Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iphone 6. (TW) |
|||
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/Allison DeFeo}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iphone 6}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iphone 6}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPNav}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPNav}} |
Revision as of 09:30, 3 March 2013
- 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 Ronald DeFeo, Jr.. Jenks24 (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allison DeFeo
- Allison DeFeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete per WP:CRIME, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Stub class article adding very little new information relating to Ronald DeFeo, Jr..--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable murder victim. Her brother , the killer, is notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or Delete Unfortunately I don't think this victim meets the threshold of encyclopedic notability. There's nothing here that isn't already covered in the article about her killer. Since there isn't anything here potentially harmful to the encyclopedia, I think a redirect would be the best outcome, but deleting this and leaving a redirect behind is fine too. AniMate 01:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirct as per WP:1E. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily deleted G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. —Noiratsi (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Iphone 6
- Iphone 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article has no sources at all to verify its existence. Well, there are sources in the Internet but its WP:TOOSOON. Mediran (t • c) 09:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt until the phone is announced, as was done with iPhone 4 and iPhone 5. Those articles were created around 2 weeks before release of the device; this seems to me appropriate given Apple's fondness for unverifiable rumours until the last-minute reveal. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iphone 5.—Noiratsi (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Speedy delete G4 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPhone 6. Didn't notice that before. Have tagged accordingly. —Noiratsi (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IPNav
- IPNav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This company appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH, and doesn't appear to qualify at this time for a Wikipedia article. Source searches are not yielding significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IPNav is a relatively new name for the company. Search under "IP Navigation Group" and "Erich Spangenberg" for further sources, such as this article in Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/11/09/meet-the-texas-lawyer-suing-hundreds-of-companies-for-using-basic-web-encryption/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabcfi (talk • contribs) 10:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as completely lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brad Lau
- Brad Lau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails football notability and college athlete notability as he has never played a game in any pro league, and never won any awards/honors or had much significant non trivial media coverage as a college football player either. Arbor to SJ (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Sources don't support assertions of article (e.g. one link shows that Lau ranked 18 of 53 in fullbacks for the 2007 NFL draft. Not bad, but not a "top pick" and not even in the top third). The 2007 St Louis Rams Roster doesn't list Lau as a player in 2007 or any other year. In fact, the Football Database doesn't show Lau as having played for anyone professionally. His college career was also unspectacular. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 09:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per nom. While college players can qualify under GNG, not findin substantial nontrivial coverage in mainstream media sources. Cbl62 (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Subject is not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NCOLLATH (never received a major college sports award) pr WP:NGRIDIRON (never played an NFL or other professional game). Google and Google News Archive searches reveal a fair anount of routine and/or trivial coverage, but not multiple, independent, reliable sources as required by the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. There are a handful of marginally substantive articles in the Idaho Statesman (hometown newspaper for Boise State), but multiple articles in the same newspaper count as a single source. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Could be notable in the future, but I'm not seeing the amount of coverage that I think would pass muster. If coverage occurs, please post and I'll be happy to review/change.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn following article improvement with unanimous Keeps. The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Boudreaux's Butt Paste
- Boudreaux's Butt Paste (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. I see no claim for notability in the article; single ref is a passing (one-para long) mention in Businessweek. As long as the article is in the current shape, it has no place on Wikipedia - we are not a listing of minor products found on store shelves, and so far, this is what the article looks like. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The past and current problems with the article are all fixable. There are sources out there and a couple of us have set to adding them. The product/line has not only been slapped onto a NASCAR ride, but it's gotten international coverage. It got quite a bit of coverage just based on the NASCAR stuff and while notability isn't inherited, the articles I've found that mention the NASCAR ride all focus predominantly on the product itself. What's on the article now is just a fraction of what's out there. The main problem is sorting through and picking out the best sources of the bunch at this point, as we can afford to be more selective.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would, however, recommend making this into an article about the brand as a whole rather than specifically the butt paste. It'd be easier to have all the info in one place rather than two separate articles.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I deprodded this with an explanation that it is a well-known product with many sources evident at GNews. The AfD was filed less than 30 minutes later, while I was still putting together my first edit adding some of these sources. In the meantime another editor has also began adding sources. As I write this the article now has 11 sources, with more to come. --Arxiloxos (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am glad to see the article improved, and I'll be looking forward to the point I can withdraw this nom. Per Tokyogirl79, I'd suggest reconsidering the scope of the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep NASCAR Busch and NASCAR Nationwide sponsor. Star767 (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - May look like a poor article, but looking at WP:UGLY, the errors can be fixed, and being used as a NASCAR sponsor (I don't see why it was OK'd though, especially with a rather stupid product name) does give it some notability. But then again, refocusing the scope of the page is also a possibility. ZappaOMati 19:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per all the reasons given above. Also, I must say the timing of this AfD was pretty bad given that this article was on the main page as a link in a DYK entry. At least it wasn't the bolded article in the DYK hook, but given the title, it is probably one most people will click (like me). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the timing was the best - the more people learn about how Wikipedia works, the better. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. At this point the article has been expanded sufficiently that the nom can be withdrawn. Thanks to all who helped to save this article! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Foxy Brown (rapper). (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Black Roses (Foxy Brown album)
- Black Roses (Foxy Brown album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Propose for redirection. Foxy Brown has been pretty much semi-retired since 2001 when her last main album Broken Silence was released. Only one album has been released since then, the moderately successful and critically mixed street album Brooklyn's Don Diva in 2008. She has made only 16 guest appearances on other artist tracks since 2003. This has been in preparation for 9 years with no update since early 2011 and only 2 singles nearly 5 1/2 years apart from each other. I don't think she has any inclination to complete this now or in the near future. Thebirdlover (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Foxy Brown (rapper). There probably isn't going to be a Black Roses album, but there is content here that would usefully be merged to the Foxy Brown article. --Michig (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Foxy Brown (rapper)—this reminds me of Detox (Dr. Dre album). The content is better moved to the artist's bio for now as it does not seem to meet WP:GNG. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Foxy Brown (rapper) per above. Yuffo (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Bordes
- Peter Bordes (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 of this article is in question. I improved it a bit to save it from immediate deletion, though. –BuickCenturyDriver 06:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it would need a lot more improvement to save it from deletion. There's no indication that any of his companies or "projects" has any notability so it's difficult to see where his notability lies. Just being a company director doesn't confer notability. Deb (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no assertion of notability. Non-notable projects. Alan(E) 17:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking sufficient in depth coverage in reliable independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to List of sultans of Sulu#Claimants as Sultan of Sulu from 1980 - present. Sandstein 06:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paramount Sultan Ibrahim Q Bahjin Shakirullah II
- Paramount Sultan Ibrahim Q Bahjin Shakirullah II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm nominating this for a wider discussion. I have to somewhat explain the history of this nom. I initially came across it via the proposed deletion articles, where the biggest concern was that it was a hoax. I initially thought this was the case, but the person does exist and the limited media attention he gets uses a slightly different spelling. What makes me see him as non-notable is that he isn't the focus of any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. He's mentioned as an afterthought or an aside in most news articles and there doesn't seem to be any other type of coverage about him that can be used to show notability. His main claim to fame as far as Wikipedia goes is that he is an heir to the Sultanship of Sulu and North Borneo, and I think he's actually second in line to the throne if I'm reading this correctly. I know that occasionally the first heirs to major thrones will pass notability guidelines on this basis alone, but I'm not sure that this really falls under that criteria. The additional difficulty in this is that in the article about the Sultan of Sulu, the Philippine government hasn't actually formally recognized an official Sultan. The Sultanate of Sulu article also confirms this. So what we have here is an article about a person who claims to be an heir to a position that hasn't been officially recognized since 1986. Everyone after this point has been seen as "pretenders to the throne", regardless of birth or any other claim, legitimate or not. Part of me thinks that this could potentially be usable as a redirect, but then I have to wonder if this is really appropriate to list and redirect for every person who lays claim to the throne. The article isn't helped out my by its original format, ([1]) which served more as a platform to argue that Bahjin Shakirullah II is a more legitimate heir than the others. I just don't know what the best solution is for this. He's not notable enough for an entry in my opinion, and I'm not sure that a redirect would be the best course of action here since I have no way of knowing how many people are claiming to be heirs to the Sultanate or whether or not it's appropriate to redirect for each person. I was going to let the PROD lapse, but I felt that an AfD would be the best course of action in this case. The more eyes looking at this, the better. I'm not really arguing legitimacy of his claim as much as I am notability. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On a side note, I'd also like to state that although there was a recognized Sultan in the 1980s, the Sultanate was dissolved in 1917. In other words, the title is just a title and doesn't officially hold any power as far as the government goes. So again, the Sultanate has been dissolved for almost 100 years and the government stopped formally recognizing any title holders about 27 years ago.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 18:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you tried searching for Tagalog sources? This being a Filipino "Paramount Sultan" in question. (As well as Melayu sources maybe) I'd suppose per general notability guidelines, this man would be marginally notable for his case as a disputed heir, as reported here and also [2] For time being I'm going to say Weak keep. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that this is really a notable enough title to warrant it passing that threshold of notability. You've got to remember that there have been no official Sultans of that region since the 1980s and what I can find is rather vague on how he came to have that title or who exactly inferred it on him. I've gotten the impression that there are multiple people that are claiming to be the Sultan of this area or, as the children of those people, claiming to be the heir apparent. It's not exactly like William and Harry, as there are currently six people claiming the right to be the Sultan of this area and I'd presume that of those, at least 2-3 of them have children that could claim something similar. I had some difficulty in finding sources for him in general, which is why I'm bringing it here. The coverage here is so light that I honestly doubt that he merits his own article, as his sole claim to fame is that he is one of several people claiming to be the heir to a position that hasn't been legally recognized in about 26-27 years. I'm thinking that at best this should redirect, but I'd like to verify more about him and that he's actually a serious contender for the title of heir, as again, I've gotten the impression that of the heirs themselves, there's at least a good 2-4 of them. Not including the people claiming to be the Sultan. I'm willing to accept a redirect and merge of some details, but I don't know if that's appropriate. Remember, none of these people are really recognized by the government. I've seen similar cases such as this one from last month, this one, and this one, where the article was deleted or redirected because their relation to royalty wasn't enough to show notability in and of itself. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been multiple similar cases, which is why I'm arguing that being a claimant to a throne isn't necessarily enough. He doesn't seem to be the main contender for this either. ([3], [4], [5], [6]) I'm not trying to be hardheaded, just saying that there's a lot of precedent for redirect or deletion when it comes to cases of people that have received little to no coverage about themselves specifically and have their notability extend from a tenuous link to royalty.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, have not found significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources of the subject. Therefore, failing WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, deletion appears to be in order.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- After second thought, if it can be verified that the individual is a claimant/pretender to the royal title, the article could be Redirected to List of sultans of Sulu#Claimants as Sultan of Sulu from 1980 - present. That being said I still have not found significant coverage of the individual, so a standalone article is not required at this time IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. We have BLPs on Pretenders to thrones like the Comte de Paris so why not one on this cheerful-looking
old buffergentleman. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- The issue isn't whether or not the concept of a pretender to the throne might be notable, but whether this specific person is. The existence of other articles doesn't really give that great of an argument when you figure that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS might just mean that the article in question hasn't been nominated yet. Although if we're going to argue that way, I might add that almost none of the other claimants to the Sultanate have articles and don't seem to merit individual entries either. If you want to show that this person is particularly noteworthy, you should probably back it up with in-depth coverage in reliable sources. If this AfD shows that he's only notable for his claims, then perhaps this would be better as a redirect to the main article if anyone can figure out exactly how he relates to the other claimants or to the other Sultans. Also, please remember that this article was initially started extremely promotional in tone, basically being used as an advertisement to show how he's the only valid candidate for the Sultanate. I mention this because I don't know how much of the previous claims were actually legitimate. There's very little about this person on the Internet that wasn't uploaded or supplied by he or one of his camp, so take that into consideration. The more I think about it, the more this seems to be a case of Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. I'm willing to compromise and add him to the list of people claiming to be the heir to the Sultanate, but I really don't think he merits an entry to himself. Other than a few articles listing him as an aside, literally as 1-2 sentence mentions, there's absolutely nothing out there about him. His claim to the Sultanate is pretty weak and I can't quite find who exactly named him the heir to the Sultanate. The article for the Sultanate of Sulu lists about four other people who claim to either be the Sultan or have a claim to the throne. I guess what kind of bothers me about this is that it means that by the standards above, anyone can make a claim to a throne and as long as you have one article mention you (even if it's just briefly), that means you pass notability guidelines. I'm really puzzled as to why people are arguing notability based on one person claiming that he's the heir when there's little to no coverage for him and nothing to show why his claim is honestly legitimate. I wish I'd just gone with one of my first thoughts and speedied this as spam and then just redirected his name to the Sultanate of Sulu. This is a very bad precedent we're setting here, saying that all it takes to keep an article is a random claim and some trivial mentions. If this is all it takes, then we need to revisit at least a good few dozen articles on royalty (real royalty, not just potential pretenders) that were deleted because their notability wasn't inherited and trivial mentions weren't enough.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 18:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I found the whole issue of the Sultanate, before you stripped the article, to be rather interesting, but I agree that it needs secondary sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- The reason I stripped the article was because none of it was sourced and because it was all highly promotional. If you want me to return all of the previous stuff to the article, I will. I'm wondering if that's the only way to hammer home how non-notable this guy is and how spammy the entire mess is. It was more of a promotional resume than an actual encyclopedic article. If it's the whole pretender to the throne thing that's interesting, all of that is currently summarized in the article for the Sultanate. The big question here is that if someone is only known for making the same claim as about 4-7 other people (this includes the ones that actually claim to be the Sultan and not in line to what is now a non-existent position), you have to ask yourself: are we really doing Wikipedia any good by having a stub article in this case instead of deleting and/or redirecting it to the article that best summarizes all of this? This is one of those cases where the only information about him that's actually been backed up in RS (even if just trivially) is that he's a doctor that claims to be the heir to a Sultanate that's been dissolved for almost 100 years and the title has been unrecognized by its government for about 1/4th of that time. This isn't to say that someone claiming to be something can't be notable, but that's simply not the case here. Since all he's known for is making this claim, I'm willing to compromise and have him added to the people claiming to be in line for what is ultimately a non-existent position, but he's not even very well known when it comes to that. He's just not notable enough for his own article. While I know that being a spam magnet isn't a reason for deletion in and of itself, you need to remember that the original editor used this as a spam page to promote this person and this will continually be a spam magnet. I really and truly think that the best case scenario in this instance is to delete everything and maybe create a redirect to the appropriate page. We've had multiple AfDs where people with real and proven ties to a throne/royalty were shown to not be notable outside of their heritage and were redirected to the parent article. I know I'm being verbose, but that people are willing to argue keep for what is, at best, a tenuous and rather unproven connection to the Sultanate really bothers me. If he'd had more coverage then that'd be one thing, but he hasn't. It's stuff like this that makes me understand why so many people are getting frustrated with the notability and deletion processes here on Wikipedia and just jump ship rather than to try to argue their case. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The only problem is the article is a BLP of an individual whom I couldn't find any significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources about. Non-verified content is subject to WP:GRAPEVINE specifically, and WP:BURDEN generally.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per RightCowLeftCoast. A pretender with insignificant levels of coverage in secondary sources isn't really notable. Such notability as exists accrues purely to the title and is not, in this case, inherited by the person pretending to it. RayTalk 01:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect as above. In time sources may appear to prove notability, but they're a long way from there so far. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JmaJeremy✆✎ 21:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of sultans of Sulu#Claimants as Sultan of Sulu from 1980 - present, not enough out there to establish standalone notability but the info is importat enough to remain elsewhere. J04n(talk page) 00:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect as above. The sultanate is notable enough (even after its loss of official status) to justify having a list of claimants including this one. But (especially in view of WP:INHERITED) we don't have enough evidence that this particular claimant is independently notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to List of sultans of Sulu#Claimants as Sultan of Sulu from 1980 - present. Subject has no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that would substantiate notability. Transfer verifiable information, if any, to a new table cell in the list of claimants. Xeltran (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was NO CONSENSUS. I would also add that in my opinion changing the nomination text after others have already replied to it is a very dubious practice. Far better is a new comment after the replies, and if necessary striking the offending passage. SpinningSpark 15:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Craig McMorris
- Craig McMorris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
According to his record he recently placed 50th in the FIS Snowboarding World Championships 2013, and at best 17th at the FIS Snowboard World Cup (and most recently 32nd). If we're not using his placements to assert notability, I don't see a lot of WP:SIGCOV outside run of the mill or WP:ROUTINE coverage for his events. Note: Google News mainly comes back with stories by Craig McMorris the news reporter. Mkdwtalk 06:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But, if you actually check the FIS records, you will see that Craig McMorris was ranked 5th in slopestyle in the 2012 World Cup, and qualified in 3rd. He has also filmed several video parts for films for NuuLife Cinema and Class Five Snowboards, and has frequently been profiled and the subject of articles and videos on TransWorld, one of the top snowboard news sites. - September16thtalk —Preceding undated comment added 07:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC) — September16th (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Ranking (points accumulated) and final position are two different things. You can be any rank but if you finish 50th then the ranking means little. For example, on the FIS official 2013, he had 0 points and ranked 139th in 2013 and you can find him near the bottom despite placing 50th. If you're point out that he's notable because he's been in commercials then we'd look at him through WP:NACTOR but he wouldn't meet that criteria either. Getting sponsorships, advertising deals, and interviews is fairly routine for athletes. Mkdwtalk 07:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - McMorris has competed at the highest level in his sport. He is a member of his country's national team, competed in multiple World Cup competitions, and he has competed at the World Championships for slopestyle. There is simply no more higher level of competition than the World Championships for slopestyle. As for the assertion that a top 10 finish is needed in the world championship, I do not see it stated anywhere in the sports specific guidelines with the possible exception of the one for triathalon. On the contrary, many of the sport-specific guidelines mention participation in the World Champhionships without qualification based on their results at the competition. This is in line with the general guidance that competing at the highest level in the sport indicates notability; specifically WP:NTRACK, WP:NBADMINTON, WP:NCYC, WP:NSKATE, WP:NGYMNASTICS, WP:NHOCKEY. -- Whpq (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's hard to compare specific guidelines that have to do with a completely other sport. It's oranges to apples, some of those are even team sports. As many guidelines cite they must have medalled or top 10 finishes. I just don't see how someone who didn't qualify for the Olympics and placed 50th at World's is notable enough for a standalone article. I mean, he would be a longshot precedent if you compare him against Category:Canadian snowboarders where they all have medalled. Mkdwtalk 16:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. Can you clarify which guideline you are referring to which cite "medalled or top 10 finishes" because I didn't see any. As for comparing McMorris to other snowboarders, it's a rather WP:OTHERSTUFF type of argument. The fact that we don't have articles on all the snowboarders who have competed at the World Champioships indicates to me that nobody has got around to it yet. I would agree that they don't represent high priority articles for creations, but they would all meet WP:NSPORT which is what guides thje decision on topic inclusion for sports people. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm merely pointing out that saying other athletes in other sports are notable because is the same argument because they're unrelated sports. I think we can both agree that in lieu of no direct guideline about snowboarders that WP:ATHLETE (WP:NSPORT) is the prevalent guideline that should be used. The basis for my nomination was a lack of SIGCOV outside of WP:ROUTINE and run of the mill coverage since most stories I find are not directly about him across a wide range of publications (most about Team Canada, the World's, or other teammates). Mkdwtalk 18:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason I mentioned the other sports is because the nominating statement stated "finished in the top 10 when competing in their respective World Championship", and I was trying to address that point of your nomination. It would be helpful if you clarified what you mean by that. It appears we both agree that no such statement appears in any of the notability guidelines, so it would be helpful to me, and any other editors coming into this dicsussion later if you can explain what you mean by that statement. -- Whpq (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm merely pointing out that saying other athletes in other sports are notable because is the same argument because they're unrelated sports. I think we can both agree that in lieu of no direct guideline about snowboarders that WP:ATHLETE (WP:NSPORT) is the prevalent guideline that should be used. The basis for my nomination was a lack of SIGCOV outside of WP:ROUTINE and run of the mill coverage since most stories I find are not directly about him across a wide range of publications (most about Team Canada, the World's, or other teammates). Mkdwtalk 18:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. Can you clarify which guideline you are referring to which cite "medalled or top 10 finishes" because I didn't see any. As for comparing McMorris to other snowboarders, it's a rather WP:OTHERSTUFF type of argument. The fact that we don't have articles on all the snowboarders who have competed at the World Champioships indicates to me that nobody has got around to it yet. I would agree that they don't represent high priority articles for creations, but they would all meet WP:NSPORT which is what guides thje decision on topic inclusion for sports people. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's hard to compare specific guidelines that have to do with a completely other sport. It's oranges to apples, some of those are even team sports. As many guidelines cite they must have medalled or top 10 finishes. I just don't see how someone who didn't qualify for the Olympics and placed 50th at World's is notable enough for a standalone article. I mean, he would be a longshot precedent if you compare him against Category:Canadian snowboarders where they all have medalled. Mkdwtalk 16:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM and this editor has a WP:COI considering this !vote was made in between edits of a failed ANI filed against me by this user; see WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Mkdwtalk 02:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:Routine coverage only. Doesn't appear to have placed at any apex event in his sport. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Whicj policy requires placing at an apex event in his sport? -- Whpq (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't a policy that says placing at an apex event in his sport would confer notability, but if they had I'd expect there would have been enough coverage, even if it were hard to find. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Whicj policy requires placing at an apex event in his sport? -- Whpq (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 00:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 02:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Provisional IRA campaign 1969-1997#Attacks outside Northern Ireland. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (review) 18:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heidi Hazell
- Heidi Hazell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable biography per WP:1E Mo ainm~Talk 06:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thoroughly notable incident, mentioned in prominent newspapers 6,000 miles away and publicly condemned by the British PM and the West German government. I can move the article to "Murder of Heidi Hazell" if you prefer, but it's clearly too notable for deletion. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. I've moved it to Murder of Heidi Hazell. Problem solved! --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Provisional IRA campaign 1969-1997#Attacks outside Northern Ireland and mention her in a single sentence, per WP:1E and WP:CRIME. Do we really need an article on every one of the IRA's 1800+ victims. Her death was unfortunate but had no lasting ramifications. Sionk (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per Sionk. Like most "Murder of..." articles, this may pass WP:GNG based on news coverage but it fails WP:NOTNEWS - since it only covers one event without any significant repercussions. Might be worth a brief mention on the PIRA campaign page. Funny Pika! 23:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retain article - as well as the comments at the time, including as noted in the article the German Foreign Minister and the British Prime Minister this event and person is still notable. For example, in 2011 in an article for the Sunday Independent it says " Germany was particularly outraged over the 1989 killing in Dortmund of Heidi Hazell, the civilian German wife of a British soldier" [7]. If it is still being explicitly referred to in the mainstream media over 20 years later and cited for its impact on German opinion then this event passes any reasonable test of notability.--Flexdream (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect as above. A standalone article on this topic is always going to have issues of WP:BALANCE, so it's best to integrate it into a long-form article. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. J04n(talk page) 12:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff Anderson (singer)
- Jeff Anderson (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be a notable person by our standards. Had one album on a somewhat notable label, and another one is mentioned in the infobox--but I don't see evidence of it and that by itself might not be enough. No hits, no coverage, nothing else? Drmies (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notable references added to article on March 3rd, 2013, including reference of hit single on Billboard's music charts. Article also cleaned of any promotional links to ensure the integrity of the article. ryanbattles (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gong show 14:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The CBN Music source appears to be nothing more than a profile page, that's not a valid reference for notability. The artist does appear to have two minor chartings from the Billboard source (although it does appear to disagree with the articles claim about the particular chart position). The Faith Artist Agency is blatantly not a WP:RS, nor is there anything substantial there anyway. AlphaOmegaNews doesn't appear to be a RS, and it really doesn't provide much of use anyway. Cross Rhythms seems decent, there's a good amount of coverage there - it's not a textbook RS, but it seems solid enough. The District Coffee House is neither a RS, nor does it provide much in the way of coverage. I'm not going to say delete yet, because this may be worth keeping, if another source turns up. There's no evidence of the Grammy award nomination, at least, not in the cited ref. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Secret account 03:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coastal Forces of World War II
- Coastal Forces of World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is purely WP:OR, grouping other navies' ship classes by British designations that were never applied to them. This is not, and cannot be, reliably sourced, and cannot become anything more than WP:SYNTH at best. The Bushranger One ping only 03:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 03:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the subject has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources including books published by the United States Naval Institute, and others. The article may need work, but AfD is not a substitute for article improvement.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But sometimes blowing it up and starting over is called for, as in the case there the title is a notable subject but the article is utterly unverifiable original research and synthesis, as is the case here. - The Bushranger One ping only
- I wrote that when I was starting out, as a sort of speculative article to see whether it would fly. It wasn't clear then whether it was a good idea or not, and I remember having doubts. In those days there was little interest in anything to do with naval coastal forces on Wikipedia, and I wrote a number of the articles that did exist in that area. But goodness, what a harsh view you have Bushranger. Many countries operated coastal forces in WWII in a rough parallel to British coastal forces. To call that "utterly unverifiable original research and synthesis" is absurd and over the top. Still, the article has not been developed and has a low view count, and since it attracts such a level of vitriol it should be deleted. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry if it comes across as harsh; sometimes at oh-dark-thirty my brain's happy-o-meter starts pointing over to 'old codger'. The problem is that while those are indeed in rough parrarel to the British coastal forces, there aren't any reliable sources that say 'these are directly comparable to these others as a group'. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote that when I was starting out, as a sort of speculative article to see whether it would fly. It wasn't clear then whether it was a good idea or not, and I remember having doubts. In those days there was little interest in anything to do with naval coastal forces on Wikipedia, and I wrote a number of the articles that did exist in that area. But goodness, what a harsh view you have Bushranger. Many countries operated coastal forces in WWII in a rough parallel to British coastal forces. To call that "utterly unverifiable original research and synthesis" is absurd and over the top. Still, the article has not been developed and has a low view count, and since it attracts such a level of vitriol it should be deleted. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But sometimes blowing it up and starting over is called for, as in the case there the title is a notable subject but the article is utterly unverifiable original research and synthesis, as is the case here. - The Bushranger One ping only
- Delete per Bushranger. Unjustified WP:Synthesis which cannot be supported by RSs Buckshot06 (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The claim that the topic cannot be reliably sourced is blatantly false. Here's a selection of sources:
- Allied Coastal Forces of WWII
- Coast Watching in World War II
- Coastal Force Actions
- Battle of the Narrow Seas: The History of Light Coastal Forces in the Channel and North Sea, 1939-1945
- White Plumes Astern: the short, daring life of Canada's MTB flotilla
- Kriegsmarine Coastal Forces
- The United States Coast Guard in World War II
- British Coastal Forces of WW2
- Secret Flotillas
- American Coastal Defences 1885-1950
- Light Coastal Forces in the Present War
- These works are specifically about coastal forces and operations. There is also a large number of general works about WWII which will include coverage of coastal forces, e.g. The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II.
- Warden (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how these sources about coastal forces explain how 'coastal force' boat X is the same thing as 'coastal force' boat Y, which is the subject of the article. The subject may be notable. The article, IMHO, needs WP:TNT. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't say "the same thing". It says "Other Navies operated equivalent boats, but classified and named them somewhat differently." This seems reasonable per WP:OBVIOUS. If you're having trouble with the general concept, please see Brassey's Coastal Forces. Warden (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment an article on the inshore/small boat operations of the participants of WWII would be a valid one. But it needs attention so that there is no whiff of OR or SYNTH. At the moment the title and section titling is dubious - the former should be generic, the latter specific to the nations' proper titling of those units. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 13:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Not sure about other countries, but in the USA the Coast Guard is a separate branch of the military since 1790 and their operations during WWII would be clearly encyclopedic. The poorness of this started article is not a matter for discussion here; clearly encyclopedic topic under GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (review) 18:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tourism in Jammu and Kashmir
- Tourism in Jammu and Kashmir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is just a copy of the Wikivoyage/Wikitravel article. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Kaldari (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Topic is a valid one. Copy paste was done by one or more ip editors. this version do have right information without duplication of content from wikitravel. Unregistered users will keep on doing such vandalism, can we remove articles because of that?--GDibyendu (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This article is a part of Template:Tourism in India and a valid topic. If you copy-paste from somewhere else, a copyvio investigation may be started separately! --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Eiffel 65#Brekup and reformation. Keeper | 76 00:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffrey Jey
- Jeffrey Jey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As it seems, there is not enough information on the subject itself from Eiffel 65 and I suggest this article either be deleted until more info is found by another source or whatever info is on here be taken into the article Eiffel 65. I might have to think about the other members, as well, as making it's own "Members" section in that article, but like the one in the One Direction article. EditorE (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Eiffel_65#Breakup_and_reformation - It seems he has been with Eiffel 65 the longest and a Google News search provided the most results (several of the links are Italian). Searches for the other groups provided a few results but this one seems to be the one he is best known for. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Love of Money
- The Love of Money (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article has no apparent focus, and seems to solely exist to support the article Thomas L. Tang. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only references we have for this are primary; without independent secondary sourcing it fails WP:NOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete The topic does not seem to be a notable outside the context of the primary article. This is a discussion of Tang's research, consisting of two verses of the First Epistle to Timothy and a copypaste from Thomas L. Tang#The Love of Money is the Root of All Evils. According to Ghits, the phrase is more commonly associated with the bible quote - so that might be a plausible redirect. Funny Pika! 14:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - seems to be a puff piece for a BLP itself subject of AfD Thomas L. Tang. Suggest it is deleted and moved to Talk:Thomas L. Tang. No need for redirect. Love of Money capitalized leads to the songs, love of money no caps leads (now) to the Judaeo-Christian concept. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn by nominator. I had already nominated the article for speedy deletion as a copyright violation, apparently when this AfD nomination was being created. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 03:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Duncan ranch
- Duncan ranch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Place with no notability whatsoever. Fails WP:N. –TCN7JM 03:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawing nomination – Article was found to be a copyvio. –TCN7JM 03:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Henry the 9
- Henry the 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't see any sort of notability. To me, this just looks like an unimportant indie film. –TCN7JM 03:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I don't understand how this film, which according to this article has had only a single screening, even qualifies for listing in the Internet Movie Database, much less in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and possible redirect to either Seumas Next or Stephan Kern. While IMDB simply requires that a film has been shown somewhere, WP:NF requires it receive some sort of note in reliable sources... which this one has not. We can at least send readers to where it can be mentioned even if not meriting a separate article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about redirecting to either of those articles. They're both being PROD'd at the moment. –TCN7JM 03:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I had seen that... others created by the now-blocked User:MrBiggXX...but there is no doubt that THIS article fails. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about redirecting to either of those articles. They're both being PROD'd at the moment. –TCN7JM 03:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article itself claims that it has only ever been shown once, at a hotel. No reliable sources. Far from being notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas L. Tang
- Thomas L. Tang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In this plethora of words I find no indication of notability, whether it be via the GNG or some index. That this is a narrative resume written by the subject is obvious; that it needs to go is clear as well. Note also The Love of Money and its history. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I find a GS h-index of 7 at best. Not enough to pass WP:Prof#C1 or support this vast construction. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. I tried to steer the author into a more careful and collaborative direction, but he seems more interested in the promotional possibilities of Wikipedia than the encyclopedic focus. Have now AfD'd The Love of Money. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Give us a link to its AfD debate and put it in the appropriate discussion groups. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- You found it, obviously, but for future reference (once the article is deleted or the AfD link is gone from it) the AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Love of Money. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Give us a link to its AfD debate and put it in the appropriate discussion groups. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. Local university awards are not enough for WP:PROF and there seems nothing else. In addition, this is puffed up far beyond what any reliable third-party sources can support. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. RayTalk 16:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect to Club good. Non-admin close on behalf of nominator who has withdrawn nomination in lieu of a redirect. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 03:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Club theory
- Club theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Material from here is now in Club good. (An increase of 4kb to 6.0 kb now.) The added material serves (nicely) to expand that article, making it more useful. (And I reassessed it as start class.) Deletion of this article with a redirect to Club good will work well. – S. Rich (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect (BLAR) to Club good There's no need to delete the article just to recreate it as a redirect. A blank-and-redirect is sufficient here I think.-- ShinmaWa(talk) 02:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By OP – I posted this as an AfD because I expected resistance from the creator of this article. The AfD would allow other editors to opine. (I had been accused of harassing the creator.) In between the time that I was doing my C&P to club good and my posting of this XfD, the originator of club theory received an indefinite block. With this in mind, I'm guessing that Shinmawa's advice to redirect can be accomplished without objection. Sorry, though, I'm not sure how to do this. Would you please accomplish it? Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes sense and you probably did the right thing, all things considered. If you want to BLAR the page, just replace the entire content of the page with "#REDIRECT [[Club goods]]" (without the quotes) or you can just let this AfD run its course. :) -- ShinmaWa(talk) 03:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By OP – I posted this as an AfD because I expected resistance from the creator of this article. The AfD would allow other editors to opine. (I had been accused of harassing the creator.) In between the time that I was doing my C&P to club good and my posting of this XfD, the originator of club theory received an indefinite block. With this in mind, I'm guessing that Shinmawa's advice to redirect can be accomplished without objection. Sorry, though, I'm not sure how to do this. Would you please accomplish it? Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curry House (Fort Adams, Mississippi)
- Curry House (Fort Adams, Mississippi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD; the only way this building can be considered notable is if we ascribe automatic notability to all subjects photographed in the Historic American Buildings Survey, which seems wrongheaded. Though superficially the topic appears to have extensive coverage (curry house fort adams -wikipedia), filtering out Wikipedia and Library of Congress mirrors ("curry house" "fort adams" -wikipedia -photo) suggests minimal notability well below WP:GNG. --BDD (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I don't particularly care. I created this article in April 2010 when I created and developed Curry House (disambiguation) page. This is a reconstruction of why I chose to create it. There are various proper noun places named Curry House or variations such as "Nathaniel Curry House", distinct from the common meaning of Curry house as an Indian/Bangladeshi restaurant in the U.K. or elsewhere, and it seems useful to have a disambiguation page to help readers find their way to them. In 2010 it seemed useful to create this stub article as an example of a place named exactly "Curry House", partly to protect the disambiguation page from contention about whether there are proper noun places of exactly this name. It has worked fine. I think the short stub article is accurate and is fine to keep in Wikipedia, though I grant it is only marginally notable. Since little/no additional information has arrived to the article since then, I am guessing that the Curry House itself was destroyed (or else it likely would have become NRHP-listed and otherwise recognized). Again, it is marginally notable, having been recorded in the Historic American Buildings Survey. It is no big deal if it is deleted or kept, but I would prefer it be kept, as it is then more likely that the Wikipedia article will collect documentation to be added by local historians, photographers, etc. --doncram 00:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's a nice photo, but that's not enough to base an article on. Unfortunately, the HABS photograph was not accompanied by any meaningful information about the house. Additionally, I find no indication that any such information is available anywhere else. HABS does say the house was in "fair" condition at the time of the photo (1936). Its condition in 1936, together with the fact that this area has not exactly prospered in the intervening years, makes it very improbable that it survives today. I found an interesting report on the cultural resources in some part of the Fort Adams area. I used that source to add some content to the Fort Adams article, but my reading of the report left me thinking that it's very unlikely that this building survives -- or that anyone remembers much about its history. If I'm wrong the article could be recreated. --Orlady (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I concur with Orlady's interpretation of the scant resources available. It would appear that this house may have served as the only main house for Clarksville Plantation and Riverside Plantation. These plantations, plus one other further to the south, adjoined one another along the Mississippi River and were all combined into one property by the early 20th century. The property was purchased by a Curry family during the early 1930s. The only online info, compiled in 1989, seems to indicate that the only significant historic remnants on the property at that time were a house site (the house burned down during the late 1960s) and two cemeteries. The Riverside Cemetery was about 500 feet south of the house site and seems to hold the remains of the antebellum plantation families. The house site was deemed to be not worthy of further investigation in the 1989 report, with only some bricks and household debris remaining. It seems unlikely that anyone will be able find enough info on this house to meet the notability standards, but I could be wrong. Altairisfar (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we even sure that's the same "Curry House" described in this article? I mean, it's a logical assumption given the name and the location, but it's still a guess. Choess (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we aren't. Its only speculation. But it is the only info that could be found for a Curry House in the Fort Adams area. Altairisfar (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that Altairisfar and I are talking about the same report. The report identifies someone named Curry as the last private owner of two plantation properties at Fort Adams; it describes historical information about a house that once belonged to Abraham Swan, that is on the 1965 topographic map, and that reportedly burned down in the late 1960s; and it describes the bricks and household debris remaining from that house; but it doesn't ever refer to the house as "Curry House". There isn't much of any basis for identifying the house as Curry House -- nor for identifying it as "Not Curry House". It's all speculation. --Orlady (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I was referencing the report that Orlady found. Sorry for not being clear. My own search found nothing else online concerning a Curry house in that area. Altairisfar (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that Altairisfar and I are talking about the same report. The report identifies someone named Curry as the last private owner of two plantation properties at Fort Adams; it describes historical information about a house that once belonged to Abraham Swan, that is on the 1965 topographic map, and that reportedly burned down in the late 1960s; and it describes the bricks and household debris remaining from that house; but it doesn't ever refer to the house as "Curry House". There isn't much of any basis for identifying the house as Curry House -- nor for identifying it as "Not Curry House". It's all speculation. --Orlady (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we aren't. Its only speculation. But it is the only info that could be found for a Curry House in the Fort Adams area. Altairisfar (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we even sure that's the same "Curry House" described in this article? I mean, it's a logical assumption given the name and the location, but it's still a guess. Choess (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Aside from the HABS page, sources which are derived from HABS listings, and the report Orlady found, I can't find any sources discussing the Curry House. The article also appears to have major issues with verifiability; the report doesn't even say that the plantation house it discusses was called the Curry House or is even the same house, and it appears to be unclear if this house even still exists. Maybe there are offline local sources discussing the house, but we shouldn't keep a vague and currently unexpandable article based on unconfirmed sources. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted by User:Ronhjones under criteria G11 and G12. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Projectionism
- Projectionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable arts terminology. Also, the article itself fails to comply with WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:DICTIONARY in which Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Mediran (t • c) 02:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a copyvio of [8]. freshacconci talktalk 04:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Rythem discography. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bitter & Sweet (song)
- Bitter & Sweet (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was tagged for notability more than two years ago with no substantive change in the intervening period Nolabob (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2013 (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/2013 March 3. Snotbot t • c » 02:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Rythem discography. Non-notable song. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Rythem discography. Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Socrates Project
- The Socrates Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable - seems like a conspiracy theory or fringe belief, and is based on one website. In any case, the article presents the subject from only one side. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 22:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-Interesting article, to be completed but referenced.--Goldenaster (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC) — Goldenaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep-a young article to be completed (f.e. wlinks are not yet inserted). References are few but sufficient. The argument is notable.--Soroboro (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. References aren't few. They are non-existent. -- Whpq (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A conspiracy theory or work of fiction with a fancy website that has received no coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete (G3, G11) This isn't even a conspiracy theory or fringe. This article and the website are attempts at viral advertising for a non-notable novel [9]. The website was made by Nautilus Media, the publisher of the novel. The article was written by the novel's author. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-after the intervention above I read again carefully the article. No sources have been added. No w-links. I change my keep vote.--Soroboro (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to The Problem Solverz#History. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neon Knome
- Neon Knome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While this article has been up for a couple of years, it contains virtually nothing but trivia, grammatical and spelling errors, and is made up almost entirely of original research and personal interpretation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Problem Solverz. Unreferenced and no reliable sources seem to be available. Pburka (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Greg Plitt. The history will be maintained in case anyone wants to merge anything. J04n(talk page) 22:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MFT28
- MFT28 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Bodybuilding/fitness program by Greg Plitt, only sourced to an article by himself on bodybuilding.com. Fails to establish notability; Google search for MFT28 has found nothing but the program itself and its promotion. Delete or redirect to Greg Plitt. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Redirecting this page to Greg Plitt completely eliminates all the information here, as it is not present on Plitts page. I added a reference or two to this page from Greg Plitt, but I don't think the article should be deleted. Domcarlo (talk)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/merge to Greg Plitt, I couldn't find any significant coverage of this exercise program. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ignoring all these non-policy based WP:SPA accounts which never gave the proper sourcing to rescue this article. Secret account 03:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arin Hanson
- Arin Hanson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not quite a candidate for speedy deletion, but is non-notable and a BLP with unreliable sources. I originally proded it, but the author contested it after sourcing some of it.
Could potentially slither into WP:NOTABILITY eventually, but "internet fame" isn't supported by 75k twitter followers. Alan(E) 02:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about nearly 900,000 subscribers on YouTube? https://www.youtube.com/user/egoraptor. Also Wikipedia has a page for Charlie the Unicorn, Danielle Mackey, and Star Wars Kid have pages: it seems like either we should have a 'Metal Gear Awesome' page, improve the Hanson page to Wikipedia standards, or at the very least review what is constituting as 'internet famous'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinesToThePaper (talk • contribs) 02:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the legitimacy of "Internet Famous" people on wikipedia should be reviewed. At the moment there are a number of pages that both continue to exist and are being deleted that fit under this category with the only difference between the safe and threatened ones being the preference and attentiveness of editors. There needs to be a ruling so they can be universally deleted or maintained, with some criteria to decide what stays and goes. In the meantime either delete this and the pages mentioned in the previous comment (at the very least the Danielle Mackey one) or let them all stay until we know what we're doing. 24.114.252.242 (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be my position as well. My argument for Arin Hanson's legitimate position as a person of note is partially due to the impact he's had on Flash animation culture (practically inventing a genre of inspired duplicates), his widespread image amongst video game fans, and his prolific contributions to projects featured here on Wikipedia (search Egoraptor). The 'finger moustache' tattoo has a page so I think it's not entirely unacceptable to have a page for someone who has contributed significantly to the 4-Chan era of the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinesToThePaper (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We don't need any sort of ruling on "Internet Famous" people. We already have WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Hanson fails all of these criteria. Pburka (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agreed, our existing criteria covers this well enough already. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - we have notability guidelines and they are pretty clear, in my opinion. We don't need to "review" our guidelines for "internet celebrities" just because a particular internet celebrity doesn't currently meet our guidelines. This is an encyclopedia - it covers things that have been covered by (mostly mainstream) media and sources. That means, sometimes, the less mainstream things don't get covered. But that's no different to ye olde paper encyclopedias that didn't cover every travelling snake-oil salesman or puppet-show practitioner (trying to think of historical equivalents to internet celebrities). Find me a couple of reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject and it'll be a different story. Stalwart111 06:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral for now, but leaning towards delete. I was originally thinking that this would be a clear case of delete on my end, but after cleaning out all of the fancruft from the article and essentially turnign it into little more than a stub and a filmography, I did manage to find some sources that back up some notability for him. I want to note straight away for some of the previous keep rationales that popularity does not equal notability here on Wikipedia. You can be popular but still not receive coverage in reliable sources. It just makes it more likely that he'd have received coverage. The biggest problem here is that what I have found is rather light. Much of his notability stems from two things: his Metal Gear Awesome series and his time on The Tester. Everything else he's done has essentially gone unnoticed by reliable sources. I managed to find two relatively decent-ish yet brief articles on the MGA series, but they focus on the show rather than Hanson. There are two articles that comment on individual Tester episodes, but that's not entirely a depth of coverage. That's essentially what's bugging me right now- there isn't a depth of coverage. There's enough that I'm mulling this over and really trying to dig for sources, but there isn't a lot out there. As far as claims of him being a trendsetter, you'd have to prove that with RS and since those are lacking in general... Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't WP:ENT relevant for this article? It is for other ones about internet celebrities (see Danielle Mackey), so why wouldn't this apply here? 77.117.246.211 (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep temporarily, but improve* - There are thousands of people on wikipedia that are in show business that have less on thier pages. I'm not saying that those pages should not be up for consideration, but considering the exansive career Arin has, it is worth of being at least considered. Arin's page is sorely lacking, and if stays this way, I would say delete (there are other, more through places to find information on him) However, to really bring him to notable levels, more of his work that has gone outside of the internet should be considered, and added. I dont know how much there is, and if not enough can be found, then i would push for deletion rawr >:3 (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but improve - As a contestant of Season 3 of The Tester (whose elimination from the show was the subject of quite a bit of coverage, as I recall), as the voice of Bruce Banner on the PlayStation 3 and Wii versions of Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, as the voice of the Forest Guardian in the independent comedy film Press Start, and as the voice of everything in the iOS game Minigore as well as the voice of its main character in other media, Arin should meet the basic criteria as a notable person without even going into his animation work, his YouTube or Newgrounds fame, or even the coverage on his views of various games on websites such as Destructoid and Joystiq. Considering the rest of that, he may just meet the WP:ENT standard, as well, for having such a large fan base (one large enough to get him voted onto The Tester, no less). I do not consider myself a writer, but I will try to rewrite the article to focus on how Arin gained the fans he needed to get on The Tester and the controversy surrounding his elimination from the show as that, in my mind, encapsulates everything that makes him notable. I am putting my thoughts here so that others who can write better and faster than me can see them and come up with their own ideas. User:CardsOfTheHeart (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- — CardsOfTheHeart (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep, but improve He's done the voices of many characters from many games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.185.4 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but improve - He's done voice work on video games, appeared on TV shows and has a big internet following. Sources of his notability exist but haven't been put up yet due to how recently made the article is. - SuperTiencha (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but improve - I think he can be seen as WP:ENT, as Hanson has more YouTube subscribers than internet series and persons like Charlie the Unicorn and thus a larger fan-base. Also, (following a better Wikipedia entry and similar topic/person such as Danielle Mackey) I'd like to see a bit about Arin's personal life here, some more external links to social networks (I'm about to do this now) and maybe the bit about his appearance in the Tester written in full sentences. - Danadewaal (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- — Danadewaal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment (Nominator): What's with every argument for keeping the article having a "but improve" appended to it? (And interestingly, 3 of them are from users with no visible editing experience.) Do you expect the closing admin to close this with "Result: It fails the standards but maybe somebody will improve it eventually?" It's up for AFD because it currently fails the standards, which User:Tokyogirl79 explained quite well in her argument. Alan(E) 04:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what Alan is trying to say is that it's nice to meat you all! Ha ha. Don't worry, I can't see an experienced admin giving those not-a-votes any credibility. Transparent as glass. Stalwart111 04:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense (and maybe my ignorance is showing here), but it seems silly to me to delete an article on a notable person just because it currently fails to meet the standards. (With that logic, there are probably THOUSANDS of other current articles that need to go up for deletion before this one--but this is not the place for that debate SO DO NOT DEBATE THAT HERE.) On those grounds, though, the article as it stands as of this comment should most definitely be deleted. I am working on it, though. -CardsOfTheHeart (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't think it's silly to delete an article because the subject doesn't currently meet notability standards - that's exactly what AFD is for. But it would be silly to delete such an article and decree that it should never be created again (WP:SALT). That's exactly why we have things like WP:TOOSOON and WP:UFY. I don't think anyone would object if you wanted this transferred to your own userspace if you accept the subject is not yet notable but you contend he might be one day soon - at User:CardsOfTheHeart/Arin Hanson draft for example. That way you can continue to work on it (and you won't lose previous work) and you can ask to have it moved back to article space if/when he does become notable. Stalwart111 08:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What I'm contending is that while the subject does meet the basic notable person standards, the article, as it is currently written, is not up to those standards. I'll just leave it at that and continue tinkering with it in my userspace. -CardsOfTheHeart (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I understand, but that's not really what AFD is about. Articles generally shouldn't be sent here because they need cleaning up. If the subject passes WP:GNG but the article is a mess, then the article should be kept and cleaned up. But if the article is clean and well written, but the subject fails notability guidelines, no amount of extra article clean-up will save it. Whether or not the article itself meets things like WP:MOS is irrelevant here. This is about whether the subject should be included at all. I don't think anyone suggested this should be deleted because the article was in need of clean-up - they suggested as much because, in their view, the subject doesn't meet inclusion criteria. "Adding sections" to the article won't help the subject meet WP:GNG - that can only be done by adding references that verify significant coverage in reliable sources. Stalwart111 22:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, no wonder we have a disagreement. You're talking strictly WP:GNG, whereas I've been claiming WP:ENT and, by extension, WP:BASIC.
- WP:ENT criteria:
- Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:
- Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
- He's the voice of Bruce Banner in a Marvel game published by Activision for multiple platforms. His voice was used for the entirety of a game made for the iOS (Minigore) whose main character has showed up in other published media. He was a subject of controversy on a reality show produced by Sony. In my mind, those are significant roles in multiple productions.
- Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
- Winning an online popularity contest to appear on a reality show should tell you all you need to know.
- Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
- He is prolific on Newgrounds, one of the leading sources of Flash animation. He regularly posts animated movies that become Daily Features and Weekly Users' Picks. Three of his animations (Metal Gear Awesome, Metal Gear Awesome 2, and PokeAwesome) have been selected as Review Crew Picks for 2006, 2008, and 2011 Movies of the Year, respectively. And surely having the founder of Newgrounds call one of your movies one of the best cartoons "in the Universe" must count for something? You just can't have a proper conversation about Flash animation on Newgrounds without mentioning Hanson's accomplishments.
- For those reasons, I truly believe Hanson is notable. And if those reasons aren't good enough, then we just agree to disagree and I say nothing further on the matter. CardsOfTheHeart (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Always happy to agree to disagree. My reading of the consensus on such things is that a lot of the things you point to aren't generally accepted as conferring notability in the contexts in which you raise them. But you're certainly welcome to make a case - I'll not stand in the way of that. Stalwart111 02:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE - I have added sections to this page in order to get the page towards WP:ENT standards. If, after this, the page does not meet notability standards in enough people's eyes, then so be it. There is nothing more I can think of to do to this article. CardsOfTheHeart (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. While numerically this would appear to be a keep close, there is disagreement on whether or not the sources presented in this discussion satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Smoky Joe's
- Smoky Joe's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A Google search didn't turn up evidence of notability WP:COMPANY. Their website wasn't working as of the time of this nomination. I am One of Many (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've tagged it for a speedy as blatant promotion, but there are multiple issues with the page aside from that fact. For a store that's supposed to have been very popular and trendsetting, I was unable to find anything in-depth that talks about the store or anything that backs up the various claims to notability. I see brief mentions, but not really anything to show that it's notable enough to merit its own article. At most this could be mentioned in the article for Maxwell Street and have a redirect entitled "Smoky Joe's (clothing store)" redirect there. But an individual article? No. The most I found are brief, trivial mentions in relation to other things (predominantly Maxwell Street itself) and multiple false positives for the other things called Smoky Joe's. It doesn't help that this seems to have been an overly blatant attempt by the store owners to promote their website via Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have declined the speedy deletion, as there are non-promotional versions in the article's history. Speedy deletion is normally not appropriate if the problem can be solved by reverting to an earlier version. I have no opinion, however, as to whether the subject is notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep When I add Chicago to the google books search term it seems clear.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning Keep per sources available on the internet, the topic appears to just meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include: [10], [11]. Those with mentions include [12], [13], [14] (others with mentions are available). Afterward, perhaps a merge to Maxwell Street may be in order. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources provided here show the notability of this store, plus its importance in cultural history. BigJim707 (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A google search brings up various mentions in books, news paper articles and magazines of that era. FurrySings (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So far, I'm not seeing WP:CORPDEPTH. There are several references to Smokey Joe's, but none that I have seen appear to rise above incidental. This [15] as referenced above, mentions Smokey Joe's in a paragraph, but it seems little more than incidental. Are there any that go into even a little depth?--I am One of Many (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Neuhausen railway station. J04n(talk page) 00:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2013 Neuhausen am Rheinfall train collision
- 2013 Neuhausen am Rheinfall train collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Concern was "Fails per WP:EVENT". Eeekster (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As the original person who Prodded the article I tagged this as it fails per WP:EVENT. Yes this rail accident was tragic but with no deaths, and no lasting impact in the form of media or such, I do not see this passing wikipedia's notability guidelines. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- keep http://info.rsi.ch/home/channels/informazione/svizzera/info_on_line/2013/01/10-Sciaffusa_scontro_tra_due_treni
the article should be expanded! forget to take care of deleting the rail accidents!Robyc73 (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I would suggest that the article be merged with the Neuhausen am Rheinfall railway station article. According to subsequent media reports, the accident happened because one of the drivers went through a red signal, and the accident would likely have been prevented if the station had been fitted with the latest train detection equipment, which is scheduled to be installed there by 2020. (Detection equipment, cause.) Bahnfrend (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Many injuries. NickSt (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that a criterion for keeping? Rcsprinter (post) @ 10:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This was a very minor accident with less than 20 injuries and no deaths. Media coverage was minimal. No lasting impact. Very few sources. There are thousands of accidents like this that do not have WP articles. Does not meet WP:GNG. Contents can be merged as suggested by Bahnfrend above. --Noleander (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JmaJeremy✆✎ 21:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Neuhausen am Rheinfall railway station. No deaths and little media coverage, as evidenced by the few sources. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Looking_for_Alaska#Characters. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alaska Young
- Alaska Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a fictional character from the notable (and personal favorite) novel, Looking for Alaska, which fails to meet the general notability guideline and also violates what Wikipedia is not. Presently, the article is a plot summary and contains only in-universe details through primary and unreliable sources. My attempts to look for independent discussion of the character turned up these, articles, and this book which do not devote substantial coverage to the character. Scholarly commentary provided analysis of some general themes and controversy surrounding the novel (e.g. [16]), but not much commentary of the character.
I am open to reconsidering if reliable, independent sources are found that discuss the character in-depth, but otherwise, I recommend deletion. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Looking_for_Alaska#Characters. I performed a search but wasn't able to find anything that discussed the character in the way that would show that she has notability outside of the novel in the way a character such as Harry Potter or Katniss Everdeen. There might be some argument for a list of the characters, but that's somewhat pushing it.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above: this is just plot summary of a non-notable character. If someone wants to try a selective merge of the most important information, that would be fine, but there's a lack of sourcing and too much plot so we certainly don't want to merge the whole thing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. KTC (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gajendra Verma
- Gajendra Verma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject is not a notable person. atnair (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentA quick google search brings up quite a bit of material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retrolord (talk • contribs) 06:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteNot a notable person. Page should be deleted Jussychoulex (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BroadMap
- BroadMap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advert on non-notable org CorporateM (Talk) 01:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete G11? It's a Fox! (What did I break) 02:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:ADMASQ, already tagged for speedy by me and rejected. ukexpat (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep per nominator withdrawal and no other delete votes SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gunfighters of the Northwest
- Gunfighters of the Northwest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found this listed online in plenty of film directories, but I don't think it has any significant coverage in reliable sources. Nominating for failing applicable notability guidelines. samrolken (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn: Great work finding some more sources by the participants here. I've changed my mind and they have my thanks. I hope these can be added to the article soon. I withdraw this nomination and ask that someone promptly close this as speedy-keep. samrolken (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the article creator. As a black & white 1953 (non-science fiction) film serial, I doubt there will be much coverage on the internet. However, Google Books is showing some hits and I expect there will be more in specialist media not currently archive by Google. I believe sufficient sources will exist for this as it was a widely distributed film released by a major studio—albeit in a variant (northern) of a genre (western) that was popular at the time but less so now—with famous lead actors. Deletion will also leave a gap in the coverage of film serials on Wikipedia (this was one of the very last serials ever made). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clayton Moore devotes at least three pages in his autobiography I Was That Masked Man to discussing this serial. The New York Times has five sentences about it. Though The Times doesn't praise it, these sources give it notability, in my opinion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per meeting WP:NF as a piece of American film history that has made it into the enduring and permanent record, being found in a great number of books covering Western films of that period.[17] Per WP:NTEMP, we do not demand nor expect that a film released in 1953 would have headlines today. While AMG (now Allrovi) does list films, it is not only a movie directory, and the review attributed to them by The New York Times is one by Hans J. Wollstein (needs his own article)... an expert in his field,[18] who is accepted and used as a citation elsewhere within Wikipedia.[19] Information is in enough sources to show it was notable then,sources which makes it still notable today. We protect such articles on film history for the future of Wikipedia. We do not demand immediate attention nor seek deletion for improvable topics. Instead, we accept that even if not superb today, they might benefit from the attention of those with access to hard-copy sources unavailable online. WP:IMPERFECT WP:NOTCLEANUP WP:NODEADLINE Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Baldini & Castoldi
- Baldini & Castoldi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is quite the messy one. The article creator wrote a dozen or so new articles, most were speedy deleted, and the editor was blocked for disruptive editing. I am nominating this article for XfD because it does not meets WP:CORP. While superficially it appears to have sources, most of them appear to either be directly related to the company or blogs. Here is my breakdown below:
- http://www.bcdeditore.it/ - Official blog of Baldini Castoldi Dalai.
- http://www.bcdeditore.it/pagina-di-esempio/ - Same as #1.
- http://www.san.beniculturali.it/web/san/dettaglio-soggetto-produttore?id=66116 - Business listing (user edited content).
- http://emmelle.over-blog.it/article-baldini-castoldi-editore--informazioni-storia-85862204.html - A blog about the company.
- http://www.cinquantamila.it/storyTellerThread.php?threadId=DALAI+Alessandro - A reliable source but only trivially mentions Baldini & Castoldi, among a few other publishers too.
- http://www.repubblica.it/2003/i/sezioni/spettacoli_e_cultura/delbuono/delbuono/delbuono.html - News article about the death of Oreste Del Buono, trivial mention of Baldini & Castoldi in one sentence, also a few other publishers mentioned.
- http://www.sololibri.net/+-Baldini-Castoldi-Dalai-+.html - A blog with a page about the company.
- http://www.booksblog.it/post/7219/curiosita-la-baldinicastoldi-dalai-cambia-nome-almeno-sul-sito - A blog about the company.
- http://www.libriebit.com/interviste-libri-bit-enrico-brizzi/ - A blog interview with Enrico Brizzi with a trivial mention about Baldini & Castoldi.
- http://www.centopagine.it/node/91 - Biography of Giorgio Faletti. Possibly a company profile page that trivially mentioned Baldini & Castoldi.
Mkdwtalk 00:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete A collection of blogs, user generated/altered coverage, and trivial non-item specific mentions. Does not meet WP:CORP or general guidelines for notability via WP:GNG. Barada wha? 00:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: bad nom, WP:BEFORE failure. We don't consider a topic as non notable just because it is poorly sourced, but only if reliable sources does not exist. Article still needs a bit of cleanup (and probably copyedit), but I can assume the nominator's concerns about the lack of notability of this 120 years old publishing house were addressed, so a withdrawal is suggested. Cavarrone (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please try to assume good faith. I always conduct WP:BEFORE. Old does not mean notable. The burden is always on the creators/editors of the article. I certainly appreciate you adding sources, but none of the La Stampa pages load for me to verify. BooksBlog and Sololibri as stated above are blogs. I found the book Potresti anche dirmi grazie: Gli scrittori raccontati dagli editori and it does talk about Baldini & Castoldi on several pages. The Repubblica story is a reliable source too but does this put the company with in WP:CORPDEPTH? Mkdwtalk 07:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The La Stampa articles are perfectly accessible from my computer (maybe it depends from the location of the PC?) however verification does not require ease of access. And yes, the book Potresti anche dirmi grazie supports every single thing the original creator wrote. I have also added 2 more books and one journal sources, you are ignoring in your above "review". Google Books offer even more, but I think it is enough. Cavarrone (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please try to assume good faith. I always conduct WP:BEFORE. Old does not mean notable. The burden is always on the creators/editors of the article. I certainly appreciate you adding sources, but none of the La Stampa pages load for me to verify. BooksBlog and Sololibri as stated above are blogs. I found the book Potresti anche dirmi grazie: Gli scrittori raccontati dagli editori and it does talk about Baldini & Castoldi on several pages. The Repubblica story is a reliable source too but does this put the company with in WP:CORPDEPTH? Mkdwtalk 07:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to be a respectable publisher and User:Cavarrone seems to be doing good work improving the article — bravo! Our editing policy is to develop such articles, not to delete them. Warden (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Appears to pass WP:CORPDEPTH per:
- (in Italian) Gianola, Rinaldo (April 12, 1997). "Va a majority of the Dalai Baldini & Castoldi". La Repubblica. Retrieved March 9, 2013.
- (in Italian) "Scrittori: Baldini Castoldi ricorrera' in Appello per brera". IGN. February 4, 2004. Retrieved March 9, 2013.
- (in Italian) Simone Mosca (5 February 2013). "Un quadro e cento libri per ricordare Baldini". La Repubblica. Retrieved 3 March 2013.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sergeant Cork
- Sergeant Cork (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't think this has any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, so I'm nominating for deletion for failing notability guidelines. samrolken (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Big in its day. Ran for five years, peak hour viewing (9pm) on the channel (ITV) with the highest viewing figures at that time, the subject of at least two spin-off books. Not forgotten, since it has been issued on DVD, but in any case notability is not temporary. --AJHingston (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per AJHingston. A series that ran on ITV for 5 years is not the sort of thing we should be deleting. It's not surprising that something of that vintage might not yield extensive GNews results, but here for example is a 1969 review from Melbourne's The Age, and here is a 1995 mention in The Independent crediting this show as first to bring the "Victorian policeman" cop show concept to TV. -Arxiloxos (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kunjwan
- Kunjwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've brought this to Afd because I don't think this Jainist temple is covered under WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. I had initially tried to speedy this because it seemed like the author had attempted to create several different subjects on one page. Disregarding the poorly composed history section and infobox, this stub only contains references to Facebook pages. I can't seem to find any reliable English sources. If someone fluent in Hindi or Marathi could help with the sourcing, I'll withdraw this. Funny Pika! 22:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy delete as the article isn't in English. If someone writes an English article we can take this up again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoe (talk • contribs) 02:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've applied the appropriate template and noted this at WP:Pages needing translation into English. We don't speedy delete things just because they are not in English, only if they also exist on the other-language Wikipedia (or in English here). I have no way of judging the notability of the temple but have removed the English-language material on the village and inserted it into the article on the village, which was one line long. I may remove the infobox too, since most of it seems to be about the village. --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 00:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per the nomination--Jac16888 Talk 23:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NGEO, no way to determine WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to one of the books mentioned. Jenks24 (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maximo, the Amazing Superman
- Maximo, the Amazing Superman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I searched for a long time but couldn't find any evidence that this is notable. samrolken (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the subject is a fictional character, not a book, and is the protagonist of three novels, Maximo, the Amazing Superman, Maximo the Amazing Superman and the Crystals Of Doom, and Maximo the Amazing Superman and the Supermachine. - Dravecky (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Being the hero of three childrens' books does not confer inherent notability. No evidence has been provided he satisfies WP:N. Edison (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, only the character of a book series that doesn't seem notable itself. Perhaps merge to Big Little Book if we don't want to go for a full delete here. Ducknish (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. J04n(talk page) 00:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FTP Voyager
- FTP Voyager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be non-notable software. Article consists mostly of a feature list in a pretty promotional language. The history section lists an award that the program won, but the cited domain is now taken over by spammers. Google searches don't show notability supported by reliable sources. — daranz [ t ] 20:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — daranz [ t ] 20:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry in advance about the formatting, but here's some rebuttal:
- Notability: has about 5 million download as per CNET: http://download.cnet.com/FTP-Voyager/3000-2160_4-10317302.html
- Article format and tone: not sure what's especially pretty about this, but would love a reference to some acceptable software articles for comparison
- Alternate award link: http://web.archive.org/web/20100207093803/http://sia.sic.org/2007awards.php (Wayback machine)
- Other possible awards:
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete -- While I don't expect there to be a lot of secondary sources on FTP software, which tends to be somewhat of a niche, there were less than I expected. Once Rhino's own primary sources are removed, the remaining secondary sources are passing references and a few knowledge base tutorials. There were a few small reviews, which tended to be one to two paragraphs in length and usually part of a comparison piece. The award isn't notable either (as its now defunct status shows). -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Comparison of FTP client software has a lot of articles with similar levels of sourcing. a13ean (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Because of low community involvement in this discussion will treat the nomination as an expired proposed deletion, with the understanding that anyone who contests the deletion may request undeletion for any reason. J04n(talk page) 00:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rawz al-jinan ve ruh al-jinan
- Rawz al-jinan ve ruh al-jinan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is not an English page, but I was unable to identify if it met CSD:A2 due to the language barrier (I could not tell if another page existed in a different language on the same topic). If someone with knowledge of the Arabic language could please determine this and give input, I would greatly appreciate it. Jackson Peebles (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI the author has an article in Brill Encyclopedia of Islam dedicated to him, saying: "Abū l-Futūḥ al-Rāzī (fl. sixth/twelfth century) was a Shīʿī author and preacher, most famous for his Persian commentary on the Qurʾān, entitled Rawḍ al-jinān wa-rawḥ (or rūḥ) al-janān" Hope that suffices for the notability of his book. Kazemita1 (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The nominator has misunderstood WP:CSD#A2 - a non-English title for an article is perfectly OK, provided that the article itself is in English and the title is the name by which the subject is generally referred to when discussed in English. The real difficulty is finding sources - I get the impression that the transliteration from Arabic is not standard, so this may be the reason. If someone can come up with a better transliteration (and preferably a few sources to go with it), that would belp. PWilkinson (talk)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. The source provided above grants notability to the author, but I don't think it really provides notability to the book, especially if it's the only source available. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note:Apparently, there are two articles in Brill Encyclopedia of Islam about the author. The longer one[20] that I had NOT listed above has a full section -out of a total of two- dedicated to this specific book. I am adding material and references to the wiki page.Kazemita1 (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MSR Flug-Charter
- MSR Flug-Charter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This small, non-scheduled corporate charter airline clearly fails WP:CORP. It has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. There is nothing to be said about it other than it existed. Obviously, MSR Flug-Charter had not any significant impact on the aviation industry. FoxyOrange (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 06:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not German and don't speak German so I won't be able to help much but a search at Google News at Google News and Google Books did provide results but nothing substantial about this company. Unfortunately, searches at German English newspapers The Munich Eye and Spiegel International did not provide anything either. To the article's additional dismay, it seems the German article doesn't provide much info either aside from the bankruptcy. SwisterTwister talk 01:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; unable to find significant coverage in secondary sources. —Theopolisme (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to International Marxist Tendency. Sandstein 06:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
La Riposte (France)
- La Riposte (France) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable group, no substantial references in independent sources, no reliable sources. Downwoody (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - I thought I should get my retaliation in first, before the 'I don't like it' votes pile up ;) As far as I understand, fringe political organisations are given slightly more leeway on Wikipedia. The CPGB Weekly Worker is a somewhat independent source (though I lose track which organisations with the word "Communist" in the title are actually the old Communist Party). The English Wikipedia article is succinct and shows little sign of the self-promotion by similar articles. Sionk (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into International Marxist Tendency - The IMT is certainly notable, but its national chapter in France seems to be rather small. In fact, most of the references to "La Riposte" in connection with the IMT I was able to find were actually in relation to the Quebecois chapter (and its publication of the same name) rather than the French chapter. However, I think that France's La Riposte deserves some mention, but not enough to warrant its own page at this time. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into International Marxist Tendency per what Shinmawa said. FurrySings (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Types of snow. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Champagne powder
- Champagne powder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Proposed merge for nearly 2 years, the name for a type of snow which happens to be trademarked, otherwise unimportant. ViridaeDON'T PANIC 03:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Couldn't find an actual dictionary hit on the term itself on an extensive Google search, but found this definition at About.com. Also, found multiple .com hits (these are just a few) at: 1, a legal controvery from a questionable .com source 2 (something tells me you can't TM the snow name, particularly since "Champagne" is already copyrighted and the "snow type" exists wherever it falls as described above at the About.com link). Everything is tourist/promo/.com oriented with the exception of the legal aspect that seems improbable to worry over, and the one semi-reliable definition at About.com. Considering the lack of item-specific, reliable non-.com sourcing, & the lack of a separate, universally accepted context for singular usage, it should probably reside with the other "snow types" without regard for an individual listing in article space. Barada wha? 01:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge The article in Der Spiegel says only that it's a catch-phrase, and while the term should probably mentioned somewhere, it doesn't appear to merit it's own article. a13ean (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn by nominator, there being no other editors recommending that the article be deleted. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Russell R. Winterbotham
- Russell R. Winterbotham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails all applicable notability guidelines samrolken (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've been working on this article and I've found some possible references, but they are rather weak and self-published/tertiary. I'll continue my efforts! samrolken (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn: In light of the (reasonable) comments here and the sources I added to the article, I'd like to withdraw this nomination. I think it's a really close borderline case, but I am optimistic that this article can be improved with some solid sourcing. I'd like to ask that someone please close this as speedy-keep. samrolken (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak delete *sigh* another ether zone entry, I was able to find this referencing itself back to Wikipedia, then it links externally on WorldCat here to an entirely different book and authors...so thats a no-go. I checked the only other active link in the references here and it lands on the "manybooks" site where it demonstrates a total of 787 downloads in 5 1/2 years. Without schlogging through every non-linked item, I gotta say that the first link is a worthless reference as it lands on the wrong material entirely. I'm not hoping up and down excited about the 2nd link as 6 copies on WorldCat is basically pathetic, and I can't verify who supposedly downloaded the title 787 times - that few hits isn't impressive for any audience. I found this rather poignant quote on the 2nd linksite concerning the book; "Reading the story did not harm me in any way." If someone can pull some extra info on the other non-linking titles I'm open to rethinking this thing. Barada wha? 03:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep as the verifiable author of more than a dozen novels from major publishers. The age of his work means online sources will be few and far between, especially given the coverage of science fiction by the mainstream press during his lifetime. There are reliable sources but digging out in-depth ones will require some effort. - Dravecky (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
Please note that this Afd was initiated by samrolken. samrolken has indicated marked hostility towards me; a user reported this Afd which appeared to be a retaliation against me for objecting to another of samrolken's Afd's (Steve Cottle article).
I was the last person to substantively update this article.
I did so because I have expertise in science fiction and SF comic strips, because I am personally familiar with this author, had previously read this article, own several of his books, and read two other articles about him.
I also downloaded the novelette, The Whispering Spheres (Comet, July 1941), using the link in the article.
I know of these articles and BOOKs and online source.
I own both books.
- Article "Winterbotham, Russell Robert" p. 1335 The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (John Clute and Peter Nicholls, 1993)
- Article "Winterbotham, Russell (1904-1971)" pp.703-704 The World Encyclopedia of Comics (Maurice Horn, ed., 1976)
R. R. Winterbotham - Summary Bibliography http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?1197
I edited the article to make it more useful to READERS.
I did not spend time trying to add footnotes, which I personally don't much read.
He is a very well known SF writer with a lot of published pieces, many shorter than novel length. Any fairly avid SF reader of that time period, mid 1930s through mid 1960s (thirty years) knows who he is and of his substantial work.
Shortfiction * The Star That Would Not Behave (1935) * The Psycho Power Conquest (1936) * The Train That Vanished (1936) * The Fourth Dynasty (1936) * The Saga of the "Smokepot" (1936) * Linked Worlds (1937) * Clouds over Uranus (1937) * Spore Trappers (1937) * Einleill (1937) * Specialization (1937) * The Secret of the Rocks (1937) * Procession of Suns (1938) * Interplanetary Graveyard (1939) * The Second Moon (1939) * Madness on Luna (1939) * Disappearing Sam (1939) * The Geist of the Jungle (1939) * Captives of the Void (1940) * The Element of Logic (1940) * Cepheid Planet (1940) * Equation for Time (1940) * Message from Venus (1941) * The Monster That Threatened the Universe (1941) * Status Quo (1941) * Genesis! (1941) * Jitterbug (1941) * The Whispering Spheres (1941) * Dead Man's Planet (1941) * The Time Maker (1941) * Invent or Die! (1941) * The Thought-Feeders (1941) * Old Man Mars (1942) * The Thought-Men of Mercury (1942) * Oridin's Formula (1943) * The Winning of Wooha (1952) * The Minus Woman (1953) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ] * Lorelei of Chaos (1954) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ] * Three Spacemen Left to Die! (1954) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ] * Ten Minutes to Daylight (1954) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ] * Lonesome Hearts (1954) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ] * Problem Planet (1955) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ] * A Matter of Ethics (1955) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ] * Perfect Discipline (1955) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ] * Gladsome Planet (1955) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ] * The Scientific Approach (1955) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ] * Just for Tonight (1955) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ] * The Oldest Man in the World (1955) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ] * Time's a Gorilla (1955) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ] * The Man Who Left Paradise (1956) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ] * A Little Knowledge (1956) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ] * Once Within a Time (1956) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ] * The Individualist (1957) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ] * An Experiment in Gumdrops (1957) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ] * East Is East . . . (1957) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ] * Extra Space Perception (1957) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ] * The Return from Troy (1957) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ] * Report on a Backward Planet (1958) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ] * The Variable Constant (1958) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ]
Anyone who knows SF would know about the ISFDB, and apparently none of you do.
Are any of you people knowledgeable of SF?
It doesn't sound like it to me.
This Afd should never have been initiated in the first place and was done on a bad faith basis.
In any case, decisions about SF authors should be done by consulting editors with sufficient expertise.
-- Drhankh (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dravecky above. — Ched : ? 09:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Borderline Keep Not a writer that appears on my shelves (my SF collection runs to about 1000 books with authors from H.G. Wells onwards represented). Can't even say I've even heard of him or his noms de plume. Being knowledgeable about a subject is not a requirement here. Having a knowledge of our policies on notability counts for more. A writer may have written the best book ever and self published it - and thereby achieved a cult following of about thirty people. The quality doesn't matter - it's the coverage. This author has been regularly published and has achieved an entry in SFE. A comparatively short entry (compared with, say, his contemporary 'Eando Binder' (present in my collection), and somewhat unenthusiastic, but an entry in a respectable encyclopaedia. Peridon (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Tainted nomination. Have read his book The Space Egg.--Auric talk 12:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
dup vote, and much too long
|
---|
Both articles in the books are substantial. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is best reference work on SF authors anywhere. When I got the first version of the book in 1978, I used to spend a lot of time just reading the articles. As someone who appears to have the most expertise here, I think you aren't cognizant of the fact that for many SF authors active in the golden age (30s to 40s), most of their stories were novelette length, which were published in the SF magazines rather than books. In SFE, the authors who get longer entries are those who have a lot of books published. There's simply too much shorter fiction that's been published to include writeups pertaining to much of the shorter length (shorter than novels) stories. This is covered in SFE's introductory material. The article in The World Encyclopedia of Comics is quite a bit longer. I have read at least some of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) "Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." If your primary exposure to SF is books, then you may not understand who he was. He was quite prolific and well-known. I know that Wikipedia covers historical figures, and you just shouldn't even be thinking about deleting the biography page of a well-known SF author based on presumed readership today. The public wants to be able to read about SF authors, and it's not helping anyone for be trying to purge this article, which was only initiated because a certain person doesn't like me, and I last worked on it. "If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online." With all due respect, you can tell me all you want about "knowledge of our policies on notability" but I can read them, and from what I see, you people are very good at ignoring those written policies. Winterbotham is an author in a specialized field, which is SF magazine authors in the golden age. This is an important field, and from what I've read, none of you has the least expertise in this area and should have sought it out. If any of you have had to resort to searching 'online' sources, then you simply don't know the field. I haven't had to search anything. It's in my head. I know this field, and you people do not. I have demonstrable expertise. If you wish to challenge me, then let's bring in real experts, like John Clute. You people seem to me to be acting very amateurish. I'm not saying that some of you aren't trying to figure things out, but there's a right way to do things. "Insufficient sources "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources: "Ask the article's editor(s) for advice on where to look for sources." samrolken knew I had edited this article. Did he come to me as the previous editor, to ask for my advice on where to look for sources? I knew them right of the top of my head. No. In fact, the only reason he initiated this Afd was due to his anger towards me. I'm sorry, but as far as this task goes, you're all just rank amateurs. Knowing something about your alleged procedures is insufficient. I'm am sorry to be so blunt, but I certainly researched the notability criteria long before I ever posted anything, and I was nearly incredulous to observe how it's routinely ignored and apparently not properly understood. Now please don't misunderstand me here, I think most of you, including Peridon, whose comments here got me started, are completely sincere, but I still feel the above points are accurate. Peridon, BTW, actually just wrote a nice little and helpful section over here, and I hadn't quite put the names (the same name) together. :-) Sorry. Anyhow, I hope you don't take too much offense, a lot's been going on, but I did earlier read the material I've quoted, and I got very annoyed that specialists weren't sought out, as that article suggests, not just here, but at the Steven Cottle article Afd. The people working on that one had no business doing so. That article needs specialists in newspaper comics and preservation of that material, and I know samrolken, who also initiated that Afd, has no expertise. samrolken wrote this: "Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Sangorshop) has been canvassed to this discussion." samrolken probably has no idea he even posted a message, using his real name, to a group that included Sangorshop, as a prominent and well-respected member. And I'm sure samrolken has no idea what Sangorshop means, because he knows nothing of signficance about comics. Yet he has the gall to submit an Afd about an article who's only nexus is that it's about his close personal friend. Anybody who knows comics knows about the Sangor Shop! See this article for coverage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_W._Sangor And samrolken's accusation about Sangorshop is totally baseless, with zero evidence, and I know for a fact it's false. Sangorshop decided to post his comments on his own initiative and didn't tell anyone he was going to do so, or that he'd done it. I only discovered it when I went to the Afd. And let me tell you, Sangorshop's expertise is peerless compared to anybody considering the Afd for the Steve Cottle article. As is Steve Cottle, which I could tell from interviewing him for several hours. Look when I bought the first Science Fiction Encyclopedia, I researched it, and got it because it was a true encyclopedia written by experts. Likewise, when I've bought real encyclopedias, I've wanted them to be written by experts. I haven't been writing articles from scratch here, but if I was considering doing so, I wouldn't want to tackle a subject unless I felt I had sufficient expertise. I've never written articles unless I understood the subject matter. So I can't see trying to dicker around with deletion of articles when the editors lack sufficient expertise. I'm certainly not trying to single anyone out, but there's a big difference between golden age SF and books; if you aren't much exposed to golden age SF, just SF books, then you simply aren't exposed to that subfield. Most golden age SF was only published in SF magazines, and a lot of stories weren't reprinted. But tons of people read them, and it's an essential part of our culteral heritage, and true SF afficianados know all about this. :) Anyhow, I sort of got off on a tangent. To be perfectly honest, I was so annoyed with what samrolken's been up to, that I hadn't planned to intervene here. I said to myself, 'Why should I? Why should it be up to me?' In fact, I had pretty much made up my mind to let samrolken have his way and let him just delete as much as he wanted and let Wikipedia suffer for its sins of ommission. But I guess the efforts of the previous editors, especially Dravecky, got me thinking about changing my mind, and then a few good folk over at the other thread, including Ched, BWilkins, and finally Peridon, had me start to change my mind. Anyhow, I hope these comments are truly helpful from the perspective of someone who is looking at this part of Wikipedia for the first time. I really liked your comments over at the other thread, Peridon, and when I'd done here, I plan to read them again in detail. Thanks again! And Auric, many thanks for your comments! -- Drhankh (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Note: This wasn't meant as a 'duplicate vote' but rather as another comment as part of my Keep recommendation; this was only my 2nd Afd. Perhaps another editor can move my comments to combine them or tell me how to do it? The main thing is they are readable. Drhankh (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drhankh (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Keep, appears notable. Sufficient sourcing in article, probably more in offline sources. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. J04n(talk page) 18:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty Disturbia
- Pretty Disturbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- it actually appears to be a brand, not a company. I note that we do not appear to have an article for Etra Design House, its owners. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncertain - It seems they may have fallen off the news radar in the past few years because searches at BBC News, The Guardian, Manchester Gazette, MULE (though this newspaper seems to be mostly political), Manchester Evening News and The Telegraph provided nothing substantial aside from Manchester Evening News providing four articles (fairly small and talk about the same stuff) and another The Independent article here. Multiple searches at British fashion magazines didn't yield any results and a search to see if either Leesa Betram or Etra Design House may be notable provided nothing substantial, mostly relevant to Pretty Disturbia so this brand may still not have gained that much attention (still indie, in other words). One side of me recognizes the current references but the other makes me question that the article could use more references. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep The current sourcing seems to be just sufficient enough to scrape notability, although I am with SwisterTwister here with questioning whether the subject IS notable. It's a very fine line between technical notability and clear notability, and I'm not really seeing clear notability, BUT I am seeing it as notable on technicalities. Mabalu (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete There is some sourcing from independent reliable sources - one item from the Independent, one from the Manchester Evening News, a couple of things in a trade magazine - but it is minimal. I could find nothing to add to the sources already cited in the article. IMO this does not amount to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep. (non-admin closure) - MrX 12:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
E (surname)
- E (surname) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Speculative, unsourced article about a non-notable surname. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 14:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn by nominator - Additional sources have been located to verify this subject's notability. - MrX 12:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm not too familiar with Chinese, but I added several blue-linked people with the surname E. It should remain as a basic set index at the very least. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely not familiar, since they were given names. Even so, it should be a set index and moved to E (name) assuming it's kept. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it's one of the 100 surnames. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alex Kurtagić
- Alex Kurtagić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not appearing to be notable, few (if any) good sources to work off of (especially for a BLP involved with controversial topics), last two debates went no consensus although they were very underrepresented. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Miwa Shoda
- Miwa Shoda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced and non-notable WP:BLP Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:37, 24 February 2013 (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) 00:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. After finding nothing on English sites other than database entries or non-significant coverage, I checked Japanese sites using both 生田美和 and 生田美話, and all I could find beyond blog and database entries were these two articles at Famitsu.com: [21] and [22]. Both are just introductions to new games or novels, and don't really constitute significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to indicate a level of notability sufficient to justify a self-standing biographical article like this. --DAJF (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom, WP:NOTINHERITED. Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable.--Staberinde (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Toshiyuki Itahana
- Toshiyuki Itahana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable WP:BLP with no references to reliable, third party sources. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:41, 24 February 2013 (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) 00:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability or justify a biographical article like this. --DAJF (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails the WP:GNG due to lack of coverage, this isn't a Final Fantasy Wikia or a video game developer database; every employee doesn't get an article if there's no coverage beyond their job title on projects... Sergecross73 msg me 15:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.