gaulic tribe. The Santoni company does not seem to be in any way notable, and I wouldn't be sorry to see it gone. Trigaranus (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to a dab page. There are people surnamed Santoni in addition to the ancient tribe. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I will boldly redirect it back to Santones. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Then I've created Santoni (surname), and will add a redirect hatnote if this holds up. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zulkifli Abdhir
- Zulkifli Abdhir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This subject may meet the notability criteria; however, it is written like a wanted poster. Wikipedia is not America's Most Wanted and this article would require a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic. Prod removed by article creator. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've rewritten and added references. He's notable as the subject of press coverage over a span of several years[5][6][7][8] --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (Although the article still needs some work.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, tag with advert template and move along. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 01:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment. Only Colapeninsula has provided a "keep" rationale that's grounded in policy. Since this is a BLP, more input would be helpful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the sources present within the article appear to demonstrate notability, thus WP:GNG threshold appears to be met. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brooklyn Salsa Company
- Brooklyn Salsa Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:CORP as far as I can tell - while there has been some coverage in reliable sources, they are either brief mentions, or in local news, neither of which are sufficient to demonstrate notability. Note that a lot of content has been removed recently, for various reasons, and that the original author was a paid editor. SmartSE (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Geoff Who, me? 17:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I could see them becoming more notable in future, but as it stands, I just don't think they have the coverage, though they're starting to approach notability. Delete. 86.** IP (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, WP:NOT, WP:MILL, and WP:ARTSPAM. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and delete the spammy bits Seems notable enough per NYT mentions [9], [10], CBSNews [11] etc. The ad stuff gotta go. Collect (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was boldly redirected to Mirror#Decoration. Nominator and article creator are more or less in agreement that the primary page for the topic is sufficient. Tone was also a concern here; consider discussing avenues for expansion at Talk:Mirror. Non-admin action. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decorative mirrors
- Decorative mirrors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Probably should merge this page into the general Mirror page. Even if we don't, this page's tone is entirely inappropriate. JoelWhy (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Says nothing not in existing article. An essay stating the obvious.TheLongTone (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
American Broadcasting Company logos
- American Broadcasting Company logos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
First AFD was kept due to WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments and nothing else. Second nomination had the article's creator clamoring that sources were available, but outright failing to prove it. Nowhere has it been proven that multiple independent sources have given the logo any attention. The three sources in the article dedicate no more than one or two sentences each, failing the significant part of the whole reliable sources thing. I have looked and cannot find any sources which significantly and independently discuss the logo's history in depth. The fact that Paul Rand designed the circle logo can be moved to ABC's article, but the rest is unsourced, indiscriminate fancruft. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous AFDs also had some of the lamest arguments I've ever seen. "Why is it that some people refuse to see the historical aspect of logos?" is not a reason, nor is "Finding refs and citations for these slogans is something that can be fixed." If you know where sources are, PROVE IT, don't just say they exist. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually I'm against these sorts of articles, but as it stands now there are refs to the NY Times? Are those insufficient? Tarc (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They're trivial as I said, giving only one sentence of information on the logo. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually I'm against these sorts of articles, but as it stands now there are refs to the NY Times? Are those insufficient? Tarc (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The acid test for article splits like this is whether there is critical commentary on the thin-sliced aspect which has been spun out here. What I see here is a changelog (and thinly veiled copyrighted image gallery) with no attempt at showing artistic/marketing considerations behind changes and no critical assessment. "So what?" is a good question to ask in cases like this and I don't think the article answers that. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article is just "ABC had a bunch of other logos before Paul Rand's design stuck forever, and some gloss was added in 2007", but in overly detailed terms where other things like image campaigns and sounders were noted in detail only obsessives care about (which I admit I added alot to, but expected to be finessed over the years, which has not happened at all). Certainly only the most important information about the design belongs in the main article. With the launch of Logopedia getting in all the detail anyone would ever want to know about a ball with three letters in it, this article just isn't as needed as it would've been years ago (though there are some big issues over there like fair use and sourcing that have to be dealt with like they have been here, something I'm not about to deal with myself). Nate • (chatter) 04:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article has references, and there are entire books on the logo's designer Paul Rand: Stephen Heller, Paul Rand, Phaidon, 2000; Derek Birdsall, et al, Paul Rand: Modernist Designer, Center for Art and Visual Culture, UMBC, 2003; Michael Kroeger, Paul Rand: Conversations With Students, Princeton Architectural Press 2008. Clearly sources are available, but they're printed not online. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Another ludicrous TPH nomination like the NBC one. Sources are easy to find such as Television and New Media; Graphic Design, Referenced; Graphic Design: A New History. Warden (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOFIXIT. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Clearly ABC is a notable organization, this is simply an organizational issue, not an AfD issue.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTINHERITED. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:HEREARESOMEOTHERINITIALS.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources illustrated by Colonel Warden, above. Even if there is no desire to keep this encyclopedic material as a standalone article, it could easily be merged in at least two places, the company or an article on TV network logos, so per WP:ATD there is no policy-based reason to delete the material. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge I'm sure there's somewhere we can stick this information, whether it be here or on ABC's page. Canuck89 (talk to me) 07:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are sources covering this just fine, as others have pointed out and linked to. Dream Focus 11:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I believe sufficient sources on this topic exist, from the NY Times piece cited in the articleto the sources identified by Warden to others like this. Gongshow Talk 20:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Colonel Warden et al, above. There's enough sourcing here to justify an article. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I believe that the sources are sufficient enough to support an article on this and the other logos. Tarc (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Boldly redirected since nom also !voted for it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out Out
- Out Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is nothing to disambiguate here. Only the Frost poem is known by this title, and the source of the phrase is clearly discussed and linked to in that article. The Poe use is not really ambiguous with respect to this phrase except, perhaps, as a partial match. ShelfSkewed Talk 13:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Out, Out—, the only thing that has "Out Out" as an exact match. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Out, Out—, the only article using this title. If pointers to the other uses are considered useful, they can be handled with a hatnote.--ShelfSkewed Talk 13:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ShelfSkewed Talk 14:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. By the strength of the arguments, it was closer to keep than delete. Georgia Guy's sanity had no bearing on my decision. ‑Scottywong| express _ 23:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PBS idents
- PBS idents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Somehow, this article has survived four prior AFDs, none of which have helped the fact that it's still an indiscriminate collection of info. Some details are sourced but by and large the article is made up of WP:RS with no critical analysis to suggest why it's actually notable outside of the company it represents. All other prior AFDs have only said "it's useful". WP:IINFO and WP:RS apply — no sources give any significant detail to the logos themselves or critical commentary on them. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside, nom #2 was "keep, it was just AFDed last year", and nom #4 was malformed, so don't let that #5 here scare you. Either way, the other prior AFDs were kept entirely due to WP:SOFIXIT arguments without proving in any fashion that there was a way to fix it. No independent sources were brought forth, nor was notability ever proven; most arguments were just WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would like to know what to do when you feel extremely afraid that an article will be deleted per Afd. I feel extremely afraid that this article will be deleted. (Too afraid that even simply voting to keep will not help.) Any suggestions?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have nothing to say here other than, what the heck are you "afraid" of? WP:NOTTHERAPY. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That the article will be deleted this time. Georgia guy (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's worth getting all tied up over? Really? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The history of prior AFDs is not convincing, as none were well attended or thoroughly discussed. A history of logos (or most any other business attribute) is not an encyclopedic subject apart from the organization it represents, absent a showing that there is something about this particular organization or its particular logos that makes it a distinct subject. With nearly every highly notable subject one could call out a particular aspect of its structure or history (history of IBM plant closure, history of New York Metropolitan Police union negotiating sessions, history of pedestrian fatalities at the intersection of 9th and Main Street) and find enough sources to write an article, even sources that synthesize it all to suggest there is a connection. But there are only a handful of logos or corporate branding histories that have their own articles here: I Love New York, Nike's Swoosh, the Google logo. There must be a thousand US organizations equally as prominent as PBS, each with its own history of logos and branding. Do we want to have separate articles about each of their logos? If not, would we just have some random articles here and there when people care to create them? That's not a good way to organize information for an encyclopedia. There has to be some reason, a pattern, some service to the reader. This is well-sourced, interesting information to be sure and it would be a shame to lose that much effort. This just isn't the right place for it. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. (1) The four prior AfDs, all keeps, do contain substantive discussion, notably Viriditas' comments at the third AfD and Black Falcon's at the second, and show a broad consensus in favor of the notability of this subject. (2) The concurrent discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NBC logos (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Broadcasting Company logos (3rd nomination) demonstrate that there is still support for the notability and encyclopedic nature of network logo history, a broader topic of which this article is a significant part. Deleting this article would damage Wikipedia's currently comprehensive coverage of the topic. (4) The PBS logo in particular, created by the notable designer Herb Lubalin and later revised by the equally notable designers Chermayeff & Geismar, and has been the subject of substantial coverage over the years. I have added some of the available sources, and GBooks and GNews searches indicate that more sources exist off-line or behind paywalls, plus a segment of the highly regarded 1982 series Media Probes[12]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|Parlez ici 00:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Arxiloxos. I also invoke a hypothetical future Wikipedia rule that makes it possible to prevent WP from becoming redundant to a thorough Google search. Anarchangel (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, notability is not inherited. This article does not establish why the logos in themselves are notable, merely that "PBS had a lot of logos". Axem Titanium (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Whether a logo itself is notable in its own right can decide whether it can get its own article, such as PBS 1971 logo. However, there are no such articles; just this article, talking about all the logos PBS has had, as a part of how the network has changed over its 42-year history. Georgia guy (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I just don't see the encyclopedic value here; to me this qualifies as trivia or completism. Hairhorn (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree with User:Viriditas' analysis in the 3rd AfD. In theory it could be appropriate to merge this article to the Public Broadcasting System article, but that would give undue weight to this topic within that article and so retaining as a separate standalone article is most appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I cannot endorse the claim that it is an indiscriminate list. BO; talk 11:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I had a dream last night in which this article was deleted per this Afd. Georgia guy (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Matt Finish. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 16:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Matt Finnish
- Matt Finnish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Short-lived band - no references, no evidence of notability AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can find no independent references that establish the notability of the band. WWGB (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect to Matt Moffitt#pre- Matt Finish as he was the most notable member of the band. Likely confusion (I was confused!) between Matt Finnish and Matt Finish should be explained. The-Pope (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Matt Moffitt or Matt Finish - interesting within the context of that individual and band, but not notable in its own right. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Redirect to Matt Finish – both bands were formed by Moffitt and Alcorn in Sydney, their genres were different but the commonality of their names, membership and origin makes Matt Finnish an antecedent for the latter. Suitable content has be moved to that article to reduce confusion between the two.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG, WP:NF. joe deckertalk to me 14:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Adelaide Question
- The Adelaide Question (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of WP:Notability. Prod removed with description that it is famously known - however google has exactly 19 hits so does not seem that famous. No sources. noq (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Appears to be a particularly inept attempt to promote a non-notable film project. No secondary coverage whatsoever, let alone anything substantial or WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NF, fails WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Neither the question nor the film are currently notable. Its claim to be the first autobiographical documentary feature is also untrue, see e.g. Jerome Hill's Film Portrait (1972), The Poet and the Con (1999), etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found no coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, for all the reasons given. This non-vote is added simply to make consensus clearer. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Athabasca University#Research. A redirect is cheap, even if not likely to be very useful. WP:UNIGUIDE#Faculties and academic colleges does not support Me-123567-Me's argument. JohnCD (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Athabasca University Research Centre
- Athabasca University Research Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability has not been established. While the university is notable, we can't list every university department or program. Page could be redirected to the university page. West Eddy (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable as a university centre. Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, Me-123567-Me claims an association with the university. Possible conflict of interest. West Eddy (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing particularly notable here. Thisshould be mentioned in the article on the college, but it doesn't even need a redirect, as the name is not distinctive. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Athabasca University#Research. I see no indication this research centre is independently notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No Consensus to delete. In considering all the comments in this AfD it is apparent that there is no consensus as to whether the positions she has held make her notable or not. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Joy Romero
- Joy Romero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find anything to indicate notability. Simply working in the oil industry, even in a good position, does not make someone notable. It's unclear what affiliation she actually has with Athabasca University, but even being the chair is not a notable position outside of the university. West Eddy (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. Former Governing Council chair of Athabasca University. Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that above claims an association with Athabasca University. There may be COI. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep We certainly keep Presidents of colleges and universities, but we do not yet really have an established policy on members of the board of directors/governing boards/etc. By comparison with major companies, I'd certainly think the chairman of such a board notable. But in general, people are appointed to such boards because of their prominence otherwise, and would be notable in any case, and in her case a senior VP for technology of of a major technology based company is notable quite aprart from the chairmanship. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I changed her status within Athabasca University from "current" to "former", the current directory doesn't show her, but the archive summary shows her a lot.--kelapstick(bainuu) 22:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only source cited gives but a passing reference. Former chair of governing council of a minor institution does not make WP:Prof#6 or any part of WP:Prof. Sources are negligible. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete When I did a reference search, I found the single reference shown, but nothing substantial, other than a few quotes by her about the oil sands project.--kelapstick(bainuu) 22:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. She was also named to the Order of Athabasca University [13], was president of Boeing Canada Operations [14]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hapkikwan
- Hapkikwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable despite the hype Peter Rehse (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't find significant coverage of this in independent sources. It also doesn't seem to pass WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources show this art is notable. Mdtemp (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Yasht101 11:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dub FX
- Dub FX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was resored at request after an the last AfD closed as no quorum, and was soft deleted. I do believe the original rationale stands, so this could be seen as a relisting of the original debate. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of coverage showing up on Google News from several different countries, e.g. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. --Michig (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. And some more Google News sources: MusicRadar [25], Russia Today [26], România Liberă [27], Polskie Radio [28], fr:Maville.com [29], de:Derwesten.de [30]. Passes WP:BAND #1 and WP:GNG easily. And he's plastered all over the blogosphere, and has 4 million listens per Last.fm and 50 million+ views on Youtube--this video alone has 13 million plus views and 100,000 ratings and 20,000 comments. Especially for an independent artist, this suggests a notable audience. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear Keep per provided sources. Cavarrone (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per Michig and Hobbes Goodyear above. Obviously passes WP:MUSIC 1, and the sheer breadth and depth of coverage makes me confused as to how the previous AfD closed with a claim the GNG hadn't been met. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ talk 15:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 page blanked by author JohnCD (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Practical Training Cell, IIT Bombay
- Practical Training Cell, IIT Bombay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No Proofs Sandeep (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of WP:Notability. Just seems to be a colleges placement department. No independent sources. noq (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but we can give some time to the article that's what i think --Sandeep (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a line or two can pe placed in the article IIT Bombay, if later on enough references come out(which i doubt) so that a separate article can be written , then it can be created, as of now we can safely delete it-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This would seem to be the office of the college that helps to place students in corporate internships as a part of their educational experience. As such, it seems highly unlikely that it would ever become notable to meet Wikipedia’s (very low) standards of notability. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as the content has been extracted from [31] -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Janna Cachola
- Janna Cachola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:NOT, not notable in New Zealand or Phillipines. Does not meet WP:RS and probably self promotion as editor creating the article and removing the WP:PROD are not registered and have only been involved with this article. NealeFamily (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems promotional and may have been created by people close to her, and there's a wordpress site as reference? Already runs afoul of EL. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 10. Snotbot t • c » 07:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no notability apparent from references or New Zealand context. I don't have the skills to search for Philippine context or non-English references, ping my talk page if they're added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Relevant to Philippine readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki9871434 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wiki9871434 you and your friends need to declare your interest in creating the article WP:COIN and provide any information to support Cachola's notability. Calling something relevant without supporting evidence does not make Cachola notable. So far the only claim to notability is based on association with notable people and that doesn't count. Cachola looks like she is at the early stage of her career and may possibly become notable. Until she crosses the notable threshhold, she is outside the range for Wiki. Take a look at WP:NOT and WP:Notability (people) as it might prove helpful. NealeFamily (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment also looking at the recent sources added - you need to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources as well. Only two out of all those listed and recently added would be considered reliable. NealeFamily (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - note that the 2010-2011 round of productions of Miss Saigon was by local non-professional music theatre societies (who syndicate major items like set and costumes between them) and in no way would confer notability. dramatic (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Sudoku#Variants. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 04:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sudokion
- Sudokion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of WP:notability. Only sourced to a local radio presenter. Google searches find nothing of note about it. noq (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not helped by the article title being SudokiAn while the object in question appears to be called SudokiOn. Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Under the correct name there are even less ghits noq (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Sudoku#Variants. I note that "Sudokion" is a recent trademark and the underlying puzzle appears to be equivalent to the "nonomino" or "jigsaw" variant which is certainly older. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above. Not independently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above, without prejudice if in a year or three this becomes independently notable. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment EQUIVALENT TO NONOMINO/JIGSAW SUDOKU - The principal objection states "the underlying puzzle appears to be equivalent to the nonomino or jigsaw variant (of Sudoku) which is certainly older". If all our various puzzles can be objected to because they appear to be equivalent to the nonomino or jigsaw variant then the same objection would apply to nonomino and jigsaw as they are variants of Sudoku. In any case, none of the puzzles is equivalent to nonomino. We will concede that all SUDOKION use Sudoku's rules - every row, column and cluster must contain the set of values of the puzzles, whether they be numbers, letters, emoticons or any other type of symbol. But thereafter SUDOKION breaks away in varying degrees until we reach the Parallelogram Katastrophion, an example of which can be found here.
POINTS OF DIFFERENCE WITH SUDOKU, NONOMINO AND JIGSAW Logikion: The Logikions are similar to the jigsaw Sudoku except for the facts that: 1. we don't just make Logikions in 9x9 size. We also make them in 6x6, 7x7 and 8x8 sizes. (No one else appears to have considered the possibility that they can be made intricately in smaller sizes 2. generally speaking the clusters of the Logikion are more complex than those of the jigsaw Sudoku (minor point) 3. we appear to be the only people who have applied the V and diagonal lines to make the puzzles more challenging.
Moreover, it should be noted that we produce Logikion puzzles in order to provide an easy transition between Sudoku and our more complex puzzles - Hypernion, Pandemonion and Katastrophion. If such a bridge wasn't necessary we wouldn't make them.
We included the information on Logikions in the Wikipedia article, simply to record the historical fact that they are one of the types of puzzle produced by Muddled Puzzles. If Wikipedia wants us to delete the stuff on Logikion let it go.
Hypernion, Pandemonion and Katastrophion: As far as we am aware these are the only square-grid puzzles containing one or more fragmented clusters. These are completely new puzzles, especially when presented in Plus Format. They betake Sudoku to places it never even considered. They are, therefore, newsworthy on their own.
Spatial logic: All the puzzles are spatial-logic puzzles, far in advance of Sudoku. This is especially the case when the X, V and diagonal lines are superimposed. The player can use all the solving methods applicable to Sudoku but if that is all he or she does the result will be failure. Without an understanding of how the clusters and superimposed lines relate with each other the player hasn't a chance of solving the puzzles.
Incredible economy of clues: If the puzzles were equivalent to nonomino and jigsaw they would require the same minimum number of clues that those puzzles require. As far as we are aware there are no 9x9 square-grid spatial-logic puzzles other than SUDOKION that require so few clues to produce a proper and satisfactory puzzle. 9x9 Sudoku requires a minimum of 17, while X Sudoku requires a minimum of 12.
To date, in our stable of 9x9 (81-cell) SUDOKION, we have: Plain-Format Katastrophions: 16 clues - 10; 15 clues - 4; 14 clues - 4 Plain-Format Pandemonions: 16 clues - 15; 15 clues - 8; 14 clues - 1 Plus-Format Pandemonions: 11 clues - 8; 10 clues - 2; 9 clues - 1.
So, if these puzzles were the equivalent of nonomino and jigsaw Sudoku it would be impossible to achieve such an economy of clues.
Finally: The puzzles are worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia because: 1. they are new puzzles, which certainly owe their origin to Sudoku (hence the name SUDOKION) but they take Sudoku so much further 2. they are more challenging than Sudoku Chrisclarks (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment External Link Inclusion - I would like to include an External Link to Adam's Spencer's Breakfast Radio Show website. My argument is that each week over the past 12 months a new Sudokion puzzle is uploaded to the website, view the most recent puzzle. The types of Sudokion puzzles include; Pandemonions, Katastrophions and Logikions. All which have been supplied by the creator Stephen Jones.
A note on Adam Spencer - The original objection stated, among other things, that the only source was a local radio presenter. Adam Spencer's Wikipedia entry reveals that he is no ordinary radio presenter. According to the entry, Adam "is a patron of various science-related events and programs, including the University of Sydney's Eureka Prize, a "lateral-thinking" science prize. He is also a member of the Sleek Geek Week tour along with Karl Kruszelnicki, as well as performing his own stand up comedy at events around the country." Adam is not a man who would run second-rate recycled puzzles for more than six months on his Australian Broadcasting Corporation blog. Chrisclarks (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Firstly, please read WP:conflict of interest as your comments above seem to indicate you are involved in the production of these puzzles. Your points above, 1 - it is a new puzzle - that does not mean it is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. 2 They are more challanging than Sudoku - possibly but not relevant. And your note about Adam Spencer - he may well be a good presenter and have his own page but that does not mean that everything he touches is notable - notability is not inherited. noq (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been doing these puzzles since April 2011 and find them qualitatively different from Sudoku both in terms of the necessity to apply spatial logic at a vastly higher level of sophistication than that required for Sudoku and the significantly greater diversity of puzzle types. The substantially reduced number of clues also forces the solver to be more creative than simply applying the relatively limited rule set used when commencing a Sudoku. I am also an Adam Spencer devotee and while I acknowledge the observation that notability is not inherited, the value of Spencer's enthusiastic and sustained endorsement should be judged on its own substantial merits rather than addressed by way of a generic dismissal. The fact that Spencer is still publishing these puzzles on a weekly basis after twelve months (he recently mentioned on air that there are 'thousands of downloads each week') is evidence of a widespread recognition of their novelty. In anticipation of another generic response - it is not valid to simply dismiss evidence because it falls short of proof.Peterabes (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT is not an indication of notability. Can you show me an independent source talking about it? The article mentions it being referred to in "more than 20 provincial newspapers" - some 7 months before first being published which seems a bit strange and is too vague to be any reference. The Bangalow Heartbeat is a local paper. So the claims in the article - all without sourcing - are that they appeared in a local paper and on a local radio presenters website. How is that in any way WP:notable? noq (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Akuoma
- Akuoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable film with no references. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found no sources. The article sounds like an advertisement. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Cannot find any sources which substantiate the claims in the article. Yunshui 雲水 07:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I think it qualifies for WP:CSD#G11. Certainly fails general notability. QU TalkQu 10:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for being premature and failing WP:NF. And an aside to User:QuiteUnusual, the article is not so "exclusively promotional" to merit a WP:G11. If or when this film gets coverage, we might welcome it back. I would have sugested userfication to its author, but as the director is Vining Ogu and the article was created by User:Viningogu I have a distinct worry over WP:COI... so I have left him a caution. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree it isn't a G11 now, but I think it was when I first looked at it. Not relevant now anyway - QU TalkQu 08:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I went and cleaned it up some before coming here to opine a delete. Good practice, if nothing else. When a rank newcomer creates an article, they quite often make errors in formatting and style, so I try not to use a first impression to judge a tone or style that could be easily fixed through a little editing. But yes... a moot point as it fails WP:NF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree it isn't a G11 now, but I think it was when I first looked at it. Not relevant now anyway - QU TalkQu 08:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lauren Newton (entertainer)
- Lauren Newton (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable daughter of television parents. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:NOTINHERITED. WWGB (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nomination, especially considering this is a BLP. The article hardly makes a claim of notability. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete fails WP:BIO and as per WP:NOTINHERITED .LibStar (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. She does get quite a few mentions in the media, including some tabloid-y articles where she is the main subject. Not saying the article should be kept, but it might be worth redirecting to Matt Welsh#Personal life where there is some referenced information about her. Jenks24 (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Would not get any coverage at all if she didn't have famous parents. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Thomas Lourdes (novel series). The discussion was not very conclusive, but while the books seem notable the author, under his nom-de-plume, is not, and redirection to the article about the books will enable a searcher to reach what relevant information we have. JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Brokaw
- Charles Brokaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Author of three books published by TOR/Forge. No references available. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm finding some book reviews from reliable sources for this guy, so if there's not enough for any one specific book entry or for an author page, it might be worthwhile to create an entry for the book series as a whole and redirect this to the series page. (I say series as all three books he's published have been part of an ongoing series.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional. Wow... I think that there's a HUGE COI going on here. In my trawlings to find sources for the article, I discover the publisher's page for the author... which links to the Wikipedia page. I look through the original editor's edits to discover that they've done a lot of edits for authors published by MacMillan, all of whom are linked to Wikipedia articles about them. I have a very strong suspicion that the contributing editor works directly for the publisher or was hired to write articles for MacMillan's authors. See the editing history of Muledeer7[32]and this page [33] and this one[34] for an example of what I'm talking about.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete To have an article about the pseudonym with nothing about the real person behind it, means there would have to be significant coverage of him simply and solely as author of these books. That does not appear to be the case. A redirect to an article on his real name might be possible -- is there any indication of who he really is? Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems notable enough, and we do have articles on pseudonyms (see Franklin W. Dixon for an example). Hit #22 on NYT Best Seller list of paperback fiction on Sept. 5, 2010. Collect (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anyone suggesting that we can not or do not have articles on pseudonyms, but I did say that it is harder to establish notability for one. Do you have examples of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to support the claim of notability? Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than such stuff as having books reviewed in such minor sources as the New York Times, Seattle P-I, Publishers Weekly and Library Journal, being listed on the NYT Best Seller List of Paperbacks, etc.? Seems to hit WP notability standards at this point, and a bunch of lesser authors get mentioned in articles on WP. And I am glad you agree that just because it is a "pen name" does not affect notability. Collect (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What I'm wondering though, is that since 99.9% of the sources out there concern the books, wouldn't it be better to just create an article on the book series and then redirect the author's name to that? I'm willing to start on it if there's a consensus on this. Why have an article about an author (which lacks any real meat) when it's going to predominantly talk about the book series, when we can just have an article about the book series and have a redirect from the author's name?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than such stuff as having books reviewed in such minor sources as the New York Times, Seattle P-I, Publishers Weekly and Library Journal, being listed on the NYT Best Seller List of Paperbacks, etc.? Seems to hit WP notability standards at this point, and a bunch of lesser authors get mentioned in articles on WP. And I am glad you agree that just because it is a "pen name" does not affect notability. Collect (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anyone suggesting that we can not or do not have articles on pseudonyms, but I did say that it is harder to establish notability for one. Do you have examples of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to support the claim of notability? Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. OK. Here's what I've found. The novelist's real name is Michael Cordy and to be honest, his article is a complete and utter mess. It's unsourced and not very encyclopedically written. Even if it was, it suffers from the same issues that we have with the article for the pseudonym: a lack of sources that actually discuss the author. What I'm suggesting is that since I've gone ahead and created a page for the novel series at Thomas Lourdes (novel series), we redirect both the pseudonym of Brokaw and the true name of the author (Cordy) to the novel series page. The author doesn't seem to have any notability outside of the series itself, as evidenced by the fact that neither name has any reliable sources that are actually about them. Everything I've found seems to focus on the books themselves, generally being reviews for the books. I just don't see where we need articles on the author and what little information we do have can be placed inside the general article for the series.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Thomas Lourdes (novel series). There's nothing to show that this pseudonym (or the author's real name) has any notability outside of the book series. It also doesn't help that the biography for "Charles Brokaw" is complete and utter fiction, as Cordy is actually an Englishman (who still lives in the UK) that'd previously worked in marketing and quit to become a novelist. There's absolutely no reason for an article to exist for either of the author's name. I also highly, highly, HIGHLY recommend that an admin watch the person who has been adding these articles. Given that the publisher pages are directing people to the Wikipedia entries, it's painfully obvious that MacMillan is using Wikipedia as free advertising for their authors. So far there's a solution for this author (redirecting to an article about the series), but it worries me that they could be mass producing articles for publicity purposes, which really needs to be looked into. This isn't some random small advertising company adding a few pages for a low key company, but a big publisher deliberately doing it in plain sight.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was rather erm.... "abruptly" told that Cordy was not Brokaw (but that's another story), but the fact still remains that Brokaw has no notability outside of his series. I hold firm that this should be a redirect to the series page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. There is no value in a "re-direct" ... where is the evidence that the author uses a nom de plume? Either the author is the one who is recorded inside the novels where the copywrite notice is printed, and is therefore accountable, in which case an article in his name is possible with reservations, or he is unidentifiable and should be deleted.
- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, that's not how WP:AUTHOR works. You have to have articles about the author to show that they have notability outside of their works. You can show that a book is notable or that a series is notable, but that notability is not automatically inherited or transferred (WP:NOTINHERITED) to the author. It's actually pretty common to have a redirect from the author's name to their work. Most authors won't be notable outside of their works, to be honest. For example, E. L. James has written the bestselling book Fifty Shades of Grey. It's on the NYT bestselling lists, but that notability doesn't mean that he merits an article of his own. All that this means is that it's more likely for articles to be written about him by reliable sources, which would allow him his own article. Even the authors of the bestselling Beautiful Creatures novel don't have their own articles at this point in time, despite them having a series that has sold almost as well as the Twilight series and having a Hollywood blockbuster being created of their work. Now this means that it might be more likely for them to have an article later on, but having notable works doesn't mean that the authors themselves are notable outside of said work.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Oh, as far as to how I know that the Brokaw name is a pseudonym, the publisher's website actually mentions this on his author page [35]. It's on most of the sources out there about him as well, so it's not actually a secret that it's a pseudonym.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete as it appears that the article is probably a copyright violation. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Citizenship Advancement Training
- Citizenship Advancement Training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This appears to be transcribed from a document of some sort, and appears to be a procedural briefing accordingly. We are not the place for this. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Almost certainly a Copyvio and certainly non-encyclopaedic content. AllyD (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unencyclopedic and likely copyvio. WWGB (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
North Gloucester Giants
- North Gloucester Giants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely fails WP:GNG and is the very reason for WP:NOT. Just another "garage band"-type article to advertise a minor organization with little impact. Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 02:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agree with propopser. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 04:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. Just to note that they appear to be a garage football team, rather than a band. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete completely unreferenced and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Bmusician 09:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beamdog
- Beamdog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Listing per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 March 21. I abstain. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 21:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unable to find any detailed coverage of the main topic. Bongomatic 13:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: though I didn't find much, deletion seems to be impractical, as Beamdog will attract more attention with the new game releases. Though, my vote is for service, not for the company behind it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added 3 references, all from the sources seemingly qualifying for WP:IRS criteria. In my opinion, the article now satisfies WP:NWEB. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - extended coverage in the interview, plus the other sources, allow for enough descriptive content to be written. Diego (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Seems to be correct, web returns results with google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syscamel (talk • contribs) 04:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — Syscamel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SW— babble 03:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 04:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revels - Cultural Fest of MIT
- Revels - Cultural Fest of MIT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possible hoax, and if not that it doesn't appear to be notable. I initially proposed a merge into Traditions and student activities at MIT but comments there seem to indicate it doesn't appear notable, and I can't find anything really on it. Shadowjams (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Closer:
I have synced/merged the contents of this aricle with Manipal_Institute_of_Technology#RevelsLentower (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Muhandes has since moved the contents the other way. Lentower (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- linking to Traditions and student activities at MIT would be inappropriate, because this festival is apparently a function at the Manipal Institute of Technology, in India, not the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Guy who reads a lot (talk)
Delete. or Merge Article shows no notability. Now has a few citations. A bare stub. Comments on Talk:Traditions and student activities at MIT shows reasonable web searches finds no mention of this event. Lentower (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A webpage that appears to be related to this festival has been linked to in the article. It's a primary source. Not every festival at every college is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. I assume, in good faith, that the article's creator is a new editor, who doesn't understand WP's policies. Lentower (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Though it's good that sources have been found, a few sources don't establish notability. It be best for Wikipedia and it's readers to merge this article into Manipal_Institute_of_Technology#Revels. Lentower (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rewrite. There are 20,000 hits on google for the terms (Revels Cultural Fest of MIT), so it seems notable. Anybody from Manipal Institute of Technology here who can comment? The article originally ascribed this to Massachusetts Institute of Technology, but googling suggests that this is an error, so I edited the article; it now reads Manipal Institute of Technology, which is correct. The home page for the festival is http://www.revels.in/ (The Manipal Institute of Technology Wikipedia article, for what it's worth, does mention Revels). Might be nice to retitle the article to make it more clear which MIT it is. Perhaps "Revels - Cultural Fest of Manipal Institute of Technology." Guy who reads a lot (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like a bizarre mistake to make, but if that's true then I'd suggest the same as I did when I thought it was Massachusetts, which is to merge it into that article. Individual events at schools generally aren't notable... but they're prime candidates to be merged into student life articles, or in the case of MassIT... had a page dedicated to them. Counting Google hits is a poor poor way to evaluate notability. There are not 20,000 pages about this obscure intra-college event. Shadowjams (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not opposed to merging this article into Manipal_Institute_of_Technology#Revels. Merging can be reasonable, with non-notable topics. Someone could add the {{Merge templates to this pair of articles to start that discussion. Lentower (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a culfest, and general practice at WP:INEI is that culfests are not inherently notable, i.e. they require coverage per WP:GNG. However, I found quite a bit of coverage when I looked for it: 2012 edition: [36], 2009 edition: [37] [38], 2010 edition: [39] [40], 2011 edition: [41], 2007 edition: [42] [43], 2004 edition: [44]. I'm pretty sure it is enough for WP:GNG. --Muhandes (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved the article to its proper name Revels (culfest) and rewrote it with some sources. --Muhandes (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 01:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 04:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: added Template:WikiProject India to Talk:Revels - Cultural Fest of MIT to bring this discussion to more editors. Lentower (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lentower (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scripted Magazine
- Scripted Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Magazine published by and for a grammar school. Article basically consists of a listing of the two issues published up till now and fascinating tidbits of information like the surface of the school (61,606m2). Article PRODded because of a lack of independent sources, dePRODded without stated reason. In the absence of any evidence of notability: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Kudos to the students for putting out the magazine, but there is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 01:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 04:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Gonna have to agree with Whpq on this. Delete for lack of notability. Unfortunately. Especially because I like that cover art as exists on the article. Good luck to the students getting this out there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No independent references. Not notable. Wikipelli Talk 11:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Like most student run things, non-notable. SL93 (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: As above, the magazine is not notable - the only result of it in a Google search was the magazine's website. Oddbodz (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 17:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dwan Hurt
- Dwan Hurt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable per WP:ONEEVENT, there are 50 guys like this a year, it's not Miss America or something like that Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I declined the CSD (seventeen months ago!) because there was an assertion of notability; I expected this AFD far sooner. It's an achievement, to be sure...but not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Frank | talk 13:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Added additional sources to the article from Los Angeles Times and Spokane Chronicle about his college basketball career and earlier coaching title. Combined with previous sources in the article, WP:GNG is satisfied with significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. There is lots of paid content in Google News that I'm confident has material for this bio.—Bagumba (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - seems to be notable enough for inclusion per added sources by Bagumba.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 01:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I see there are more sources, but I still don't see that notability is established. Just because a person's name appears in print does not make him notable. Frank | talk 22:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 04:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Seems to have enough coverage to allow for inclusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 17:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Judaea Coin Archive
- Judaea Coin Archive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable website, fails WP:N and WP:WEB. No reliable independent sources in the article, and no such sources found through web searches. Very few web hits anyway, no matter if I look for "Judaean Coins Archive", "Judean Coins Archive", "Judea Coin Archive" or "Judaea Coin Archive": excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors, and the website itself, less than 50 sites even mention this[45]. The only books noticing this site are books that simply copy Wikipedia articles, not actual written books. Fram (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence that the "archive" is notable at all. Cursory search didn't show any significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 04:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I see zero RS coverage of this site. Fails WP:WEB. Alexa info doesn't help. Likely promotion. BusterD (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Andrew Landeryou. Page history is still accessible, so feel free to merge anything worthwhile. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 17:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vexnews
- Vexnews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have idly checked this page numerous times over the last few years after running into the website VexNews online, which is little more then a blog for political attacks from the far right. From what I can see of the editing pattern here it looks like the original users that created this and the related articles was the actual owner of the site VexNews, who was promptly banned for disruptive and COI edits. Since then, any attempt to make constructive changes to these articles, which has been few, due to the limited significance of the article, have been met with an eventual IP edit that reverts to the same content the original 'owner' submitted. I think the safest option now is simply to delete this and deny this owner the notoriety he clearly desires. Senor Freebie (talk) 09:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I too have been watching the article for a while, and I agree with your conclusions on the editing history of the article. --Inas66 (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it's mentioned a lot in the Australian press, but usually as a source for stories or in more general pieces about the low standard of political debate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and Merge anything sourcable to Andrew Landeryou. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 04:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect & Merge any sourced content to Andrew Landeryou. Nothing notable enough for its own pagespace; apparent promotion. Fails WP:WEB. Target article not particularly notable either and also apparent long-time COI promotion. BusterD (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 17:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jaladhi Bapparaya
- Jaladhi Bapparaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm unable to find any coverage in reliable sources, or any indication that the subject might pass the general notability guideline. The article has been deleted via proposed deletion twice, and then recreated without improvement. -- Lear's Fool 07:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 04:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:V. SL93 (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No luck finding sources here, attempted the usual Google searches plus a search at Highbeam. --joe deckertalk to me 04:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Food Not Bombs. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 17:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
C.T. Lawrence Butler
- C.T. Lawrence Butler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing indicating notability. A lot of the references are from the website of the company that Butler started, and as for the other references I don't think "Hippie Chick Diaries" and "Planet Waves Daily Astrology" really count as reliable sources. Maybe the content can be merged to the Food Not Bombs page... if that meets notability criteria. As for this page, it fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO MisterRichValentine (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Food Not Bombs. The Boston Phoenix article cited[46] is a reliable source, but we need more references to prove his notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 04:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above. I'm seeing RS mentions here and here, but don't see sufficient coverage to warrant a BLP. BusterD (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No prejudice against re-creating the article with sourced, non-OR content. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 17:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Islomania
- Islomania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
neologism, synth, OR, the thinnest of threads thrown together to make a piecemeal trace of an article. Weeded it a bit, but there's really nothing there Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and substantially rewrite. It's an interesting concept, and one which seems to have some encyclopedic merit, but pretty much everything aside from the lead is pure original research. There's no need to ascribe the term to everyone who's ever lived on an island or written about an island or wanted to go to an island. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As already remarked by DoctorKubla, almost everything after the lead section is OR/ESSAY, and should be deleted. After that, not much more than a dictionary definition remains of what is essentially a neologism that has not really caught on. If the final verdict is that the article is kept, here is an RS that apparently discusses the concept: John Vinocur (March 17, 1985). "So you want to get away?". The New York Times Magazine. (I haven't looked behind the paywall.) --Lambiam 21:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 04:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. The topic might well be encyclopaedic but no-one seems to have written anything about it yet. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Sandstein 08:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thresher & Glenny
- Thresher & Glenny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G11 (spam), then undeleted and sent to AfD per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 March 16. Please see there for possible reasons for deletion; this is a procedural nomination. Sandstein 16:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a priori, this seems a very reasonable subject for an article, and the current material certainly seems far from 'unambiguous advertising'. The firm's age (founded 1683) could be enough to establish notability on its own, and the detailed timeline is certainly of interest also, though it must have come from the company itself. The claim to have invented the Trench coat with citation from The Times could also be enough to guarantee the article's future. And the anecdote about Nelson buying silk stockings would definitely make the running in any DYK list. Quite a few other claims are currently unsourced, but these are for normal editing, not AfD attention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Could do with more reliable recent references, but the older references are reliable, and it's more than just advertising. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 04:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are plenty of references to the firm in other records, and therefore a good chance that people will want to look this firm up, which seems to me a good reason for inclusion in an encyclopedia. They are central to a much cited trademarks case, and references in, for example, a biography of John Gunther will lose their significance unless the reader understands that they were a very high class outfitter. WP does not have a policy against inclusion of articles about commercial concerns, for fear that might be seen as advertising - if it did then all music on current release and all bands associated with it would be excluded. --AJHingston (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Maps in a Mirror. Consensus to delete, but it seems to be a valid redirect, so I'm going to boldly redirect it. Page history is still accessible, so feel free to merge content. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 17:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Freeway Games
- Freeway Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. The article makes no assertion of notability, and the subject is is a not-notable story by a notable author. (I put a tag questioning the notability on the article a year ago, and there has been no edits to suggest that the story is notable in that time.) Guy who reads a lot (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to an article on the collection of short stories per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 04:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and I do not think that Card is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was waiting for some wonderful twist, to the story. Boring, and agree with Cusop Dingle's points. Merging is fine with me. But I don't want to write it, I saw the author's infobox. :- ) DCS 02:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 17:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Closing the Timelid
- Closing the Timelid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. The article makes no assertion of notability, and the subject is is a not-notable story by a notable author. (I put a tag questioning the notability on the article a year ago, and there has been no edits to suggest that the story is notable in that time.) Guy who reads a lot (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This AfD seems to be one of a series of PRODs and AfDs in which the nominator is trying to replace a previously-existing unsatisfactory situation with another which, to me, also seems unsatisfactory though probably more in line with Wikipedia's current usual consensus. The previously-existing situation arose several years back through the activity of an enthusiastic editor (who, by the way, is still active but has not apparently been informed of this discussion - shouldn't he be?) improving Wikipedia's coverage of Orson Scott Card's work. However, in the process of doing so and apparently because of the complex bibliographical history of Card's short stories, he created separate articles on (and a linking navbox for) a very large proportion of the stories - some definitely indepently notable but others probably not. In this case, I have found some independent mentions - in the case of a less notable author, enough probably to argue for a selective merge (of the bibliographic information and one-line plot summary) but not for a separate article. The problem here, though, is where that merge should be to - a (tabulated?) list of Card's short stories, preferably, in one of the articles on the collections in which the story appears (but which?), in Orson Scott Card bibliography (which currently lists the collections but not the individual short stories), or in a (currently non-existent) separate article on Card's short stories? If the article existed, I think I would probably prefer the last option. PWilkinson (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 04:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and I do not think that Card is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete poorly sourced and fails WP:NBOOK. LibStar (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 18:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bendigo and District Cricket Association
- Bendigo and District Cricket Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to me to be a non-notable localised league/association. A google search only brings up localised sources, nothing too widespread, quite difficult to establish WP:N. It fails WP:CRIN from my interpretation, as it is not of Grade standard. My main concern is notability, I am struggling to see how this league is particularly notable and how it can be demonstrated by reliable sources. If someone wants to give it a try, good luck!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not sure WP:CRIN really covers leagues. I agree the teams in the BDCA probably won't be notable, but I reckon the league is. To begin, a lot more reference can be found when the and is excluded, i.e. searching for "Bendigo District Cricket Association". Looking at gnews, most of the coverage is from the Bendigo Advertiser, but there's also mentions in national-level sources such as the ABC. Looking at trove nla, you can see a lot of references in major Melbourne newspaper, The Argus. Going to CricketArchive, you can see that teams representing the league have played against some pretty high quality opposition, including Marylebone Cricket Club, Victoria, Tasmania, and many touring English sides of the late 1800s (e.g. HH Stephenson's XI, G Parr's XI, etc.). The association has been around since the 1850s and IMO its notability comes more from the prominence the league had c. 100 years ago than the quality of cricket that's played there today. The real clincher for me, though, is that there has been a book published about the league, Bendigo district cricket 1853–1990. Taking all this together, I believe the association meets WP:N. Jenks24 (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks significant coverage, the refs provided just show routine coverage, there is nothing I can find that addresses the subject directly and in detail. Mtking (edits) 08:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the book? Surely that can't be brushed off as routine? Jenks24 (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly what I said, "the refs provided just show routine coverage", the link to a library catalogue does not help, all other things being equal, I would suspect that the book was either written by a member of, or someone with a close connection to the Association or was published or funded by them, in which case it would fail the independent test. Mtking (edits) 11:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I can't really refute vague comments that the book might not be independent. Onto the newspaper articles. Take this article as an example – it's in The Argus, one Melbourne's leading newspapers at the time, and describes how Australian Test captain Warwick Armstrong is going to play for the Bendigo District side against the touring English side that was contesting the Ashes. How is that not significant? Jenks24 (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is about Warwick Armstrong and what he is doing (WP:NOTINHERITED), and at less than 40 words is not very detailed, and would also come under the heading of WP:ROUTINE coverage of an event (the meeting). Mtking (edits) 08:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is about Armstrong and the BDCA. Anyway, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I think a league that plays against touring England/MCC teams, has Australian Test captains play for it, and regularly has each week's play reported in Melbourne's The Argus (150 km from Bendigo), is notable, but I guess you don't and that's fine. We will have to wait for others to comment. Jenks24 (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is about Warwick Armstrong and what he is doing (WP:NOTINHERITED), and at less than 40 words is not very detailed, and would also come under the heading of WP:ROUTINE coverage of an event (the meeting). Mtking (edits) 08:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I can't really refute vague comments that the book might not be independent. Onto the newspaper articles. Take this article as an example – it's in The Argus, one Melbourne's leading newspapers at the time, and describes how Australian Test captain Warwick Armstrong is going to play for the Bendigo District side against the touring English side that was contesting the Ashes. How is that not significant? Jenks24 (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly what I said, "the refs provided just show routine coverage", the link to a library catalogue does not help, all other things being equal, I would suspect that the book was either written by a member of, or someone with a close connection to the Association or was published or funded by them, in which case it would fail the independent test. Mtking (edits) 11:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the book? Surely that can't be brushed off as routine? Jenks24 (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the sources identified by User:Jenks24 are good enough for me. I do note that there's not a great deal of modern-day coverage of this league, however notability does not fade with the passing of time. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 04:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per WP:CRIN. This is not a primary sub-state (grade level) competition, players are not selected from this competition to play for their state. WWGB (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above, WP:CRIN does not cover leagues. Also, looking at CricketArchive it appears that many Bendigo players went on to state careers (or played for Bendigo the same season they were playing for Victoria). Also, while it is true that nowadays only grade cricket players will be selected for state sides, I see no evidence that that was the case 100 years ago. Jenks24 (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, per arguments below, meets WP:GNG Samir 16:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kenny Cordray
- Kenny Cordray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I deprodded because I think it needs a full AfD to find any hidden sources, however the article is written in peacock-ish terms. Google search reveals promotional material, and almost all sources in the article itself are either near verbatim copies of the article text, or have almost no bearing on the article's claims itself. This appears to be largely promotional, and of dubious notability. Shadowjams (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: There's a duplicate article, now a redirect at Kenny cordray that should be deleted in the case this is. Shadowjams (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree entirely, this is all factual information. Regardless of your elitist prick ideas, there is an entire community of musicians here ready to ram this down your throats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelco83 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Regardless of whether it's factual or not, the article has to show how he is notable by Wikipedia's criteria. Please see WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:MUSIC for guidelines. It seems that you have been notified of this several times at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kenny Cordray. ... discospinster talk 03:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, such as 2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelco83 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Which single or album was this? The article mentions "Francine" by ZZ Top but there is no source verifying its charting. ... discospinster talk 03:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the article, it clearly states the information and is cross refrenced from ZZ Top's own wiki site.
1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] Meets this criteria with the recently published album It Takes Everything, and Francine on ZZ Top's album Rio Grande Mud.
6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. Played with Jaco Pastorious, and Jerry Lee Lewis.
Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications) Francine by ZZ Top, Livin On on the Sugar Hill compliation album. Live Performance on Midnight Special with Jerry Lee Lewis and Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders.
11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio or music television network. ZZ Top Francine US, Jazz legends BBC UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelco83 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A few points of contention with User:Kelco83's argument-
- You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding the first criterion, which refers to coverage. Are there independent, reliable sources that cover this musician? Things like newspapers, magazine articles, ect.
- "Francine" was co-authored by Cordray for another artist. I'm not sure if that counts as "his" single for the purposes of criterion 2.
- Cordray has performed with several notable musicians and ensembles, but as far as I can tell these have been temporary and informal associations. Criterion 6 is only relevant if Cordray has been a member of two or more notable ensembles.
- My response to the criterion 11 claim is the same as my response to criterion 2. "Francine" is ZZ Top's single, which Cordray co-authored.
That said I'm still extremely reluctant to make the call of non-notable. Call it a feeling. "Feelings" have no place in an AfD debate, though, so I'm gonna go comb through Google results and maybe attempt a reason-based "keep" !vote later. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 04:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Francine is as much Cordray's as it is ZZ Top's, if you wan't to argue whose song it is, perhaps you should wiki up the information. ;) Also, this is some really nitpicky stuff. Kenny Cordray is a guitar legend who didn't always take the lime light. To deny this would be out of pure spite. He's more than notable, especially compared to some of the other "artists" that have a page. I still don't understand why there is so much resistence to this when I'm merely filling out information when Kenny Cordray has already been refrenced by ZZ Top themselves. Go to itunes and preview any song he's got, he's not a joke, he's the real deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelco83 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or at least wait a bit. I found a few pings on older newspaper articles, but those aren't available without subscription. Give me a few days and I'll comb through the newspaper archives at my college library, maybe I'll find something. I don't know where Cordray is based but I know ZZ Top is from Houston. I happen to live there also, so maybe a bit of meatspace investigation will turn up something. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 05:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I would recommend User:Kelco83 to voluntarily limit edits on the Kenny Cordray article because of suspected conflict of interest issues (User:Kelco83 self-identified as "Kelly Cordray" on user page). Angrysockhop (talk to me) 05:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to contest being restricted from edits as the rule says you cannot make an article about yourself, blood relation should be free to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelco83 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no rule against editing your own article, or your dad's... but WP:COI is a useful guide. Shadowjams (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a recommendation, not an order, and I have neither the authority nor desire to restrict you from editing whatever topic you like. I'm just saying that as a blood relative, you need to pay extra attention to principles like Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. And use better sources. You're writing things you already know are true, but you're backing up your statements with poor sources, so other readers have no reason to believe you. I'm sorry, but you can't cite a Wikipedia article with another Wikipedia article. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 10:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would understand your point, but in comparison to other articles, this is pretty dry stuff. If you want to challenge my sources as credible, thats fine, but I have hit on more than 1 criteria for notability. Instead of a recommendation of deletion, why isn't the article flagged for needing more information. I just wanted to get this started, I don't want to write the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelco83 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Establishment of notability can't be separated from the quality of the sources. It doesn't matter how many criteria an article claims to hit if there aren't the sources to establish that the claims are true. — Paul A (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the nitpicking thing we're talking about now. Lets nit pick this statement. Which sources do not back up the claims?
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I'm finding a plethora of old Houston Chronicle articles on microfilm that cover Cordray. The article needs a lot of editing, but now that I have quality sources to work with I'm confident I can bring Kenny Cordray up to par. It looks like he was mostly a local phenomenon, but local doesn't mean non-notable (especially when the local area is also the 4th largest city in America). His coverage in the Chron archives is extensive, and his impact on the Houston-area music scene is substantial. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 01:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could give some citations so others can check up on your microfilm expeditions. And even substantial local coverage doesn't mean notability. Shadowjams (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It would really depend on the nature of the coverage. In particular, the coverage may establish inclusion per WP:MUSICBIO point 7 as prominent representative of a local music scene. I'll also note that Cordray may qualify per WP:COMPOSER point 1. He is verifiably as one of three songwriters for the "Francene" which charted on the Billboard Hot 100. --- Whpq (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could give some citations so others can check up on your microfilm expeditions. And even substantial local coverage doesn't mean notability. Shadowjams (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We put up a USA today article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.246.89 (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Are ya'll done with this farce? There is more than enough to keep Kenny Cordray on wikipedia.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.246.89 (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC) The article pages that were uploaded have been deleted, used an alternative source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.246.89 (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like there is an attempt to find old non-google-fingertips sources going on, some of these appear to be articles dedicated to the subject in mainstream media publications, which would lean in favor of keep.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment. Relisted to let User:Angrysockhop apply offline sources so notability can be properly evaluated. BusterD (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 04:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Looks like the sources are legitimate. And Kelco, even with the anonymous login, please remove the incivility from yourself before coming in here. As flustering as this is, it does not matter what the article is, it needs to pretty much meet the same criteria - and yes, we WILL nitpick about that, because that nitpicking is what separates the wheat from the chaff. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was not flustered over this, but I will flame someone using "peacockish" to describe my writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.155.116 (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you won't, and I again point to WP:CIVIL. DO NOT do this, under ANY circumstances. Read that link. End of discussion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'll slap your clowns with libel accusations, keep your dogs on a leash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.155.116 (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - ISP level block by user:Jimfbleak for that above response and generally ignoring WP:CIVIL. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no lawyer, but its easy to see that it was one of wikipedias editors that broke this so called civility. Who is running this outfit, clearly this group of editors are way out of line. It looks like Kelco was provoked and was defending himself. I'm sure whoever is in charge would loath to see the actionable position he's been put in by you guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.194.129 (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reported you for your legal threat, as such is absolutely against the rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - OK, we've gotten off track here. The article's been fixed, and will likely be kept. That said, AFD is not the place to discuss whether somebody was treated badly, that's what dispute resolution is for. If you think you were mistreated, Kelco, you are best off communicating grievances there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the amended article with the Chronicle citations establishes notability per WP:MUSIC. Even without the references, I'd agree notability based on WP:COMPOSER 1 - despite Kelco83's appalling incivility, something she mentioned earlier in the AfC process should definitely be added to the article: Cordray co-wrote ZZ Top's first chart hit - notable enough for me. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ talk 11:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kelco - HE, not she. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.238.9 (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Was just providing some balance, since the IP above had assumed Kelco was a man. Normally I'd use a gender-neutral pronoun. Of course, we're all guessing, since all these IPs definitely aren't Kelco or their friends continuing to contribute to the AfD after being banned for making a legal threat. Definitely not. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ talk 09:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete all un-struck (?) articles. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 18:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ROK Air Force FC
- ROK Air Force FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- ROK Army FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- ROK Navy FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- ROK Marine Corps FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Keumseong Textile Company FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Korea Coal Corporation FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
E-Land Puma FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWLKorea Housing & Commercial Bank FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL- Korea Automobile Insurance Company FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Korea Exchange Bank FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Industrial Bank of Korea FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL- Seoul Trust Bank FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Commercial Bank of Korea FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Nominating multiple articles on clubs from the same semi-professional football/soccer league. A single article from this league was nominated first as a test case: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korea First Bank FC. The same arguments from that AfD apply here: non-notable club, fails WP:NFOOTY/WP:FOOTYN, etc. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 15:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz679 08:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - for E-Land Puma FC. This article was afd'd and kept earlier this month. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Land Puma FC. The keep arguements there still apply. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure there are others which have also played in that cup competition; one reason I don't like bundled AfDs. This could get messy. GiantSnowman 09:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can think of a better way to do it, I'll be happy to oblige. Any time someone makes a dozen noms on the same topic, they get trouted for failing to bundle—any time someone bundles, they get trouted for bundling. Other than dragging this out by nominating one per week, I don't see a good answer. I'm OK with this getting re-listed as needed to give enough time to evaluate all the articles. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 12:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable teams to remove from this bundled nomination Managed to cross reference the claimed years of existence with the RSSSF cup results. Will drip-feed it out.
- Korea Housing & Commercial Bank FC played in the cup in 1997 and reached the quarter finals.[47] Cloudz679 17:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Industrial Bank of Korea FC played in the 1997 cup too, losing in the second round, same reference. Cloudz679 17:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- RSSSF doesn't seem to have national cup results before 1996. None of the other teams are claimed to have played after 1994. I checked back to 1983 and then couldn't find any earlier South Korean results. This would suggest RSSSF cannot assert notability for these other ten teams. Cloudz679 17:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all apart from Korea Housing & Commercial Bank FC and Industrial Bank of Korea FC, who have appeared in the national cup; I cannot evidence notability for the others currently. GiantSnowman 18:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all (excluding the three pages which have been stricken) after a thorough search attempting to establish notability failed on ten counts. Cloudz679 18:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SW— babble 20:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 09:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 09:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 04:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Not sure that further relistings will be useful... 2 subject matter experts have researched the list, identified those which are notable, and endorse deletion of the rest. Consensus seems clear... Livit⇑Eh?/What? 21:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spirit Combat
- Spirit Combat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non-notable Peter Rehse (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC) (categories)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to hedge on Speedy Delete G4 (repost). Will be tagged momentarily. This was deleted over four years ago, and I am unable to tell if the article is a substantial duplicate thereof. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have declined the G4 speedy, as this is a considerably fuller article than the one deleted four years ago, which was only three lines. Best to let this AfD run. JohnCD (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the speedy was declined; it's not substantially the same. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article has no reliable independent sources to support any claims of notability. The tags show there are a lot of issues with this article, but the lack of notability and reliable sources is enough to support deletion. Astudent0 (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The long-term reliance on primary sources is troublesome. Does not appear to meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts#Arts and styles notability guidelines. jmcw (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is based almost completely on primary sources. I did not find reliable and independent sources that show this art passes WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Bowser (character). ‑Scottywong| spout _ 18:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kenneth W. James
- Kenneth W. James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable video-game voice actor. No major field contributions. MBisanz talk 04:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I can't tell make a call on notability yet, but "no major field contribution" may be a little extreme considering he's voiced Bowser in 10+ Mario games. Voice acting for a big, well-known company like Nintendo is no small feat. Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Bowser (character) - Sources from IMDB, TMK (the latter being a RS as per WP:VG/S); the facts are not into question, although notability is the concern here. He is the long-standing voice actor of one of the most recognized antagonists in video game history (the antagonist of the biggest franchise ever, Mario), which seems to qualify as a "major field contribution"; although since that seems to be his unique contribution to the field, I would say he is not independently notable enough for his own article. No prejudice towards recreating if other past work is unveiled or future work adds to the notability. Salvidrim! 02:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I personally think that as this article's subject is clearly the person and not the character he voices, that would be kind of unnecessary. Androids101 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment reply - I meant merging the relevant information, which is that the character Bowser has been voiced since 2007 by Kenneth W. James, an American voice actor who voiced the character in eleven Mario games so far. Salvidrim! 21:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I personally think that as this article's subject is clearly the person and not the character he voices, that would be kind of unnecessary. Androids101 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - This article shouldn't really stay. It has no references and with it no indication of notability, and besides, all it has is a list of games which he has voiced in, which is discouraged per WP:GAMECRUFT. Also, I do not think that it should be merged to Bowser (character), as this article's subject is clearly meant to be about the person, and not the character. Androids101 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If we're just talking about him as a person, WP:GAMECRUFT wouldn't apply, as that is meant towards video games, not people. It's okay to put voice actor stuff in some articles, like ones related to televsion, actors, etc, just not video games, per WP:VG. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge—I agree that merging into Bowser seems to be the most appropriate action here. James seems to have little independent notability. Surely the character is notable, and the actor is relevant to the character, but unless he has done other notable works, he seems to be inheriting the notability of this one (albeit significant) accomplishment. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 18:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. joe deckertalk to me 19:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Larry Kirshbaum
- Larry Kirshbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable non-CEO executive. MBisanz talk 03:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-notable my left petunia. There are over 20K hits for Kirshbaum via Google; he's been appointed to what may well be one of the most important positions in publishing today, after holding a significant position in 'traditional' media.
- Did the deletion nominator bother to look him up before nominating for deletion? Hmmm :P ?
- See http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/amazons-hit-man-01252012.html., (a FIVE PAGE article on him in Business Week) or http://www.observer.com/term/larry-kirshbaum/ (that's 20+ articles on him by the New York Observer).
- Non-notable? Really? What this case reveals is Wikipedia's highly disproportionate / biased coverage of certain topics and areas, especially business, if not a downright hostility/bias to topics that are not tech/trendy (note this topic is!). KenThomas (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems clearly notable - the above plus lots on Google News and Books. --Michig (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Slam dunk keep, with substantial pieces from Bloomberg's and Wall Street Journal showing. In an ideal world I would hang an ARTICLE RESCUE SQUADRON template and the mice would get to work on this, but for some bizarre reason that is no longer an option, so this will just have to sit until somebody discovers it and gets fired up to work on it. Carrite (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep While the hell was this discussion relisted? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zen Ki Bo
- Zen Ki Bo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable Peter Rehse (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.Peter Rehse (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete Ads in local business directories and non-independent sources do not support claims of notability. Subject does not pass WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's no indication that this style passes WP:MANOTE. The article has no independent sources that show notability. Papaursa (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to List of Dragonlance locations. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 22:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Sea of Istar
- Blood Sea of Istar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for elements of fiction. Neelix (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to List of Dragonlance locations. BOZ (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 01:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Istar (Dragonlance). JIP | Talk 05:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to List of Dragonlance locations. I'd also suggest the same for Istar (Dragonlance). The two articles could be combined into a single entry. —Torchiest talkedits 18:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Loiter Squad
- Loiter Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Insufficient notability and verifiable reliable sources. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
unfortantly this is a tv show its on adult swim which is part of the cartoon network after 9pm pst lineup, however it only continues showing racial terms as if its funny or appropriate, its a black version of jackass meets sketch comedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.8.251.26 (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the evidence shown here is more than enough for this to be removed from the afd list.Gyopi NG (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lots of reliable sources out there stating that this TV show exists. Have a search on Google News. Coolug (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per Entertainment Weekly, Hollywood Reporter, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, and more. The nominator should have searched for sources first. SL93 (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of sources exist, such as the ones identified above by SL93, and others like [48][49][50][51][52]. Gongshow Talk 21:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bridge Communications
- Bridge Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. While the first article is more about the founding couple and their exploits, the PBS interview does have something in it that points to more of it. Weak on account of that detail, however. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If they did in fact ship the first commercial router, that's enough for notability DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 22:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Skatemaster Tate
- Skatemaster Tate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable musician. Only minor appearances. MBisanz talk 03:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - weak on account that he hosted a television show. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I found plenty of brief mentions, and the following appear to indicate significant coverage, the first appearing to be a chapter/section dedicated to him, although I can't see the detail via Google Books: It's Not About a Salary: Rap, Race and Resistance in Los Angeles - Brian Cross, Los Angeles Times, Skateboarding, Space and the City (the latter mainly for its pointer to an article in People Weekly). If anyone could actually see the contents of these article it would be a great help. --Michig (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete' Per Nom. WP:N, WP:NRVE. Written like a vanity page. This guy is not notable in the skate scene even, a few minor passing mentions, but no indepth independent coverage.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep as a notable musician, per print coverage in the late 1980s and early 90s, including Grogan, David. "He's Not Lean but His Rap Is Mean, So the Thrashers Relate to Skatemaster Tate". People 27. 23 (Jun 8, 1987): 155 as well as True, Everett. "Albums – Do the Skate by Skatemaster Tate and the Concrete Crew", Melody Maker 67. 24 (Jun 15, 1991): 44. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning keep - Per the sources provided above by User:Michig and User:Paul Erik. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lastman's Bad Boy Furniture
- Lastman's Bad Boy Furniture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't think this promotional article shows notability. the advertisements in question are the uttermost trivia. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Slurmulon (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Sorry for all the likely errors here - I have never commented on a wikipedia process before - I feel like I have to be a developer to do so.[reply]
- The Lastman's Bad Boy Furniture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article seems notable in that it has a strong attachment to Mel Lastman, a prominent political figure in Toronto, Canada.
Would it serve disambiguation to have this article collapsed with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Lastman - or is it better to have this item separated, as it involves other players and commercial interests? Some of the language is verging on puffery and could be made more neutral. Noteworthiness: The Mel Lastman article is cited in a way that shows inter/national media coverage of this entity. thse citations should be used here, as opposed to a metro Toronto newspaper, which seems provincial.
- Disclosure - I am currently working with this company, and came upon this Afd via Twitter while researching online marketing.
- Delete. Non-notable and SPAMish. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Can't find any RS. The Toronto SUN link in the article is dead and the other one is Lasman's blog.--StvFetterly(Edits) 16:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No significant coverage. Even if the Toronto Sun link worked, it likely would not show notability because it would be local news. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong| express _ 18:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Volko Audio
- Volko Audio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7.Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 March 30 decided to send it to AfD instead, which is hereby done. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 21:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Promotion by an internet-based company. No sign of nearly meeting WP:CORP. No sign of any *independent* sources. No mainspace incoming links. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am dubious as to the independence of the added sources. They read like product release notes, and look to be more like sponsored if not paid advertising. More subtly, they do not review the subject, but announce it, and thus they are not secondary sources. Assuming that you can find some independed coverage of this subject, to improve the article, it would help to explain what a "virtual instrument" is (as this is supposedly the first, and indeed, maybe that is a better article to attept to write first, and to discuss the subject in terms of other subjects already in the encyclopedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kvr Audio is a reliable, known, notable and independent site in the professional audio sector which contains almost all the firms and products in the pro-audio field. It can be considered as a secondary source because it generalizes the information about products to the whole audience. Your opinion about the virtual instrument article is right. It is a good idea to improve that article more in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaglam (talk • contribs) 08:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CORP. While I did vote at DRV to give this article a second look, on close inspection it clearly doesn't pass our guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please tell me if this article doesn't pass your guidelines, how did this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Instruments) pass? (Asaglam (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFF. And that's hardly a good comparison anyway. Native instruments is large, well-known, with numerous products which themselves are notable enough for articles and, most importantly, reliable sourcing isn't an issue for NI. What you're asking is essentially like "Why does Coca-Cola get an article and my kids' lemonade stand doesn't?" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right about the size of the companies but I wanted to ask you because Native Instruments didn't invent anything. For example Steinberg invented some industry standards. From this point of view Volko Audio created a first thing in an industry and they deserve to be in here. (Asaglam (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Improved the article: I have added some new secondary sources and information to the article. I think this version will change your opinion. (Asaglam (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep The added sources are sufficient to reasonably show notability. ( It is always possible to question whether sources such as these are truly independent; what seems to happen here in practice, if one thinks the subject notable, or more generally if one wishes to keep the articles, one decides they are, if not , one decides otherwise; our criteria may sound objective, but they are not--it is a matter of interpretation. And in matters of interpretation, people interpret as they wish to; it is possible to make any amount of argument, but what really happens is that one decides holistically first, and then finds the arguments. In many cases where I've argued for delete, I could have almost equally well have argued for keep if that's the conclusion I had wanted to come to. )— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 18:06, 6 April 2012
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 03:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep probably meets WP:NCORP:[53][54]. -- Trevj (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Current sources are about products and contain only passing mentions of the corp. The links provided by trevj do not provide any depth of coverage of Volko Audio and they are not reliable sources. Nothing satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH, especially when you consider the source's audience. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—The KVR sources are product release announcements, not indicative of notability. But the two foreign-language reviews are in published magazines, in depth, and meet the WP:GNG: non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. Niche sources are still sources and the fact that they are "industry" or highly targeted doesn't reduce their weight, as long as they are independent, which these both seem to be. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 18:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eco tourism around Singapore
- Eco tourism around Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Was stripped of large amounts of promotional material. It is now three sentences with the last being "However, until today, there has been no ecotourism-based projects being developed in Singapore". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 03:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I was the chief author of most of that page.
Even though I am the owner of an Eco-resort myself, I took care not to mention my own resort, and only to delve in historically accurate summaries.
The budding history of Eco-tourism in SE Asia necessarily involves the names of some of the operators at that time. We could delete the hyperlinks if these are deemed too commercial, but I cannot believe that it is Wikipedia's view that simply mentioning a company's name in a Wiki page makes that page "promotional": half of the operators I mentioned are no longer in business even!
Marcvanloo (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment May be notable:[55](not accessible from UK)[56][57][58]. -- Trevj (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to 551st_Electronic_Systems_Wing. There is a 50/50 split on whether to delete or merge, so a redirect seems indicated; if there is anything worthwhile to be merged, that can still occur Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1965 EC-121H Warning Star crash
- 1965 EC-121H Warning Star crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very sad but not notable per WP:AIRCRASH Military crashes are very common....William 11:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Merge all information to 551st Airborne Early Warning and Control Wing. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to 551st Electronic Systems Wing (which is where the link above redirects to). Merging prohibits deletion as attribution must be maintained. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nothing of particular value to merge. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see no valuable information to merge and there is hardly any content to the article and notability is questionable at best.Andrew Kurish (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - I agree with Bushranger that this as well as the other 2 related articles should be merged. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to 551st Electronic Systems Wing per above - on its own this crash is not really noteworthy but as a pattern of crashes it is more notable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge group of crashes. - Frankie1969 (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Does not appear to have clear consensus whether to merge or delete the article. Relisting to clarify consensus.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 03:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Bmusician 01:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rafael Mendes
- Rafael Mendes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This jiu-jitsu fighter does not seem to rise above the gng. The G-Hits do not seem to rise to the level of RS Guerillero | My Talk 03:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article could use some additional sources, but he's a two time world BJJ champion so I think he meets the notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The IBJJF website shows he's a world champion. Mdtemp (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Pan American, World, Brazilian National, and ADCC gold medalist is pretty notable.--StvFetterly(Edits) 16:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - He is considered one of the best Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu fighters actively competing. He is a multiple time world champion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dclopton145 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Graham Clark (Emmerdale). Kevin (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin Pallister
- Kevin Pallister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ENTERTAINER for multiple significant roles. MBisanz talk 03:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect with Graham Clark (Emmerdale), his best-known character. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 01:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| chat _ 22:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 18:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chip Gerfen
- Chip Gerfen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable per WP:PROF, publications do not rise to level required in criteria #1 or #4 and other criteria are not implicated. MBisanz talk 03:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found 36 scholarly articles authored or co-authored by "C. Gerfen" or "H. Gerfen" (his full name is apparently Henry James (Chip) Gerfen), most of which are cited 0-30 times. This is not clear evidence of significant impact on the field, though there may be other evidence out there. Cnilep (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Without evidence he satisfies WP:PROF (see my comment above), deletion seems appropriate. Cnilep (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF, as Cnilep already said. The citation record isn't strong enough to convince me of criterion C1, his administrative position as chair is definitely not enough for #C6, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deleted per WP:CSD#G4 by Deskana (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Devorah Frost
- Devorah Frost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable, local wrestler, extensive in-universe and lacking independent coverage. MBisanz talk 03:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I see now this is a G4. Can someone independent do the speedy? Thanks. MBisanz talk 03:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to CARE (relief agency). ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 22:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CARE Indonesia
- CARE Indonesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No individual notability, created by SPA -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Significant coverage in multiple independent sources.
- Government urged to protect child domestic workers 02/16/2010 Jakarta Post
- Borneo project aims to yield lessons on saving forests, Reuters
- Aid workers grapple with infrastructure damage after Sumatra quake Reuters AlertNet 01 Oct 2009 13:41
- NGOs in new plea for Java funds= BBC
- I note that SPA is a distinction that always runs the risk of violating WP:AGF. In this case it has no bearing at all; to the contrary, this is a case that is more accurately reflected by the fact that most of our content comes from editors with knowledge in a limited area, and possibly professionals with little time on their hands, as should be no surprise to anyone who has thought for a time on the basic concept of Wikipedia: many hands make light work.
- Anarchangel (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't know about the notability of this topic, but "created by SPA" is not a valid reason for deletion. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 01:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (or merge to CARE (relief agency)). Not independently notable: Anarchangel's links do not offer significant coverage of the organisation but merely a quote or brief reference in each case. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it very disturbing when WP editors vote on the basis of what appears to be faulty scanning of the material. The Reuters Borneo article, in particular, only stops talking about CARE Indonesia and its work and focus when it is directly talking about or quoting another agency with the same work and focus. That's like saying an article is trivial coverage of a baseball team because it mentioned the team they played against; only more so, because the other agencies are cooperating. Anarchangel (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An article needs significant refs to be justified as notable. Also, bearing in mind WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:BALANCE and WP:NGO, there are quite a few CARE ancillary organisations that are potentially more notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge verified, encyclopedic information to CARE (relief agency). After searching yesterday, wasn't finding much significant coverage, so the topic may not warrant its own article. However, a merge would satisfy WP:PRESERVE. The links above are basically mentions to various degrees, which provide some information for verification purposes. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Northamerica1000. Also, I agree with Anarchangel on the subject of the SPA distinction and its use. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and per WP:NGO (and I had cleaned up CARE (relief agency) as per the suggestion in the guideline). Also, as per the guideline and WP:BALANCE there is no need to merge anything. Come on people - quality not quantity! 4,000,000 articles is not a target!! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to CARE (relief agency). Stuartyeates (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 18:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting Immunization and Health Care in Aceh, Indonesia
- Promoting Immunization and Health Care in Aceh, Indonesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No notability shown, creator seems to be an SPA Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Creater is an economics honors major from the National University of Singapore. You can view my profile here: facebook.com/junialum. This article was added on a neutral basis purely for academic reasons and do not contravene any guideline on Wikipedia. If parts of the entry needs to be changed or edited for clarification, please inform me (author). This article has provided significant coverage on this issue with a comprehensive case study. Sources are reliable with independent references. There is no question of self-publicity, advertising, etc. I do not in any way belong to any persons or organizations mentioned in this article. The article itself cites problems and is not a positively biased write up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junialum (talk • contribs) 06:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It must pass our general notability guidelines at the very least. You should also read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout for your next article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The one pointer that could be a reliable source from PR Newswire, however remote, is more about Project HOPE than anything, not so much about the subject of this article. The merits of the article must be held up independently of that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because it does not satisfy the requirement for notability, which requires significant coverage by independent reliable sources; all but one of the sources here are from Project HOPE itself. With that said, let me explain to the author of the article that we respect your credentials and we agree that this project is a worthy cause. But not every WP:WORTHYCAUSE can have an article here; we have to have standards to keep the encyclopedia from being flooded. There are, of course, other online venues and websites where you could post this entire essay and it would be welcome. As for Wikipedia, I would suggest that a summary of this information could be added to some other article, perhaps Nagan Raya Regency which is very much in need of expansion. I was going to suggest putting it in Project HOPE, but that article does not appear to include details about individual projects. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—non-notable good cause. All references (including the press release) are self published sources. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 18:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 16:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Cuckold (film)
- The Cuckold (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found no reliable sources. The only link in the article is dead and local. According to the article, this has only been shown in private screenings. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... now that the years have gone by, the one cite deadklink IS available through the Buffalo News archive pay to read. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per failing WP:NF. The project was filmed, has had private screenings, and had some minimal coverage... but for a film lacking distribution, itself lacks the significant coverage needed to pass the applicable guideline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Faint coverage. Fails WP:NF and WP:GNG. Still seems to be going the festival route, so it's possible it could become notable. If and when that happens, we should have the article back, but not until then. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - So far it has only been shown in private screenings, however there are plans to send it to the Sundance, Tribeca, and Toronto film festivals among others. - Try again when that happens and there are published reviews about the events. Carrite (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by Boing! said Zebedee as "(G6: AFD requests removal after a move; this was originally a redirect)". Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Organizations influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood
- Organizations influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Misnamed material moved to differently named article. This article no longer referenced. (Quick delete). Nominated by originator. Student7 (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick Delete Article is now a blank. I do have a problem with the whole concept, since just about everything influences everything else in some way. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete G6 (Housekeeping). Will be tagged momentarily. In the future, given the nature of this article, this should have been posted in WP:RFD. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as moot. Carrite (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Danny Fraticelli
- Danny Fraticelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was deproded by article creator without addressing the underlying concern of lack of significant reliable source coverage to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regards/ Article I think should not removed. The person is notable in Puerto Rico. I included newspapers articles from the top two newspaper here, also the link for the movie "Pedro" (MTV) and other links that shows part of his acting career. There are tons of interviews on TV programs but in youtube, so is imposible that way.... thanks Mroxidizer1 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More sources added Mroxidizer1 (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep and allow continued improvements. Though certainly not worldwide, we can accept that notability to Puerto Rico is notable enough for Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Schmidt. -- Lord Roem (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The sourcing is minimal at the moment, but I think it is just enough for the article to be kept. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per Schmidt and Mr. Stradivarius above; needs lots more information and sources for both his involvement in Nino Planeta and his acting roles, but the kernel is there and the subject appears on the face of it to meet both the GNG and WP:MUSIC. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ talk 11:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Almenas
- Jesus Almenas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I propose this page for deletion for the following reasons: 1. This individual is not internationally known. 2. Lack of hits to the page justifies its futility as a proper Wikipedia article. Oblivionzero (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)— Oblivionzero (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 25. Snotbot t • c » 17:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't find RS's on Google search, news and books. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 17:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hesitant Keep. There are a lot of Spanish sources, which will take time to go through (I don't speak Spanish) and ensure they are reliable and establish notability, but I think with some work it can pass WP:GNG. ~dee(talk?) 11:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this page should be kept. So, if I want to make my sister its own Wikipedia article telling her life so far, it's okay? This is Wikipedia, not Facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oblivionzero (talk • contribs) 00:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC) — Oblivionzero (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment The SPA nominator's rationale has nothing to do with our policies and guidelines. WP does not require that a subject should be "internationally known" (that is a very vague concept in itself), nor the Google Hits could be considered a reason to keep or delete an article. Cavarrone (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 00:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't speak Spanish either, but if Oblivionzero was talking about the Google News results, then none of them looked like they covered him in any detail. I couldn't find any significant coverage of him in reliable sources, and I can't see any reason he would pass any of the other clauses in WP:MUSICBIO. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article doesn't assert notability, regardless of how many times that name shows up in Google News; per the article, this appears to be an obscure musician whose only claim to fame is finishing fifth in a Panamanian unsigned bands competition. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ talk 11:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect/Withdrawn. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aranmula palace
- Aranmula palace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article page is a near duplicate of Aranmula Kottaram the only 2 differences is that this one has capital letters for no apparent reason and the other has an additional external link. May be considered WP:CSD#A10 but both articles are pre-2011 creation date. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Aranmula Kottaram. For next time, you can just be bold and redirect things like this. It was obviously a mistake by a new user who didn't know their way around the MediaWiki software, so no real need for debate. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Aranmula Kottaram. Salih (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is a clear case of redirect and I've boldly redirected the article to Aranmula Kottaram. Salih (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw nomination per Bold redirect completed above. Next time, I'll just be bold myself. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Allison Allain
- Allison Allain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Autobiography of person lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. The award for her band is not major and her band is not notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - I apologize for creating this page, I was bored and I love writing in wiki format. Please do not take the Choke the Word Page down because I messed up. AnomicAli (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable cellist and game designer. The author of the article seems to agree. Sionk (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, clearly non-notable. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ talk 09:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rini Ghosh
- Rini Ghosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dwaipayan (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability criteria. Actor in one TV series. Fleeting mention in newspaper for participating in a pageant. Dwaipayan (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:ORG joe deckertalk to me 14:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
?what if!
- ?what if! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indications that this company meets the criteria of WP:ORG. Yet another business consultancy with a clever idea, but no indications of any significant impact. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 09:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not Notable company with what looks like a self promotion article. NealeFamily (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Viz (comic). ‑Scottywong| gab _ 18:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Farmer Palmer
- Farmer Palmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable, unsourced since forever, redirect undone for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Viz (comic) - I can't find any sources about this particular comic character, never mind anything reliable. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep/Merge to Viz (comic). Not one of the most notable Viz strips (compared to say The Fat Slags or Roger Mellie), but has become a stereotype for a certain type of farmer that has been referred to in several news stories, etc., e.g. [59], [60], [61], [62]. --Michig (talk) 07:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Michig and my other comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finbarr Saunders
- This is a long-running strip. Indeed not as well known as Sid the Sexist, but widely enough cited that the two catchphrases "Get orf my land" and "Him were worrying my sheep" have entered the popular vocabulary, as a shorthand for just this type of farmer. Comics do tend to make their effect visible by catchphrase, even more so than by character. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Viz comic strips. I can't find any sources that cover this character in any detail. If such sources can be found, then I could be persuaded to change my !vote to keep, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge—Michig's sources are good enough to show some notability, but the depth of coverage isn't quite there to support a standalone article. Since a suitable target has been found, and the title will be left around for searchers, merge seems like a good plan here. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 18:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SpiderGraph chart
- SpiderGraph chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has many faults. It fails WP:N. It appears to be based on a single 1985 journal article by G. L. Chester / User:GregLChest. Secondary sources endorsing this particular chart are absent. The SpiderChart may not even pass WP:DUE. References 12 (Programmable Controls Magazine) and 13 (Plant Engineering Magazine) are narrow publications; neither quotation suggest the authors are skilled in the field. Other journal sources (e.g., Lurie) extoll the virtues of charts for decision making, but no indication that those sources mention SpiderGraphs. If the chart is notable, then there should be secondary sources that cover it. A similar chart is already addressed at Radar chart, but User:GregLChest claims unsourced distinctions with that chart. The thrust of SpiderGraph chart#SpiderGraph chart vs. Radar (spider) chart and SpiderGraph chart#References of Radar chart Naming Confusion sections is a WP:NOR argument that other sources are wrong in that they fail to distinguish a SpiderGraph from a radar chart aka spider chart. That is advocacy rather than a WP:NPOV. There are links to blogs. The primary editor here has a WP:COI in that he is the author of the 1985 article. The CamelCase title (SpiderGraph) and component (FeatureLine) suggest an advertising tone that touts Chester, Divelbiss Corp., and Chester's current company GLC New Product Consultants. (See external link to GLCNPC website and article illustrations.) Chester has trademarked the name SpiderGraph, and he has made a cease and desist or pay royalty demand for its use. Glrx (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator. Chester's claims at Talk:SpiderGraph chart#Objection to Deletion and Response to Reviewing Editor's Concerns are not persuasive, and they fail to understand the axis-order and linear/sqrt scaling problems of the radar chart (and how those faults directly carry over to a SpiderGraph). In particular, there are no cited sources saying SpiderGraphs do not have the faults of radar charts. I came across this article while reviewing User:Mabdul's RFA; see WP:Requests for adminship/Mabdul Question 5 about the SpiderGraph chart article, where Mabdul states, "My opinion is that this article shouldn't have been accepted since I still see the problem that it lacks indendent[sic] and reliable reference, it is not encyclopedic written and needs a cleanup which was also confirmed by User:CharlieEchoTango." Glrx (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A Google Books search shows that "Spider graphs" are actually notable, but that they are the same as Radar charts. Quality problems with this article suggest a merge is not a good idea. -- 202.124.73.150 (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: If you would have read the SG article and understood it, you would have observed by example, that the Radar spider chart is nothing like the SpiderGraph, for all the reasons stated in the article! (The Radar spider chart article's author has just infringed on my Trademark, along with 40+ other companies, not knowing the difference between the 2 types of charts! - I don't know who inserted this allegation, but GregLChest did not!) Gregory L. Chester 23:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC) The Radar chart makes Trade-off decisions by estimating the area of their patterns. The SG doesn't estimate, it can actually calculate what the final decision is! NOTE: Don't always believe what you read! Gregory L. Chester 23:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From User talk:Glrx (Response to Reply To Author's Comments) RE: WP:AfD/SpiderGraph chart
Glrx Comments from 3 April 2012:
What WP wants to see is pretty simple. The SpiderGraph has been around since 1985. If the SpiderGraph is notable, then it should be easy to find some independent secondary references that discuss SpiderGraphs. It's easy to find references (and even criticism) for the radar chart and its many aliases. Even NIST covers them in a guide to statistics.[2] Where is that sort of coverage for the SpiderChart? The original journal article, a narrow industrial automation handbook, and where else? Why aren't SpiderGraphs on Friendly's comprehensive list? (Chernoff's face charts made it.) Why isn't it covered in data visualization texts? If the SpiderGraph is not being noticed and reported on, then it is not notable for WP's purposes. (INCORRECT ASSUMPTION! - The SpiderGraph chart was developed for "In House Use" (before the Excel Radar charting Method was developed) and Not Advertised, but still turned out to be a better "calculative design" for making Trade-off Decisions! (The amount of Advertising has nothing to do with the accuracy of the Method!) The Microsoft Corp. used their large Advertising Budget to sell their Excel software package because that's their business, unfortunately it was discovered when researching Radar charts, that their users didn't like their "estimation method" of making Trade-off Decisions! (WP:MNA) (Refer to the "Six Comments" section of the article that a non-technical Reviewing Editor deleted)
You claim that SpiderGraphs are better than radar charts, but that claim is original research or synthesis without independent, reliable sources that actually make those observations. (NOT TRUE! A Non-technical Reviewing Editor deleted the "Six Comments Regarding Limitations of the Radar chart" composed from other articles, which proved my impartial statements as being correct!) WP is driven by reliable sources. Without such sources, material may be challenged and deleted. (WP:MNA would suggest that "calculated" decisions are better than "estimated" decisions!)
textwalling from author |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please be informed that the SpiderGraph chart was developed January 1981 (w/o any knowledge of what a Radar chart was and Microsoft had not yet developed Excel software!). The SG chart was designed for "Internal Company Use Only" to train Omron's PLC sales people how to select the correct product to sell to their customers for their specific control applications. It was kept under wraps to avoid Competitors from learning about it! References for Non-technical Reviewing Editors:
(American manufacturers: Allen-Bradley | GE Fanuc | Schneider) http://amci.com/tutorials/tutorials-what-is-programmable-logic-controller.asp
http://www.arcweb.com/market-studies/pages/plc-china.aspx
NOTE: The Editor of "The Standard Handbook of Industrial Automation" realized that such a Notable Charting Method could have been used by "all" PLC Manufactures to aid in selecting which of their products would best suit a given customer's application! (which was VERY NOTABLE!) Side Note regarding WP Admin selection: Just as an HR person would do using the SG chart, select qualifying questions for an Admin and place them on the SG (SFC) chart FeatureLines. If the questions are to long, just number them, with a numbered list next to the Interviewer. Make a SG chart for each candidate's answers and then later compare them to select the best person for the job! In 1999, sale of the "universal Visual Decision-making SpiderGraph charting Method" began by "using only MetaTags in a Website to attract Search Engines" to the GLCNPC eCommerce Website, but the name was still hidden and hard to find on the Website and later dropped off the Search Engines by attrition, unless it was specifically requested! However, since there were no Press Releases or Advertising, the Website stopped being useful for sales and became just a Hobby. My word "SpiderGraph" was Trademarked on Feb. 18, 2003. Later, on March 10, 2008, an "Infingement Notice" was emailed to 10-15 companies concerning their use of my word "SpiderGraph" on their own Radar spider charts. (That was the Author's first introduction and response to Radar Chart users!) (NOTE: This Author of the WP SpiderGraph chart NEVER STATED that the Author of the WP Radar spider chart had infringed upon my trademark!! That thought never entered my mind, because there was never an infringement, the two charts are not the same!) During January of 2011, it became time to renew my trademark certification. So I contacted the Trademark Board to renew my trademark of my word "SpiderGraph". On 2/10/2011, an Office Action email from a Trademark Examining Attorney was received, stating that my Trademark could not be renewed because the word was now considered "generic." They included 40 examples of the word being used by other companies. All 40 examples were later proven to be an "infringement of my Trademark" because all 40 examples were shown to be dated after 2/18/2003, the date of the original Trademark! (NO LEGAL ACTION WAS EVER ANTICIPATED BECAUSE INFRINGEMENT WAS BELIEVED TO BE ACCIDENTAL, DUE TO CONFUSION, AND NOT INTENT!) The Examining Attorney suggested that an article or definition suggesting that there's a difference between Radar spider charts and SpiderGraph charts, be published to cut down on confusion and future infringements. (at that time, the Author used only the WP:Radar chart article as a reference for the impartial comparisons throughout the article! It was later pointed out that WP Articles should not be used as a source.) At some point during the article's time at AfC, a Reviewing Editor "Tagged the Article as not having enough Citations!" (WP:NOR) Upon doing additional research, it was learned that the Microsoft Excel Radar charting method was the most popular Trade-off Decision-making method being advertised, because that's there main business, and therefore, the most widely known and used method! Unfortunately, it was also learned that many of its users were dissatisified with the Excel Radar charting method, which uses estimation as a way to make decisions! (Refer to the deleted Section of the SpiderGraph chart article "Six Comments Regarding Limitations of the Radar chart.") Since 1985, the SpiderGraph charting method was used by "only" the developer's company, GLC New Product Consultants, Inc., and sold as a Hobby on its Website and later lost user's interest due to the virtues of Search Engines! However, when the Apple iPad was developed with the largest screen found on tablet computers, it was discovered that now there was a device that could allow construction of the SpiderGraph chart by its user! In the last 1.5 years, this Author has been developing Instructions and software developement help aids to permit an RFQ to be sent out for the software development of an iPad Business App. Delete as nominator. Chester's claims at Talk:SpiderGraph chart#Objection to Deletion and Response to Reviewing Editor's Concerns are not persuasive, and they fail to understand the axis-order and linear/sqrt scaling problems of the radar chart (and how those faults directly carry over to a SpiderGraph). In particular, there are no cited sources saying SpiderGraphs do not have the faults of radar charts. I came across this article while reviewing User:Mabdul's RFA; see WP:Requests for adminship/Mabdul Question 5 about the SpiderGraph chart article, where Mabdul states, "My opinion is that this article shouldn't have been accepted since I still see the problem that it lacks indendent[sic] and reliable reference, it is not encyclopedic written and needs a cleanup which was also confirmed by User:CharlieEchoTango." Glrx (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC) NOTE: I'm shocked that Glrx could not be persuaded by the impartial comparisons made in the SG chart article and while he may know about the effects of Geometry on the Radar chart, saying that those faults directly carry over to a SG chart, IS TOTALLY UNTRUE! The SG chart does not use Geometry, because the chart is hand-drawn, not computer-drawn! One does not need sources when the facts are obvious to the casual observer! (WP:MNA) As to my reason to comment on your Talk Page directly, I wanted to prove a point with the Person's own remarks and not call them out, but you came back telling me I should learn how to Indent! Please know that I answered Mabdul & CET's accusations directly and proved they were non-technical and didn't know what they were talking about, so now they still want the SG Article deleted! Doesn't the Truth or being impartial & Neutral matter at all any more! Isn't that being spiteful or is it just plain prejudice or maybe there's a BarnStar fraternity that I don't know about?? Gregory L. Chester 01:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Delete. A Google Books search shows that "Spider graphs" are actually notable, but that they are the same as Radar charts. Quality problems with this article suggest a merge is not a good idea. -- 202.124.73.150 (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC) NOTE: Doesn't anyone read an article before they want to delete it?? Within the SG article is a section called "References of Radar chart Naming Confusion." What quality problems are you referring to or haven't you read the SG chart article either?? Gregory L. Chester 01:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC) From "Revision History of Radar chart" (cur | prev) 09:38, 7 January 2012 Mabdul (talk | contribs) . . (9,963 bytes) (-48) . . (Reverted good faith edits by GregLChest (talk): Err, why did you sign that again? -_-. (TW)) (undo) NOTE: I don't know what Mabdul "Reverted in good faith," but GregLChest MADE NO CHANGES! (However, It looks like someone rearranged this article and added a SpiderGraph chart reference to the "See also" section!) Gregory L. Chester 01:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC) (cur | prev) 12:26, 3 January 2012 GregLChest (talk | contribs) m . . (10,011 bytes) (+48) . . (Copied Spider chart Image for my SpiderGraph Article - I made no changes!) (undo) Speaking about Mabdul's Faith: He stated that he stopped Citing me because "he lost his Faith" in the SG chart article, so he restored the section that he had deleted! He doesn't state that his only reason for deleting the section in the first place was, he couldn't see the "value" (of 3 articles about Decision-making) being listed in the SG "Decision-making" chart article?? Glrx made the comment that I wore-out Mabdul, so he just gave in and restored the section he deleted! Don't you think that the Truth had something to do with that?? Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Chester PS - I'd like to talk to the Greetings Person that said, "Welcome to Wikipedia, writing an article will be easy, have fun with it!" Gregory L. Chester 01:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs) |
- Comment - as I'm not an expert in statistics, I have placed the {{expert-subject}} tag on the article for further review by other statistics experts here on Wikipedia. This said, Gregory, for the article, I am EXTREMELY concerned that you have trademarked this and are posting it on Wikipedia - this raises some serious flags for conflict of interest and a desire to use Wikipedia as a promotional mechanism. Moreover, the extensive commentary above is entirely unnecessary - fixing the problems as seen, or a simple rebuttal as to why these are not issues, are the Right Thing - and if further explanation to your rebuttal is requested, that's the best time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ATTN: Dennis The Tiger, regarding your concerns.
- 1) Your EXTREME CONCERNS regarding the word "SpiderGraph" being trademarked. PLS NOTE: all mentions of "trademark" and their icons (R)&(TM) where long ago removed from the SG chart article!
- 2) As far as PROMOTION, ADVOCACY, or ADVERTISING are concerned, this Author has no product to sell!
- 3) As to the above extensive commentary being necessary, most comments regarding the SG chart article and demands for its deletion are unfounded or usually from non-technical Reviewing Editors that may not have understood the article, so I believe that some clarification is required. How can there be a simple rebuttal when the other party doesn't understand what you're talking about?
- 4) This author's motivation here is quite simple: Wikipedia is used as a complete authority on most things encyclopedic. However, as far as I know, WP only touts one method to make trade-off decisions, the Radar chart. Unfortunately, according to the article itself, mentioned under the "Limitations" section and by many of its users, the "Radar charts have been criticized as poorly suited for making trade-off decisions. Further, it is hard to visually compare lengths of different spokes, because radial distances are hard to judge." Fortunately, for the user desiring better accuracy when making trade-off decisions, WP could show their impartiality by offering a more accurate alternative method, by admitting the SpiderGraph chart article to be part of the WP free encyclopedia. The SG chart can be drawn by free-hand, w/o the use of a computer, that requires a Spreadsheet & the Excel software package, which introduces Geometry to present a chart display, that is then used to estimate a decision. Gregory L. Chester 22:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I am extremely concerned by the apparent WP:Conflict of interest by the article's writer, who is acting as a WP:Single-purpose account here; the WP:TLDR responses only make it worse. Okay, so this SpiderGraph chart is a product among many, and it differs ever so slighty from the others (which product doesn't?). The majority of the current article tries to show this difference from normal spider charts. However, this screams advertisement to me, and wikipedia shouldn't be a plateform for this kind of material. Any general stuff should be mentioned (along with non-promotional sources) in the Spider chart article, e.g. to illustrate minor possible deviations, the rest is simply WP:UNDUE in my eyes. – sgeureka t•c 10:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ATTN. Sgeureka, regarding your concerns:
- My concern is, that if this discussion is TL and you DR it, why are you even commenting on it? PLS NOTE: These discussions are long because non-technical people have made their concerns known and have proven that they are confused or don't know what they are talking about! I have only tried to clear up their confusion! Did you even read #4 of the above response to Dennis The Tiger??
- Now to address your confusion:
- 1) The SpiderGraph is a one-of-a-kind! (Not a product among many!)
- 2) If you would have looked it the examples in the article or even read it, you would have noticed that the differences are "major" and not "ever so slighty[sic]!" The charts are nothing alike, except that they may appear to look like a spider's web, when finished.
- 3) This SG article does not "scream advertisement," however it does make note of a new, more accurate, alternative method to making trade-off decisions, that competes with the only other method, presently mentioned on the Wikipedia encyclopedia plateform[sic], that its users are dissatified with! The major difference between the charts is "calculation vs estimation."
- 4) "Any general stuff should be mentioned in the 'Spider chart' article, ... the rest is simply WP:UNDUE in my eyes." Sgeureka please note, this article is titled "SpiderGraph chart!" The Radar (spider) chart article is sometimes being incorrectly confused with the SpiderGraph chart! I think you should read the Radar chart article! You are one of the reasons that the SG article was written!
- Now to address your confusion:
- This Information is being Respectfully Offered,
- Gregory L. Chester 17:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment by nominator Chester's long comments above show that SpiderGraph has not been noticed by the public (so it is not notable) and that his motive for writing the article is to preserve and promote his trademark.
- The SG was hidden from the public. Chester states that the SG was developed in January 1981 but "it was kept under wraps to avoid Competitors from learning about it!"
- The SG is not notable. In 1999, Chester tried to sell SG through his website, but "the name was still hidden and hard to find ... and later dropped off the Search Engines by attrition."
- The SG did not have much impact. "Website stopped being useful for sales and became just a Hobby."
- Chester admits no significant impact. "Since 1985, the SpiderGraph charting method was used by "only" the developer's company, GLC New Product Consultants, Inc., and sold as a Hobby on its Website"
- Chester trademarked SG in 2003 and sent several infringement notices.
- When Chester tried to renew his trademark in 2011, the Trademark Board told him that the term was a generic term (apparently for radar chart) and would not be renewed. Chester disputed the finding with the Trademark Board.
- Now we get to motive. "The Examining Attorney suggested that an article or definition suggesting that there's a difference between Radar spider charts and SpiderGraph charts, be published to cut down on confusion and future infringements."
- Chester then wrote the SpiderGraph chart article. Much of the article sought to distinguish SG from radar charts – the distinction that the Examining Attorney wanted to see. For example, "The Radar chart, sometimes called a Spider chart, is also known as a Web chart, Cobweb chart and Star chart, but it has never been known by the term SpiderGraph,...."[63] (Emphasis in original.) WP is not the proper place for such an article because it is WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. The article making such distinctions should be published where it can be reviewed by experts. After that is done, then WP can report on it. WP should not be the place of first publication.
- The thrust of Chester’s argument is that SpiderGraphs are somehow different from radar charts, but there are no reliable sources that make that statement. The six comments regarding limitations of the radar chart are about the radar chart and do not address or compare the SG. Chester's claim that SG don't have those limitations is unsourced. When Chester draws his own distinctions between the two, he points out trivial distinctions such as hand-drawn versus computer-drawn. The SG "is not constructed from a spreadsheet."[64] Radar charts can have up to 8 or 9 variables, but the SG can have up to 30. SG do not use "geometry".
- I believe that Chester is wrong on most of the merits, but that does not matter here. Even if Chester is absolutely right about everything he says, he has not provided a significant number reliable secondary sources to support notability for this article. He has told us that a spider chart is a radar chart. He has told us a SpiderGraph chart is distinct from a radar chart. He has told us he trademarked SpiderGraph. What he has not told us is that SpiderGraphs, whatever they are and however distinct they are from radar/spider charts, are getting significant use and have had a significant impact on the community.
- Quite simply, Chester is following the instructions of the Examining Attorney. He is trying to publish a article on Wikipedia to inform the public that his SpiderGraph charts are different from radar charts so he can backup his trademark claim.
- Glrx (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Glrx's 4/9 "Comments by Nominator" (These are Responses by the Author)
- Glrx Please Note: It is people like you that have required my long comments! Just to let you know, I should be getting my Taxes finished, but instead, I'm spending my time to help you clarify your misconceptions! Also, Please Note: I type with two fingers, looking down at the keyboard, so you can see that I'm not to crazy about typing! However, not being noticed by the public has nothing to do with the article's Notability! As to "preserve and promote his trademark" - My TM has already been reinstated! Now, as to my motives, Please Read response #4 to Dennis The Tiger, above!
- Now I'll try to answer your concerns:
- 1) I developed the SpiderGraph chart as a teaching aid and had no idea what a Radar chart was! It wasn't until a Reviewing Editor forced me to do more research on the Radar chart, that I discovered just what the Radar chart users thought about using it and that it had Geometry in the Excel software to help display the chart's patterns, that were then used to "estimate" the trade-off decision. That research proved to me that the SpiderGraph method was much more simple and even more accurate, because it didn't require software like the Radar charting method! (WP:MNA) Thus proving that the SG charting method was even more Notable, then the Radar chart! A fact that eluded me, when my descriptive article was included in the Standard Handbook of Industrial Automation in 1986, that can now be found in the Library of Congress! (WP:N)
- Now I'll try to answer your concerns:
- In my opinion, Notability has nothing to do with publicity or public acclaim, it's the Method that really counts! The Reviewing Editors shouldn't rush to delete any article, because the public has an opportunity to vote their oppinion at the end of each article! There's also "edit tabs," so the article can be corrected! I believe a Reviewing Editor should encourage, not discourage, a neophyte writer!
- 2, 3, & 4) It sounds to me like you don't know or care to know, just how Search Engines work! "It's the number of Hits, that keeps an article on the first page! Once it moves off the fisrt few pages, it's lost by attrition!"
- 5) It sounds to me like you don't know the value of a Trademark! Notices were sent in 2008.
- 6) (apparently for radar chart - "naming confusion") If you would have clicked on any reference in the "References of Radar chart Naming Confusion" section of the article, you would have noticed that the referenced companies had used a Radar spider chart and called it a SpiderGraph chart! In addition, I proved to the TM Attorney that all infringements took place after my initial TM date and a new TM Registration is in the process of being issued!
- 7) Yes, I thought the suggestion was a good one and it may even cut down on the naming confusion! However, that was only my "initial" reason! You see, after I started writing the article and encountered a couple of your really friendly and helpful Reviewing Editors and many more of your rude, teasing, and possibly worthless Reviewing Editors (you already know some of their names), so being a very principled person of High Integrity, I decided that I would not be intimadated by them! Therefore, my real motivation, after being forced to realize that the Radar charting method was not very good, was further explained to Dennis The Tiger in response #4. (To avoid being more lengthy, you'll have to refer to my Dennis response #4.)
- 8) The Examming Attorney was satisfied when I proved the infringement. However, the "but it has never been known by the term SpiderGraph,.... " was my idea! However, when it was pointed out to me that that didn't sound very Wikipedic and knowing that my article was intended to be an impartial comparison and that part sounded Advisorial, I agreed and removed it immediately! The part: "The Radar chart, sometimes called a Spider chart, is also known as a Web chart, Cobweb chart and Star chart" came from the 2nd paragraph of the Radar chart article itself, but I placed the spider chart name first because that was the name being confused. (WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS) are no longer true! The fact that the Radar chart article is published in Wikipedia and the SpiderGraph chart article will not be, if it's deleted, is not a very good example of Wikipedia's impartiality! In addition, the SpiderGraph chart article applies directly to the following Wikipedia Policy:
- WP:NOT#DICT
- 2. Dictionary entries. Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. However, articles rarely, if ever, contain more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title. Articles about the cultural significance (is public "misrepresentation & confusion" of cultural significance?) or mathematical significance (is "estimation vs. calculation" to obtain a Trade-off Decision, a mathematical significance?) of individual numbers (45 companies exhibiting confusion in their own articles) are also acceptable.
- Reading the above clarification, it seems that the SpiderGraph chart article is exactly the type of material Wikipedia is looking for!
- 9) The thrust of Chester’s argument (There is no "argument" found in the SG article, it's all impartial comparisons taken from reliable sources and cited!) is that SpiderGraphs are somehow (How can you say "somehow," when it's proven by examples, WP:MNA) different from radar charts, but there are no reliable sources (Don't your eyes or knowledge count, when it's obvious to the casual observer? WP:MNA) that make that statement. It seems to me that you're the only argumentative person here, of course making exception for the non-technical and those previously mentioned!
- For example: Your comment - The six comments regarding limitations of the radar chart are about the radar chart and do not address or compare the SG.
- The reason the impartial comparison doesn't address or compare the SG (with citations) is obvious, the SG chart can be constructed and compared by hand, w/o the need of a Spreadsheet or a computer, that uses Geometry in its software, which causes the limitations!!! (WP:MNA) The SG chart doesn't need those things and still provides more accuracy than the Radar chart, when making Trade-off Decisions! A fact that is definitely not trivial, nor of my own distinction! Sorry, but I guess, the only distinction here is between a BSEE and a PhD!
- 10) I believe that Chester is wrong on most of the merits, but that does not matter here. (Unfortunately, it does matter here! You're either Technical or you're not!) (WP:MNA) Even if Chester is absolutely right about everything he says, he has not provided a significant number reliable secondary sources to support notability for this article. (Fortunately, Wikipedia, in all its wisdom, has provided WP:MNA, for situations just like this, that should be obvious to the causal observer!)(As far as reliable secondary sources supporting notability, I believe that my one (1) source, found in the Library of Congress, far out-weighs a significant number regular sources!)
- As far as "getting significant use and have had a significant impact on the community." (I would have to say, that 45 companies using a Radar spider chart and calling it a SpiderGraph chart in error, would have a significant impact on any community!) Even Microsoft has been known to use a spider chart and call it a "Spider (SpiderGraph) chart." They were also sent an Infringement Notice, but didn't reply!
- 11) Quite simply, I already have the Trademark Registration, so the Examining Attorney is out of the picture. It's up to me to decide who infringes and who does not, but I choose not to persue it, because hiring a Trademark Attorney for an infringement case is a very lengthy & costly process! However, you are right, the SpiderGraph chart article will clear-up alot of confusion and cut down on infringement of my Trademark, but unfortunately there's more to proving an infringement case and a Wkipedia article would not backup anything, but the impartial truth! However, I believe that it's more important to always keep the public informed about what the truth is!
- Respectfully submitted,
- Gregory L. Chester 23:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Gregory L. Chester 19:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs) Gregory L. Chester 01:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Gregory L. Chester 01:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| speak _ 18:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment - Hoping to get some discussion that does not consist of walls of text from the COI author. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 18:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ATTN: Scottywong - Your Relisting Comment sounds highly opinionated!! If only you would have read this discussion, you would have noted the proof of Notabilty for this article per a WP policy example and that this Author has proven several times over that there was never a COI in the impartial comparisons used for this SpiderGraph chart article! In addition, you would have also learned that this Author doesn't like to type, but if the REs were more Technically Knowledgeable, there would have been no need for walls of text to help clarify their confusion! Gregory L. Chester 23:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- I...wow. I just have no idea, but I'll give this a shot.
In my opinion, the assertion that this is different from Radar charts is somewhat plausible. From what I can see, it's actually a legitimate variation of Radar charts that may or may not (as the COI author claims) have predated them. That's fine. What I'm not seeing is enough of a difference to warrant a seperate article.I would proposethreetwo things.First, create a section of the Radar charts article that includes the critical information about the differences, including that it is claimed that the SpiderGraph is the original form. Do not merge, however - this article is too POV to use anything in it except maybe its sources.Second, Delete this article with extreme prejudice. Third, (someone else do this) take the COI party in the above dispute to the appropriate arbitration and request a topic-ban for that editor. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no sources that show the SpiderGraph is different from the radar chart. Chester has provided no references for that claim. When Chester describes the difference, the claimed distinctions are either wrong or trivial. Radar charts may use linear axes; they are not required to use square-root scaled axes. A well known problem with visual presentations is people perceive areas rather than lengths -- a well-known problem covered in the book How to Lie with Statistics. To minimize that problem, Excel apparently uses a square-root scaling (so the area of a sector attempts to be linearly related to its plot value). There's no indication that radar charts are limited to 8 or 9 axes; a radar chart can be a good chart for 24-hour cyclic data, so 24 axes are reasonable. Radar charts need not layer different candidates on the same chart; even the radar chart#Example does a side-by-side comparison rather than a layered comparison. Trying to layer more than a few candidates would strike any one as too busy. The distinctions are Chester's claims; they are not made in any cited reliable sources.
- Chester does not claim to predate the radar chart. The radar chart first appeared in 1877. See Radar chart#Overview providing a sources for the statement, "The star plot was first used by Georg von Mayr in 1877." Chester claims that he developed the SpiderGraph while ignorant of the radar/spider chart. His claim is not about priority but rather that he made an independent invention.
- Chester's legal claims lie in what name someone may use when referring to a radar graph. Chester owns a trademark, so no one is permitted to call their radar/spider/web/star/whatever chart a "SpiderGraph" without Chester's permission. He controls the name, but he does not control the usage charts with a similar appearance. Significantly, Chester does not have a patent on the process of displaying data on radial axes. A trademark is essentially a brand name: I can make a cola drink that tastes exactly like Coca-Cola (or Pepsi), but I cannot market it as Coca-Cola (or Pepsi). I can make a car, but I cannot call it a Chevrolet or a Buick. Chester can show infringement because nobody used the name "SpiderGraph" before he trademarked the term.
- ATTN: Jorgath - Regarding your comments & unwarranted negative conclusions in your very 1st paragraph of 44 words:
- PLS. NOTE: All of the negative comments and assumptions from the previous Reviewing Editors mentioned above, have all been asked & answered at length and proven to be incorrect! But still, they persist! I guess, there are some Reviewing Editors that just don't like to be proven wrong! OR maybe they're just more into the "game" and not really trying to make Wikipedia better at all??
- After reading your first paragraph comments: "I...wow. I just have no idea, but I'll give this a shot." I must assume that you are not Technical, nor Scientific either. Unfortunately, I believe a Reviewing Editor should encourage, not discourage, a neophyte writer, but it seems that most REs that I've dealt with in this discussion would rather delete something that they don't want to take the time to understand or maybe can't understand in the first place! However, after reading your unsubstantiated (Second) DELETE statement and your (Third) TOPIC-BAN statement, it is very clear to me, that you were selected to help build a negative consensus for my article's deletion! I guess it would be to much to hope for, that you would be a man of your word regarding the enhancement of WP, instead of just another misguided kid with the loyalty of a mobster hit man!
- However, before I address your concerns, I would ask you to put on your "Enhancementist Hat" and impartially review a few things first: 1) Look at your Radar Chart#Overview link and read paragraphs 2 & 3 in the lower section on "Limitations." 2) Click the Link at Glrx's statement #8, citation #1. You will see "Not to be confused with a Radar chart," after reading that, scroll down till you see "Six (6) comments Regarding Limitations of a Radar chart" written by Radar chart users, that also found fault with the Radar charting method! (The Six (6) comments section was deleted by a non-technical RE and I believe it should be reinstated to prove that this article does have the required sources!) PLS NOTE: that the SpiderGraph chart has none of the Radar chart faults because no computer (that causes the faults) is needed to construct the SG chart! 3) Scroll up to the end of the Response to Glrx statement #8 and read the WP Notiablity Policy section WP:NOT#DICT, which describes the SG chart to a tee as being exactly the type of material Wikipedia is looking for!
- Now to address your concerns in your 2nd paragraph: Your first (mostly crossed out) paragraph, started out sounding opened minded, but changes rather rapidly?? So, I'll move on to your 2nd paragraph: 1) There are "no sources needed" for the SG chart, except WP:MNA, because the Radar spider chart uses a spreadsheet for the Excel software, so a computer can construct a few diagrams or patterns, so the user can make an "estimated" decision, looking at the relationships between the diagrams. The more diagrams, the harder it is to make a decision! (It's the computer that requires the Geometry found in the software to help construct the diagrams, that creates the faults in the Radar charting method!) Fortunately, "the SG chart only requires a user" to directly construct the SG chart and "no spreadsheet nor computer are even needed!" But, of course you should have learned that from reading the SpiderGraph chart article, that is, if you did read it?? The whole SG chart article is written in an impartial comparison style to show the distinct differences between the to two types of charts. (to address your uninformed statement, "The impartial comparison distinctions are neither wrong nor trivial!!" (WP:MNA) It's very simple: The Radar spider chart method REQUIRES A COMPUTER to construct a chart, so the user can "estimate" a decision from its patterns! Where as, the SpiderGraph chart method DOES NOT REQUIRE A COMPUTER, the user constructs the chart "directly" and can "calculate" the value of each item's chart, to then later "select" a final decision!
- Your 4th sentence in your 2nd paragraph, "Radar charts may use linear axes," confuses me! Because, if you read my 4th paragraph above, starting with "However," requesting that you review a few things first, 1) was asking you to read paragraphs 2 & 3 in the Radar chart "Limitations" section, where you should have read in paragraph #3, that "it's hard to visually compare lengths, because 'radial distances' are hard to judge!" Consequently, "Radar charts use 'Radial' axes, not linear axes, because they all start from a common point." To continue with your comments, "they are not required to use square-root scaled axes."?? I'm not sure what "square-root scaled axes" are, but I do know that square-roots are used to find the areas of the Radar chart patterns, not their lengths!
- To continue with your 2nd paragraph assumptions: I'm a Degreed Engineer by schooling and always tell the truth as a matter of principle, consequently I have never needed to read the book to which you refer: "How to Lie with Statistics." However, in the next sentence, you include the words: "Excel apparently ...," which sounds very much like an assumption on your part! As for your other assumptions: when you refer to the Radar chart#Example, reading the very first paragraph of the Radar chart article, it states "... represented on axes starting from the same point." (To do this, the patterns must be layered to find relationships within the same chart!) Does the side-by-side comparision box you refer to, "start from the same point?" NO, it's displaying 16 separate car star plots to save space in the article! (Refer to the article's first image to see a 5 Design Star Plot from NASA, does it tell you anything?) Also in the Radar chart article, please refer to "Data set size" on the 4th page of the article, which reads: "Radar charts are helpful for small-to-moderate-sized multivariate data sets. After that, they tend to be overwhelming." I used 9 axes, because that's what that example used! In the Radar chart/Spider chart article found at "http://web2.concordia.ca/quality/tools/23radar.pdf", it states: "A radar chart can normally include five to ten categories." Good Luck with that!
- In your 3rd paragraph, while restating some of the things already mentioned in my article, it seems to be somewhat correct, that is if you will agree that my article "impartially compares" two distinctly different and independent charting methods (you call inventions) to accomplish a Trade-off Decision, and has further proven that a decision made "from calculation" is far better than a decision made "from estimating data trends!" (WP:MNA)
- Unfortunately, in your 4th paragraph, you still seem to be confused! Chester's legal claims "deal only with the word SpiderGraph" (that fact has been intentionally omitted from the article) and belongs to a special and totally different charting method and has nothing whatsoever to do with, or referring to, a radar "graph?", which BTW, heretofore has always been referred to as a Radar chart or Radar spider chart! The SpiderGraph charting method and the computer-driven Radar charting method are two totally different charting methods that arrive at a Trade-off Decision differently, "the SG chart by calculation" and "the Radar chart by estimation!" (I'm sure you can guess which one is more accurate!)
- The 2nd sentence of your 4th paragraph, regarding "the Trademark and permission assumption" is totally in error!! I have the TM for the name of one charting method and will never give anyone permission to call the other (Radar) charting method by the wrong name! If you've forgotten, the whole "SpiderGraph chart article" was written to prove, by comparison, that the two charting methods (and names) are totally different from each other! (Didn't you even read the article??)
- Your 3rd sentence is correct, Chester does not control the usage of other charts with a similar appearance, nor do I want to! Your 4th sentence is correct, but your choice of the word "Patent" is incorrect usage and has never been used in this article or its discussions before! (I believe that you patent an object and copyright a process.) The balance of your paragraph is correct, but has absolutely nothing to do with anything!
- With the information and clarification that I've tried to give you, I would hope that you would re-read the article and see if things start to fall in place or maybe you can give me the insite to make the article easier to understand. You mentioned that your aim is to enhance WP and make it better, well with only one choice, the Radar chart estimation method presently to make Trade-off decisions, that users are very unhappy with; giving WP a second and more accurate choice, like the SG chart article, may just be the way to do that. I believe the public deserves the right to have a choice when wanting to make a Trade-off Decision! After all, what can it hurt!
- Respectfully submitted,
- Gregory L. Chester
- Gregory L. Chester 23:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete—After reading this whole wall of text I am convinced (despite GregLChest multiple WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments) that this subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for inclusion in the encyclopedia. GregLChest should take a second and realize that, as is stated in Wikipedia's notability policy, WP:N, Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity. So far every argument for keeping the article has been to assert the fame, importance, or popularity of the subject. No reasonable argument has been made that the article subject actually does meet the notability requirements, specifically, the WP:GNG. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 19:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ATTN. Livitup - Regarding your SpiderGraph chart article Delete comments:
- If you read the whole wall of text as you say, why didn't you see the following WP Notability Policy comment too:
- WP:NOT#DICT
- 2. Dictionary entries. Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. However, articles rarely, if ever, contain more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title. Articles about the cultural significance (is public "misrepresentation & confusion" of cultural significance?) or mathematical significance (is "estimation vs. calculation" to obtain a Trade-off Decision, a mathematical significance?) of individual numbers (45 companies exhibiting confusion in their own articles) are also acceptable.
- Reading the above clarification, it seems that the SpiderGraph chart article is exactly the type of material Wikipedia is looking for!
- Did you also read about WPs "only" Trade-off Decision-making method, the Radar chart article? If you did, then you would have noticed that the Radar chart has Limitations, noted on its pg. 2. This Discussion also mentions "Six (6) Comments" by Radar chart users about many more limitations (that was deleted by a non-technical Reviewing Editor, which I believe should be reinstated to give the article several additional creditable sources.)
- All of these limitations are impartially compared in the SG chart, which has none of these limitations! This POSITIVE FACT alone, should be NOTIABLE enough to include the SG chart in the WP! PLUS, it would give the public TWO CHOICES to use for making Trade-off Decisions! (Showing WPs impartiality!)
- As a less Notable Note, the SpiderGraph Chart was included in the Standard Handbook of Industrial Automation, found in the Library of Congress, which means they also found the article Notable!
- However, to contradict your incorrect assumptions, the SpiderGraph chart, while having importance, was kept under wraps until 2003 and still then was not advertised, and therefore there has been no argument or assertion of fame, importance, or popularity of the subject! The only assertion that the SG chart article "proves" is that there is no computer needed to draw the chart, which causes the limitations in the Radar charting method, therefore it is more accurate because the user can calculate the Trade-off Decision directly and not have to estimate it like the Radar chart requires!
- Respectfully submitted,
- Gregory L. Chester 02:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)
- Delete with extreme prejudice and calculated disregard for the extremely boring wall of text above. This whole thing is a soapbox for the promotion of this product/concept, whose notability has not been in any way demonstrated. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ATTN.: AlexTiefling - Author's reply to your rather short Non-Notable comments!
- Dear Alex, you and I do agree about two things, that is: 1) WP is no place for personal attacks w/o first reading the article & its discussions, and 2) extreme prejudice Vanity User Pages, like yours, puts you in the WikiTroll class and should be removed immediately! My Mother once told me, that if I didn't have anything nice to say, I shouldn't say anything at all! A good lesson, your Mother should have taught you!
- As for your comment about an extremely boring wall of text, I'm sorry if you're not interested in learning the demonstrated truth about a very Notable Article. I'm sure you found all of your college professors very boring too! Speaking about that, I'm really surprised that you didn't use your BSc Degree? in Mathematics to know that Excel uses Geometry to construct the chart, to the determent of the Radar charting method of making "estimated" Trade-off Decisions, compared to the SpiderGraph charting method that "requires no computer" to construct its chart, for a "calculated" decision!
- Oh, BTW, this Author has no product to promote, as you assumed! Oh, yes, I'm sure you remember what they say about that assume word!
- Your saying that, "notability has not been in any way demonstrated," only proves to me, that you didn't take the time to read the article or discussions, and that college didn't teach you to think for yourself! Blindly following someone, is no way to get ahead in today's world! Sorry, you haven't learn that either!
- Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Chester 00:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)
- Commment: Really: "A good lesson, your Mother should have taught you!" - that was rude! AlexTiefling expressed his reason to this discussion and his decision to "vote" for a delete, and you going against him like that? Moreover what has a userpage full of userboxes to do with being a troll? mabdul 01:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Chester 00:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)
- Delete Not notable. Close to original research in the claims that we should have an article on this because it's better - that's not for the creator to decide, it's for the other writers whose accounts establish notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ATTN.: Colapeninsula - I believe that you're a "non-WP person" w/o a User page and therefore, your vote shouldn't count!
- A WP:N/N two page reply paper was entered on 1/15/2012, look it up! also, throughtout this discussion can be found a WP:NOT#DICT Policy clarification, in which the SpiderGraph chart article "impartial comparison" passed with flying colors, please look that up too. A little homework never hurt anyone, you should have done yours!
- While writing this article, I received a WP:NOR tag and when I did my following research, it only confirmed that the SpiderGraph non-computer charting method was better! However, I'm not going to write a wall of text this time, you'll have to do your own homework on this one too!
- Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Chester 00:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)
- Commment: Huch? "[...]I believe that you're a "non-WP person" w/o a User page and therefore, your vote shouldn't count!" There is a) no policy on having a userpage and b) is that user "experienced" with over 3000 edits (not that edits show the experience, but they give a hint) mabdul 01:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Chester 00:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)
- Delete, or merge with radar chart. Putting aside the sidebar issues (WP:COI and the wall of text above), this is clearly a non-notable variant of radar charts, and one does not need to be a statistician to realize this. As far as I can tell, the claim to notability stems from a single article "Chester, G. L.: "Visual Aid For Selecting PLCs," Contr. Engr., Vol.32, Mo.1, 178-180, January 1985" and other references on the page aren't really about the subject: this is insufficient for notability. Additionally, it may be a different issue if the paper in question was famous/celebrated, but that appears not to be the case since, well, I can't seem to find it.-Well-rested 05:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As an aside, anyone knows what "Contr. Engr." stands for? Some of the databases I have access to list journals similar to that phrase, e.g. "Control Engineering", or "Control Engineering Practice", but I haven't been able to check them because those listings don't go as far back as 1985. Anyway, the state of the article is irrelevant to notability in this case. Also, man... we need better ways of dealing with walls of text. -Well-rested 05:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as already stated in my RfA (and cited above). mabdul 12:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Frankly, I'm surprised this was even relisted, as (after ignoring the tl;dr) the concensus looked pretty clear. Regardless, the article fails to make the case that this has any independent notability from radar charts; most of the references are not about SpiderGraphs (as opposed to being about radar charts) and the one exception, the supposed Chester 1985 paper, can't be verified to even exist and certainly does not appear to have been cited by anyone else. Additionally, the tone of the article is overly promotional, and the behavior at this AfD does not give me any confidence that it can be remedied easily. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails to meet notability standards due to lack of extensive coverage in reliable independent sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lauren Flax
- Lauren Flax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No assertion of notability present in article other than being associated with bluelinked people and groups. There are some mentions of her on google, but largely in the context of gossip or passing mentions of her in relation to someone else. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added the link to Sia's song page for "You've Changed" which references chart postions for the United States and Australia as well as additional references and chart links for Australia and Holland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettwisted (talk • contribs) 17:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Just about notable per the GNG; seems to scrape by satisfying WP:MUSIC and WP:COMPOSER having written one of the top 50 selling singles in Australia that year, and racked up quite a lot of remix credits for major artists. The sources are better than expected, too - the NME Band of the Week piece for CREEP is quite convincing. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ talk 09:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to meet WP:COMPOSER: "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition", namely You've Changed (song). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 04:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
World Championships (Table Hockey)
- World Championships (Table Hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I see that the champions are listed on the ITHF table hockey article, so I doubt the need for this article. In this unsourced form, and due to other reasons, I'd imagine that it could be construed as not notable. dci | TALK 22:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The champions (1 player) are listed in the summary on ITHF table hockey, but here the playoff results (16 players) are stated. It is a huge difference. There is a big need in the TH world for an article as this one. I have also added references now, sorry about missing that in the first try. TH_guru | TALK 17:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hardly any internet hits. Fails WP:GNG. Looks like WP:FANCRUFT of an involved player (WP:COI). Wikipedia is not the place to promote a table game. Night of the Big Wind talk 12:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a real tournament in a real sport with a real article on Wikipedia, how is that WP:FANCRUFT. How would a tournament on Wikipedia be promoting the game? Does the Wikipedia article on Americas Cup promote Sailing? That's right, it doesn't. How are we supposed to evolve the coverage of minor sports on Wikipedia if we can't add one of the biggest known tournaments in Table Hockey. Why bother having the sport on Wikipedia if you can't have that sports governing bodies, best players of all time and the biggest tournaments. Answer me this, how are we supposed to help someone learn fully of a sport that's in a encyclopedia if we can't add the basics. I'm on a goal to find one of the best players in each sport as part of my personal project and i've found it hard to do in some of the lesser known sports that's on here, so i've had to look elsewhere. That to me is a problem that needs fixing. So i joined the site to help out with this major oversight. I'm now in WP:SPORTS to improve minor sports that aren't that well known but are on Wikipedia ex: Bossaball and Broomball. After seeing this i might be reconsidering.GuzzyG (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stong Keep Major tournament for a sport, just needs formatting cleanup. Also see above.GuzzyG (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 09:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete This is simply a listing of non-notable people. The tournament itself might be notable, and the winners of such are notable enough for inclusion on that page (as they currently are), but the quarterfinalists are most certainly not notable. See also WP:NOTSTATS and WP:FANCRUFT. Wikipedia is not the place to promote (and in this case seemingly create) coverage of minor "sports" (a game at best). Ravendrop 09:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not all sporting events are notable. I see no IRS, and a reasonable search doesn't help much. Wikipedia is not here to promote. Fails every aspect of WP:EVENT. BusterD (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opera South (United States)
- Opera South (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an article about two separate companies that needs to be split. However I don't think either company is notable. Marcus Qwertyus 20:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pointless article glomming together two unrelated things, neither notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and start over. This appears to be an attempt to disambiguate two performance companies by having a single article on both of them at the same time. If the individual companies are related by more than name, the article needs to say so; all signs point to that they are not, however If the individual companies are notable unto themselves, they should have articles, but this article should not exist as a DAB until there are >2 such pages. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - corrected a spelling error. Damn homonyms.... =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, for all the reasons above. If either company is notable, a new article can be created with appropriate reliable sources. --Deskford (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
National Mediation Training Registry (USA)
- National Mediation Training Registry (USA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No major media coverage. Marcus Qwertyus 18:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reliable sources that I can find. Spammy. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.