- 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. Blueboy96 15:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Myles Cochrane
- Myles Cochrane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable radio host on minor radio station. The one award mentioned does not establish notability, most refs are primary sources. Hairhorn (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hairhorn: Please refrain from judging how notable a radio host is being as I doubt you've listened to the thousands of radio hosts that have pages on here. Humboldt County has over 100 thousand people and KSLG has rated at number 1 for multiple years running. The one award mentioned is a national award that caters to excelling student radio personalities. Also please refer to the list of interviews that the host has if that's not notable I don't know what is. All the personal information that I got from Myles has been removed to cater to objectivity. This is merely a simple informative article that people in Humboldt County can refer to when searching for radio hosts. The minor radio station you refer to is listed along with the other three stations that Lost Coast Communications is a part of on wikipedia. 3 refs are sources from the official KSLG website, 1 is sourced to birth records, and other mentions the nation radio award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.41.63.202 (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, please leave the maintenance tags on the entry, they are meant to help improve it. You might also want to read up on Wikipedia policy, such as the notability guidelines; for example, interviewing notable people does not make you notable. The entry also needs reliable sources. Lastly, entries are normally judged on their own merits, not on whether their subjects are more or less notable than the subjects of existing pages: since anyone can make a page, the fact that a page exists demonstrates very little. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A distinct lack of independent references indicating notability. A student award (shared) is hardly enough. "This is merely a simple informative article that people in Humboldt County can refer to when searching for radio hosts." Why don't they use the radio station site? This looks somewhat like a self-promotional exercise by someone who wants to go places further than Humboldt County. Fair enough. I wish you luck. But this is not the place. Not yet. When you get the prime slot on the No 3 station in NY, yes. Someone will have made the article for you by then... Peridon (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with the statement by the nominator and by Peridon. Non-notable radio host on a minor radio station. Xtzou (Talk) 14:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the article's creator is in fact Myles Cochrane, I would advise him to read WP:COI. If he is in fact not Myles Cochrane, may I extract and quote
"There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed: [Item one being] Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. Misleading names include those that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, or those that impersonate other people." (from Wikipedia:Username). Peridon (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are 3 different news sites that link to the award- one of them stating that my portion was the centerpiece. Simply stating that it is a student award is, yes, not notable. However I agree that the award is national and therefore notable (I would right?). I also understand the view of Peridon and thank him for being the only contributor so far to handle this situation with respect. The most I contributed to this article was, and I regret to admit this, asking a friend to make it for me. I would encourage those that have control over deletion to listen to a half hour of my show first. 6-midnight PT streaming at kslg.com. Peace. User:Myles cochrane —Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Ta for that - don't often get compliments... Afraid that listening to the station would probably count as Original Research or something similar. No matter how good you are, it's the reliable sources that are what's looked for. Something non-editable and not press release. When you've got those - come back. (These discussions usually take seven days or so, anyway.) In the meantime, there's aboutus and LinkedIn which are for publicity info and such. Peridon (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentRight, there are some sources that are press-release. But I do count 4-5 articles in this article that were written from outside sources. This is truly just an article for information, as people in Hubmoldt County are quite familiar with the use of wikipedia. I was hoping to make pages for more DJs in the area after this. User:Myles cochrane —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Trouble is, the most of the references either don't mention you (so far as I can see), or are not reliable (by Wikipedia's standard which even cute Wikipedia out as a reference!), or are merely establishing existence (birth...). We don't doubt you exist - we need more evidence that you are noted rather than evidence of what goes on (roller derby...). Peridon (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI suppose that's true. I'm going to link a Humboldt State University Alumni article for reference on the award also. I have a question...would getting an article published and linked affect notability? There will be more articles on Roller Derby soon as well. User:Myles cochrane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.64.214 (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Almost none of the material in the article can be sourced to reliable secondary sources. None of the sources listed in the article establish the notability of the subject. Brad 23:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. I had a spectacular vision of a beautiful future where cognitive thinking allowed us to evolve to the point where a national award winning however assumed "non-notable" radio host could get a page on gods gift to man, wikipedia. The only secondary sources listed are kslg.com/myles and the KSLG facebook page. Those links can be removed. The rest though, the rest are primary. That is no grounds for deletion. Also, see Criteria 2 on Wikipedia:Notability (academics): The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. The College Broadcasters, Inc. award is national. Also please see Wikipedia:Notability (people) Creative Professionals 3: 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. Please see kslg.com/myles (no matter if its primary- it's there) and one will find multiple well thought out interviews with many prominent people and musicians. That is a significant collective body of work. In fact, I'm looking forward to my interview with "Fight Club" author Chuck Palahniuk soon. User:Myles cochrane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.62.160 (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He gets 666 Ghits on Google - score O Fortuna from Carmina Burana. No, seriously, with the cruft removed, he only garners 177 Ghits and Zero news ghits. Even a crappy BLP could not be created. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately google isn't any grounds for deletion. There are enough news hits referenced in the article for me to keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.64.214 (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The user in question who had a "friend" write this page is actually somewhat fair and balanced. Not fair and balanced like Fox News per se, but it has no information that would lead me to believe that the subject could obtain monetary or social gain through this article. If he were to remove the facebook source (who does that?) I would like to see this thing kept. User:Myles cochrane brought up a great point in Criteria 2 on Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Notability (people) Creative Professionals 3. His award linked to 3 sources and interviews give him notability. Amend the facebook sources, Myles, and I say keep it. There are bigger battles to be won than this as the original grounds for deletion include notability and sources. As noted above in the distinct rules for notability, he has a place on wikipedia. Copernicus1952 (talk)
- Copernicus1952, you are a new account that just registered today and have made 2 edits. Xtzou (Talk) 21:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Xtzou: Thanks for the update. You've only been a user for 19 days. Are you going to rebuttal my argument, or are you just going to bring up petty nonsense? Copernicus1952 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Fair or not, new users whose only contributions are to an AFD are viewed with suspicion. Worse, your first edit modified an earlier posting by the IP 75.111.64.214, who already identified themselves as User:Myles cochrane in an earlier edit. So any suspicions are justified, whether or not they're "petty". Hairhorn (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, local DJ, not notable per WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just being local is not a grounds for deletion. Please see national award. Please see Notability from Academics and Creative Professions. See Criteria 2 on Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Notability (people) Creative Professionals (Criteria 3). Copernicus1952 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment User:Copernicus1952: Thanks for that. Didn't feel like anyone on here would defend me. Do you live in Humboldt County? My friend just removed the facebook stuff. Myles cochrane (Talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.111.165 (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable third-party sources and thus fails to cross the notability threshold. Several cited sources do not mention Cochrane at all. The CBI award, even split three ways, is slightly persuasive but would be far better handled as a paragraph in that college station's "Awards and honors" section giving mention of all of the winners. - Dravecky (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am a resident of Humboldt County and Miles is the very least notable of all Humboldt Radio DJs. While I don't know if you can discount all Humboldt DJs, Miles exists in a position that exists for college students trying to just get experience. 96.41.10.97 (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unfortunately I think you're confusing KSLG for KRFH. KRFH is a student-run radio station. However KSLG caters to a county-wide audience. He is my favorite Humboldt County DJ and is on 94.1 FM from 6-Midnight 7 days a week. Copernicus1952 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.64.214 (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I really meant his position on KSLG is the time slot they schedule college (even high school) students over the years, to give them radio experience and these DJs don't last long.96.41.10.97 (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clearYou need to get your facts straight. I am a Humboldt County resident as well, and have lived in the area for a decade now. There has NEVER been a high school student in the 6-midnight slight on KSLG. The last person to hold that slot was there for 4-5 years. We blast Myles to Midnight at our local business. He and that daytime guy seem to be the only one that are on while KSLG's target market is awake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.100.22 (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I really meant his position on KSLG is the time slot they schedule college (even high school) students over the years, to give them radio experience and these DJs don't last long.96.41.10.97 (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment Good thing this is not a democracy, and that it rules in favor of Wikipedia guidelines.. Just look at Wikipedia notability standards: Criteria 2 on Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Notability (people) Creative Professionals (Criteria 3). The award and interview work give him a spot on here. Wikipedia notability standards: Criteria 2 on Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Notability (people) Creative Professionals (Criteria 3).Copernicus1952 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.64.214 (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Interesting that 'Copernicus1952' and 'User:MylesColeman' have both left it up to SineBot to add the origin of their posts. I'm slightly puzzled by Copernicus1952's last post: calling for 'delete' but saying "The award and interview work give him a spot on here.". Peridon (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My previous post where I mention "Delete" was meant to say "Comment." Interesting that nobody has come up with a rebuttal to the fact that this article belongs here in regards to Wikipedia notability standards: Criteria 2 on Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Notability (people) Creative Professionals (Criteria 3). And as to your redundant comments on external factors, I am new to Wikipedia and don't know any other way to sign. Sinebot here we go. Copernicus1952 (talk)
- Keep. Im from humboldt county, i've heard myles, and i vote to keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.100.18 (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC) — 137.150.100.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. There should be a strong presumption against autobiographies. If someone is notable, an independent person will eventually start an article. In addition, the article creator is misreading the notability guidelines. He claims that there is a significant collective body of work that he has created. First, I don't think the significant has been established. Second, the article creator neglects the remainder of that criterion, that the work "has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." There isn't a book, feature film, or set of independent periodical articles discussing Cochrane's interviews. That's not severable; it can't simply be ignored. I don't think the academia is the proper notability test. Although the subject is a student, his supposed notability doesn't seem to come from teaching/research. But again, he's reading out of existence important parts of the tests. It's not enough to win a national award. It has to be a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." The level of prestige hasn't been estalished. The organization (let alone the particular award) don't even appear to have its own wikipedia article. And even though the award is given to student broadcasters, I don't think it should fall under the academic test anyway. After all, an award given for the sports exploits of student-athlete would lead to the athlete being judge under the academic standard. --JamesAM (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To expand upon why this individual doesn't qualify as notable under WP:PROF, note the examples from that guideline: "For the purposes of Criterion 2, major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc, always qualify under Criterion 2. Some lesser significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige also can be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g. the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize), etc. Significant academic awards and honors can also be used to partially satisfy Criterion 1 (see item 4 above in this section). Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1." --JamesAM (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Interesting manipulation of words. Even so, I think Myles is awesome and has some good stuff to contribute to this world. Keep. I think he got a national award. I think he has a significant body of work- I've heard it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.41.63.202 (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Same IP that made the opening comment, I expect you've voted already. Hairhorn (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Haven't looked at this since the opening comment, and as you'll notice, I didn't vote until now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.41.63.202 (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I just amended the Copernicus vote to "Comment." He stated that's what he meant at the same IP following the post.
- Delete Claiming this qualifies under WP:PROF does not seem sensible. I dont think it means anything nearly as restricted as JamesAM does, but it does not refer to an award for a student newscast. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree, JamesAM is stretching it for WP:PROF. However I believe that the award is credible, academic, and national. Journalism is a program in academia just the same as Science and Mathematics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.62.160 (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — 75.111.62.160 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment to the residents of Humboldt County You being residents of the county and listeners to the radio station and fans of Myles will have no effect on the results of this discussion. It is not a popularity contest. It is a discussion to see if certain criteria are met - and if there are reliable references to support this. Personal opinions about Myles and his show are NOT reliable sources. I would probably like the music there more than I like rap (couldn't really be less...), but I did save an article about a rapper because I could find notability. I can't here. As I said above, yet..... If you can find the refs - no blogs, forums, self-published, editable or personal opinions - tell us. Otherwise, you're wasting your time posting. Peridon (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Another comment to Humboldt County residents: This is not a popularity contest. This is a credibility contest. Myles Cochrane is credible for a wikipedia article in regards to Wikipedia notability standards: Criteria 2 on Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Notability (people) Creative Professionals (Criteria 3). If you think Myles is credible due to these guidelines please continue to comment and cite those as the reasons for your vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.111.217 (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC) — 137.150.111.217 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- That won't help. Despite what Myles Cochrane may have said on his radio show, this is not a vote. Brad 19:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree with the previous statement to "keep." This is a vote. I am voting because I have read and understood Criteria 2 on Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Notability (people) Creative Professionals (Criteria 3). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.111.165 (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC) — 137.150.111.165 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. One can't understand Criterion 2 on Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and use it as the basis for keeping this article. As I noted above, that guideline explicitly excludes student awards from Criterion 2. So there's no wiggle room to be found to apply that criterion to keep this article. --JamesAM (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note This is not a voting procedure. The count of deletes and keeps is not what decides things. A decision will be made by an admin person after he/she has reviewed all the posts. Parroting by anonymous or single purpose accounts usually harms the case in support of which they are brought here. Get the references if you really want to help. Peridon (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Though this is not a voting procedure we would like our votes to be counted in reference to the guidelines on notability mentioned. This guy has a significant body of journalistic work on notable people. This guy won a national academic award. Please see Criteria 2 on WP:ACADEMIC: Myles won a national award. Please see WP:CREATIVE Creative Professionals (Criteria 4):The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. His journalistic work on http://www.kslg.com/myles is vast, monumental, and significant- which means it fits category "a." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.100.22 (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I heard about this debate on Myles show last night. I've read the this entire page and it looks like people have found some striking evidence that Myles should have a wikipage because of WP:ACADEMIC Criteria 2 and WP:CREATIVE Criteria 4a. Secondary sources can be linked to primary sources for cross-referencing, and the interviews he does are great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.35.220 (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC) — 137.150.35.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Academic and Creative Academic? "This guideline, sometimes referred to as the professor test, is meant to reflect consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements. For the purposes of this guideline an academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement." This refers to people in the world of science, literature, fine arts (which doesn't include rock), university teaching and research, etc. It does not refer to a student award for journalism and interviewing people. Creative? "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument" - if it has, where is the evidence? The radio station site is not independent evidence. Sorry, folks. Nice try but no (chocolate) cigar... Peridon (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The person that recommended this article for deletion is evidently becoming wary of the fact that he or she may be wrong. It is only in the opinion of Peridon that "Music" is not a fine art, "Journalism" is not an area of academics, and that an expansive interview portfolio is not a significant creative monument. Please continue to vote if you agree that Cochrane should have a wikipage because of WP:ACADEMIC Criteria 2 and WP:CREATIVE Criteria 4a. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.48.112 (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC) — 75.111.48.112 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete I wasn't going to comment until I saw this remark from 137.150.35.220 (one of the multitude of never-before-edited people who have suddenly showed up here in support of the subject): "I heard about this debate on Myles show last night." Mr. Cochrane, you should be ashamed of yourself, using your station to troll for votes for yourself. You are perverting the process here in an attempt to glorify yourself. This kind of thing, if allowed, would be the death of Wikipedia as a useful reference. I hope the article is deleted and salted (look it up). --MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You should be ashamed of yourself for jumping to conclusions too quickly. Have you ever heard the term to assume makes an a** out of u and me? I've heard Myles talk about this on his show. First of all he brings it up as an interesting debate with good points on both sides. He then goes on to say he would like to encourage those that have read the debate to weigh in on it. The people weighing in on this have all listed WP:ACADEMIC Criteria 2 and WP:CREATIVE Criteria 4a as a means for this article to be kept- not that Myles told them to do so. I've head him talk about this and he wouldn't do that. It actually makes for interesting radio, this whole thing. Would you expect him to just say nothing? If so you obviously don't know much about people in the media industry...they love to talk about EVERYTHING. Just because these people heard about the debate doesn't make this process any less of a debate. Its called canvassing. It's people like you that make assumptions too quickly that will be the death of wikipedia. Look it up: WP:CANVASS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.41.63.202 (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "not that Myles told them to do so." Yeah, right. All these people who have never been to Wikipedia before, just all happen to all quote the same (totally irrelevant) arguments, citing chapter and verse. (Why irrelevant? Citing the "academic" standard here is absurd; it applies to academics, i.e., professors. The "creative" standard also doesn't apply; it's for artists, authors, architects, etc. Mr. Cochrane's notability must be judged according to WP:ENTERTAINER - the standard for actors, TV personalities, and similar performers.) If Mr. Cochrane understood Wikipedia at all, he would know that this barrage of posts is hurting him, not helping. The process here is about achieving consensus among Wikipedians, people who know how Wikipedia works and what it stands for. Not drumming up a lot of "votes" from people who don't know the first thing about this place. The first thing being: Wikipedia has to have standards. It is not a place where anybody can post any old thing they like. There are a lot of places like that on the Web; this is not one of them. --MelanieN (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Creative 4a? You mean "The person's work has become a significant monument"? Sorry, but no. And WP:prof doesn't apply at all. Did you miss the comment above about repaeating the same point over and over hurting your case? Hairhorn (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wow, I haven't checked this in a while...this thing has really gotten out of hand hasn't it? I never should have agreed to contribute to this article with a peer. Even I thought it was long shot to have a wikipedia article.. I should have just gone with my first instinct. I would like to thank everybody that went out of their way to read and discuss this issue. Wikipedians: please note that I respect what you have done here. In a crazy roundabout way reading this discussion has lead me to become quite fond of Wikipedia as a reliable source. I don't belong on here. I would also like to clarify on how I brought this up on my show. I asked people to read the debate, to read the guidelines, to create an account, and to contribute if they found something. Though I respect and even find it a little amusing that they brought up those same few guidelines repeatedly, that was not my intention or call to action. Also please note: when I discuss wikipedia on the air I will have the utmost respect for what you e-scholars are doing- despite that most recent comment. MelanieN: I respectfully hope you don't utilize that Stanford education to attack people without merit on here any longer. Thank you all for your time and efforts. Myles cochrane (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Myles. I can find only one news article mentioning him, so I don't think he meets the bar (yet) for a BLP articles. Best of luck Myles! --Nuujinn (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Priya Rai
- Priya Rai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any specialized guideline other than WP:PORNBIO. Per the consensus application of PORNBIO in the Christopher Ashlee AFD, winning a "group scene" award along with eight other performers does not satisfy notability requirements. Original AFD resulted in deletion and 2009 group award is only added claim of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep she won a major award and has being nominated as an AVN starlet[1][2][3] Dwanyewest (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - criteria 1 of PORNBIO isn't debatable for an AVN award. Group or not. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in agreement with User:Morbidthoughts. That an award is awarded for a group activity does not minimalize the award, else a baseball team wining a pennant would also then not be notable in that the penant was awarded for the team's efforts. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- '"Keep'" in argreenent with morbid thoughts. She's a fairly well known performer.Kathartic (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep as per Morbidthoughts. Clearly notable. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:PORNBIO and User:Morbidthoughts.--Morenooso (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:PORNBIO: she won a major award. Clearly notable. -- fdewaele, 19 April 2010, 9:22 CET.
- Criteria one of porn bio eh! If that is what makes this person notable enough for a wikipedia biography then it needs changing. The citations are awful promotional and sales, there is no independent coverage of her at all, she has done nothing of note at all in her life. Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Morbidthoughts. Dismas|(talk) 04:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Priya has recently been featured in the opening scene of a recently released 3d adult movie "Octopussy a XXX Parody 3D", of which I referenced and cited (article is on AVN.com and in AVN magazine). There are VERY few Indian American adult actresses and since she has started working in the industry she has become very popular. I and others have come to find that quite a few ethnic men and women in the adult industry are being targeted for deletion. AlexandraMayers (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per above, and WP:HOTTIE. Textbook case. Dekkappai (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Last I looked at PORNBIO was still a valid set of criteria, and the article is sourced (albeit on the thin side...) Tabercil (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Man Who Laughs (Stage Play)
- The Man Who Laughs (Stage Play) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Un-notable play that hasn't opened. Doesn't pass WP:N. The article creator is the playwright. I cannot find any coverage in reliable sources and the google hits seem to be just about audition calls. [4] Clubmarx (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a play that hasn't even opened, no reason to think it's notable. Hairhorn (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Provisional delete unless the author can demonstrate coverage in reliable sources. "Hasn't even opened" isn't a deletion reason, if it can be demonstrated that it's receiving significant pre-publicity, but I can't see any evidence of it at the moment. – iridescent 00:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No Deletion Excuse me, but as the author of the article, I have clearly written in the "Talk" page for this article that more information is coming. A little patience would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheaterRaven (talk • contribs) 00:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, if Desired I have found a more appropriate web host for promoting the play. Therefore, delete the page, since you all seem to be in agreement it does not meet Wikipedia's high criteria. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheaterRaven (talk • contribs) 01:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia isn't a webhost, that's why the entry was nominated for deletion in the first place. Hairhorn (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, which is why I have found another web host to promote my work. Like I said before, delete the page if you want. The other source I have found better suits the needs of both our parties involved. TheaterRaven (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as advertising. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as advertising, or author requests (see above). So tagged. Brad 02:47, 21 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My Player Mode
- My Player Mode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A blatant how-to guide. The page had already been PRODed once; the PROD was declined by an anonymous user. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a guidebook. Truthsort (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NOTGUIDE with no chance of improvement. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 00:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete - This article clearly falls under WP:NOTGUIDE and has zero chance of surviving. Let's just axe it and move on. --Teancum (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete utter rubbish. Pcap ping 13:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I second a snowball deletion; this is OR, NOTGUIDE, etc. Marasmusine (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ulen Hibiki
- Ulen Hibiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability on the official web-sites. Possibly a one shot character. allen四names 23:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --allen四names 23:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, he is a one shot character. Appears once in a flashback, the biological father of the protagonist. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 00:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Extremely unnotable character seen all of one time for one moment in the series. Only hardcore fans are likely to even know his name. Not worth keeping the redirect. Clearly fails WP:N and is too minor to merge to any character list. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Gundam related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 02:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was this sent to the AFD the same day someone tagged it for a merge discussion? If the character is important to the series, then it should be merged. Only those who have seen the many Gundam series in manga, anime, toys, and whatnot, can really know how notable this person is, so I added it to their Wikiproject list of deletion discussions. Dream Focus 02:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I watch it and for sure he's not that notable and is only worth mentioning in the Kira Yamato article. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 04:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. May be worth a mention in character lists, the film page and the voice artists' pages, but nowhere near worthy of his own article. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Untitled Album (Katy Garbi)
- Untitled Album (Katy Garbi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was written in response to the original redirect (to Katy Garbi) was nominated for deletion per WP:HAMMER. The redirect's deletion discussion was closed as the creation of the article removed it from was not part of RfD purview. Unfortunately, the new article demonstrates crystal balling. The "untitled album" has not been released; nor has the song lineup been confirmed in any reliable source. B.Wind (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction. Nominated article was never a proper redirect (although the person who nominated it at WP:RfD tried to convert it into a redirect as he/she/it posted the {{rfd}} tag). Nonetheless, the issues of WP:CBALL and WP:HAMMER remain; thus the nomination here. B.Wind (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the wrong deletion template was just used. Everything above is just very confusing. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sure looks like WP:CRYSTAL to me. David V Houston (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per crystal and the points made by hammer. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Distant Rain
- Distant Rain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Un-notable manga and a story created by the article creator. No google hits. [5] Clubmarx (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even adding 'manga' to the search, I didn't see any ghits. I didn't go multiple pages in, though... David V Houston (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm coming up with nothing to verify this even exists, let alone that it's notable. Admittedly, it doesn't help that it's a fairly common phrase in anime/manga, but with nothing to go in, that makes this a delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not done yet and promotional. see this Sani Osaki article which is under BLP-PROD. Facepalm --KrebMarkt 21:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Besides the two (self-promoted?) WP hits, the only other reference is a YouTube user profile page. --Joe Decker (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original content or things made up one day. This may also qualify for G11 speedy deletion for self-promotion, as indicated by the OC's comments on their talk page.[6] —Farix (t | c) 00:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:COI, WP:MADEUP, WP:RS. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Couldn't find anything in [7]. --Gwern (contribs) 12:50 19 April 2010 (GMT)
- Delete Someone's personal, made up story and not a real manga series at all; self-promotion which successfully got them a top Google Hit response. Fails WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:MADEUP. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The uploader has stated it was their own work, they apparently making a simple mistake. I have already posted on their talk page telling them where the fiction wikia is at, so they can post their work there instead. Dream Focus 02:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Delete Per above, it looks like this has been resolved with the creator then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn with no outstanding arguments for deletion. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Out-of-place artifact
- Out-of-place artifact (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NEO. I can't find any in depth coverage of the term itself and only a few sources which use it. It isn't covered in depth by any of the sources provided. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep arguments are enough to convince me! Withdrawn with my apologies. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Since Ivan T. Sanderson died in 1973 this neologism is at least 37 years old. I see 200,000 ghits for the phrase "out of place artifacts". I've scrolled through a few pages of them and the article seems to be a good summary of how the term is used. John of Reading (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio orKeepand rewrite:Copyvio from [8]- but there are lots of Ghits on "OOPArt", including lots of images, so it looks like a concept that is in widespread use and warrants a Wikipedia article -- Boing! said Zebedee 22:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've blanked the copyvio part now, so it's pretty much reduced to stub status -- Boing! said Zebedee 22:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, looks like the apparent copyvio was a mirror of an earlier Wikipedia version - another editor has put it back now. So my opinion now changed to just "Keep" -- Boing! said Zebedee 00:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the concept itself has a lot of fringe goofiness, and there has been lots of debate about what exactly should go in the article (that still isn't entirely clear), but it's certainly worthy of an article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, the concept is defined well enough by a range and number of worthy & independent sources, and the term itself would easily be the most recognisable one in use.--cjllw ʘ TALK 14:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the concept of "Out-of-place artifacts" has been and continues to be a subject of discussion on both the web and in print (articles and books) that it certainly deserves an article in Wikipedia. The term "Out-of-place artifact" is the one most used and recognized in regard to this concept and, thus, is the one that should be used in Wikipedia to designate it.Paul H. (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Celebrity Pornhab with Dr. Screw
- Celebrity Pornhab with Dr. Screw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced stub that possibly fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). EuroPride (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The film appears to represent Mary Carey's comeback to porn film, and as a spoof of the series Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew has even attracted some mainstream attention. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sourced and garnered attention beyond the usual porn industry press - e.g., TMZ and Gay & Lesbian Times among other sites. Tabercil (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, as sourcing has been improved. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Yes, as it is quite rare that a porn film recieves coverage outside the usual porn industry sites, that would seem to make it worthy of note. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:43, 19 April 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quantum physics demo
- Quantum physics demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is a how-to describing how to demonstrate quantum physics to yourself. It has no references (besides one for a quote from Wikiquote). If anything, I believe it should be merged into a Quantum Physics article, such as Basic concepts of quantum mechanics. (Note: This is my first time doing an AFD, so if I did something wrong, please let me know. Thanks.) VerballyInsanet|c 21:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I can't help feeling that this is encyclopedic and would be appropriate somewhere, but I agree that on its own it's a bit of a "how to" and doesn't warrant its own article as described - if it was a notable experiment with a descriptive name, that might be different, but it's hard to know what to search for. (If it is merged, mind, I'm not really sure where it should go) -- Boing! said Zebedee 22:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Delete I've changed by !vote after reading the debunking reference, which certainly seems plausible (and probably convincing), which means it clearly isn't even a trustworthy demonstration -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I note that the page contains an external link that debunks the whole idea. This is where references come in useful. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Oh yes, so it does - I've changed my !vote to Delete. -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While it might be an interesting demo, it is in no way encyclopedic. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. My understanding (as very much an interested layman in this field) is that the very fact of reading this message on your computer, even without any polarizing filters, is a demonstration of quantum physics, as many of the components involved in getting this message from Wikipedia's servers to your brain depend on quantum effects for their operation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The book referenced, Johnjoe McFadden, Quantum Evolution, pp 177–182 W. W. Norton & Company; 2000, contains an extensive discussion of the topic. The polarized light demo is taught in many university physics classes. The reference to a classical physics explanation is again a standard technique in physics classes. Quantum physics and classical physics explanations of the same phenomena are placed side by side in the Socratic Method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crunkcar (talk • contribs) 02:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would you happen to know if the experiment had a specific name? It would make it easier to find information about it. VerballyInsanet|c 03:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Professor McFadden calls it the "Sunglasses Experiment" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crunkcar (talk • contribs) 04:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I note the ref to the book has a web link, but that's broken. And I don't understand the remark "Quantum physics and classical physics explanations of the same phenomena are placed side by side in the Socratic Method." If polarisation can be understood classically, as the "debunking" ref suggests, than the experiment doesn't actually demonstrate quantum physics. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The polarizer quantum physics demonstration is regarded as sufficiently interesting to have been posted on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZudziPffS9E and also on Yahoo Answers http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091125133831AAr2Vju —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crunkcar (talk • contribs) 03:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, it's interesting enough. I'd like to see more refs, though, including to books on polarisation that confirm that the phenomenon can't be understood classically. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's the point - it can be understood classically, as one of the refs describes, so it's probably nothing to do with quantum physics -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, it's interesting enough. I'd like to see more refs, though, including to books on polarisation that confirm that the phenomenon can't be understood classically. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:Verifiability and content issues noted above, and some very dubious statements, such as "This non-intuitiveness illustrates the quantum axiom that there is no objective, outside world with a reality independent of observation and measurement." I always thought that quantum theory asserted the objective existence of the wave function. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Sunglasses experiment truly cannot be understood classically. You would have to believe that passage of light through a polarizer lens or plastic or glass twists the polarization vector of the photons. I included the debunking reference purely for objectivity and balance.Crunkcar (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we know that passage of light through a polarizer does not twist the polarization vector of the photons? (Genuine question - I really don't know) -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The external links section currently includes links to YouTube, Yahoo! Answers, and two forums. VerballyInsane 23:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I feel like sitting in a school class when reading this article. I'm almost certain polarization of LCD light is addressed in other articles, and this article is merely describing an experiment. You may add a note on this effect on respective articles, but a how-to or lecture or anything alike is certainly not appropriate for an encyclopedia. You may move this over to wikischool - oh wait, there is no such; dunno if wikiversity will accept that text. Nageh (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Miller (singer)
- Dan Miller (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The only cited source for this article is some uploaded pictures of the subject's wedding. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- No individual notability or coverage, perhaps merge any worthwhile cited content (if there is any) with the band article O-Town_(band) Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - all mentions are trivial (in lists of "celebrity" birthdays, and a photo caption where he appeared at a local charity basketball game). Appears to have no independent notability outside of the band. Per Gene93k, merge anything useful and referenceable (currrently nothing) to the band's article. Voceditenore (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Miller (guitarist)
- Dan Miller (guitarist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not so much an unsourced WP:BLP - that would imply some biographical content - more an unsourced directory entry on a living person. Backing guitarist with a band that is not, let's be honest here, The Beatles. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I've added two sources to this, but there really doesn't seems to be enough to warrant an independent article. Sourced info can be Merged into the two articles on the bands (They Might Be Giants and Lincoln (band)). Voceditenore (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2010 (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. Abecedare (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BeForU
- BeForU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- BeForU FIRST LIVE at ZeppTokyo 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- BeForU II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- BeForU (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- BeForU II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- KI・SE・KI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article on a band which has never had any independent sources, along with the related articles which all have the same problem. I came across this due to tagging of an album page as CSD#G11. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep BeForU, obviously notable, having released four albums and six singles. I would suggest dealing with the the group article nomination first and the individual releases after that deletion discussion is concluded. TJRC (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not really notable, lack of independent sourcing, and their only claim to fame is DDR. ShawnIsHere (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as they more than meet WP:BAND (specifically, they meet #2 (charted single or album), #5 (2+ major label albums), and #10 (performed music for a work of media that is notable: DDR is clearly very notable)). Their single "Shangri-La" reached 110 on the Oricon charts [9], the single "Yohanabi" reached 102 [10], the single "Strike Party!!!" reached 49 and was on the charts for three weeks [11], "Red Rocket Rising" reached 68 and was on the charts for 3 weeks, the album Shangri-La (yes the same name as the single) reached 221 on the charts [12], the album Be4U III reached 126 on the charts [13]. They have released albums and singles through two major labels (Konami and avex mode) and one label I haven't heard of (Gambit, it's probably a fairly new label). They clearly meet the notability requirements. This is just what I found after 5 minutes of quickie searching on Google. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources found by Nihonjoe. Oricon is on WP:GOODCHARTS, so it passes WP:BAND #2. Haven't looked into the rest, but one criteria is sufficient. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Naroin
- Naroin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Solissey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- Trigoddess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
No real evidence of notability, possibly even a hoax. Very few Google hits, no news mentions that I could find. I'm not convinced this is a real religion. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm thinking this is a hoax. The single reference has 'Ann Coulter's little princess' as the title?? Clubmarx (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahem, yeah, I had to giggle at that
a littlea lot. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Delete—I can't say whereas I have any doubt its fan fiction after reading the entire self-published page it was created in reference to: [14] and the author's home page at [15]. She does a lot of fan fiction and goes out her way to make a point of Nintendo's IP, The Legend of Zelda. I don't think she intended the piece to be a hoax, it reads like fanfic. The Ann Coulter thing might be an attempt at irony, she sometimes goes by "Princess Zelda". Her YouTube channel [16] speaks volumes about where she's coming from… in the "Gerudo" language of Hylia. However, I did add WP:HOAX to Naroin, Trigoddess, and Solissey and nominated the later two for deletion because they've found their way into: Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path, List of Neopagan movements, Conceptions of God, Religious symbolism, Triple deity, Category:Triune gods, Category:Neopagan festivals, Category:Neopagan holidays, Template:Neopaganism, Template:Neopaganism2 and Category:Wikipedians by religion via Category:Naroinic Wikipedians.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahem, yeah, I had to giggle at that
- Delete this an all Fan Fic that isn't published by a non-vanity press (e.g. Splinter of the Mind's Eye) Jclemens (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not appear to go beyond being self-published fanfic. No evidence of being talked up or reviewed by significant second parties. Herostratus (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed but everyone, please also consider the nature of the article prior to my edit. Thanks.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is considered, but there still is no real evidence of notability here. The only sources are another wiki and a fanfic page. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why I want it to be perfectly clear I did not change an article about a religion into an article about a work of fan fiction in order to get it deleted.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sources are primary, that "Television Tropes & Idioms" doesn't even have "Narion" in it's text. I don't see any hope for WP:N on this. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 16:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Below, I have merged the info from the Trigoddess and Sollisey pages. I have turned those AfDs into redirects to this debate. —Ost (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Votes from Trigoddess AfD
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all 3 - non-notable fan fiction. The only references are the site publishing the work and a wiki page with blurb referring to Nintendo. A Google search didn't produce any reliable sources. —Ost (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: non-notable elements of video-game fanfic. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, and TVTropes has no notability policy and is not a valid source. --Absenteeist Ⓣ Ⓒ 20:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I added the TVTropes reference to Naroin because the article is sure to be deleted and editors might permissibly consider, in that light, the claims made about Nintendo, prior to my edit, in regard to religious content. The article's talk page would normally have been better but the hoax is consuming enough time and bandwidth already.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tridelete all, per WP:Verification. Marasmusine (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not sure if it's just related to the above work, but the The Legend of Zelda has no mention of this, so it most definitely fails WP:N. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 16:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Votes from Solissey AfD
- Delete all - The main underlying article is not notable and has no reliable sources. Clubmarx (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad DumbBOT. I didn't use that template but I did put a notice on the editor's page. If someone could merge this and WP:Articles for deletion/Trigoddess into a group nomination for WP:Articles for deletion/Naroin, that would be good.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, highly non-notable holiday in a video game.
As to the above comment ("Delete all"), I'm pretty sure this isn't a group nomination. We're not about to delete Religious symbolism.Glenfarclas (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Added: Oh never mind, you meant Trigoddess and Naroin. Yes, delete those too; no evidence of encyclopedic notability.[reply] - Strong delete. Non-notable trivia from non-notable work. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 16:09, 24 April 2010 (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. Per WP:RELIST, two relistings is the maximum; this is heading for a keep anyway. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Master DeRose
- Master DeRose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can find no reliable sources in English for this person. I know that there might be more in Portuguese, but I'm not sure if any of the sources used are reliable. The fact that this is being created on April Fool's Day, being edited by a huge number of brand new editors, gives me pause. At best, this is a BLP concern, at worst, it's a hoax. Woogee (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Add SwáSthya Yôga to this AfD. Woogee (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am one of DeRose Method students, who is helping to create this page. Everything that is written on this page was based on his(Master DeRose) books, written in Portuguese and Spanish. It's very easy to find all the sources that we used to create it. Only need someone that speaks Portuguese or Spanish. Only is not fair allowing putting in English Wiki writers that have books written in English. All the world communicates in English. I am trying to convince that I only put the truth on this page. Regards and I appreciate all your understanding. Pacifici - London —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacifici2010 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Writing the article based on his books is an improper use of sourcing. Please see WP:BLP and WP:RS. And why, all of a sudden, have so many of his students shown up here? Is he or someone else recruiting them? Woogee (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Woogee,
- I am just trying to speak about someone that I know profoundly for more than 8 years. I have read all of his 25 books(some sold out) and did tens of workshop in several countries. I did't copy nothing from his books, I only based on them. There is no more trustful source than books. Do you agree?
- Please, any question that you want to know I'd love to answer, such as any source that you wish to know. By the way, what about "someone else recruiting them?" that is very offensive, and doesn't make any sense.
- If you haven't found yet, there is more than 200 schools abroad the world that use his Method. As Pilates schools, for exemple.
- Regards,Pacifici —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacifici2010 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC) --Pacifici2010 (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an April fools joke. All master derose books are available online for fee at uni-yoga.com if you would like to see them in case they don't sell them in your countey. As for books bou being reliable, if they are not then what is? Thee are also links to various reowned Brazilian established television stations that have carried out inteviews on master DeRose. If you see on the the wiki there is also a link in the acclaim section where you can see all the awards, and recognitions master DeRose has been awarded by the Brazilian govenment. He is an extreamly important persob and only because all information regarding
Him is in Spanish or portugese not many prole know about him in the Anglo Saxon world and we believe this should change. The reason so many people have probably added to his new English page is because they are happy to share and spread knowledge about him, as he has thousands students in various DeRose method schools thoughhout the world. I would strongly suggest you get someone that speaks portugese or Spanish to watch the inteviews and learn a bit about master DeRose before taking any steps to erase this wiki, which is all 100% truth and a biography of maybe one of the great thinkers of our time at the level of Nelson mandela, but whom is unknown for a great part of the world only because of the barriers of language. Andrea Mandiola —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.28.196 (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a request for a Portuguese editor and offered to help. However, I have no idea how to report on my 'findings'. I have posted a brief summary on the talk page of the user who posted the request. --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Testimonial from OrdemMeritoIndiasOrientais
|
---|
Ordem do Mérito das Índias Orientais certifies the truthfullness of the statements below, published on Wikipedia about writer and educator DeRose. Ordem do Mérito das Índi--OrdemMeritoIndiasOrientais (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)as Orientais is a not-for-profit, non-political, non-religious cultural institution that was officially created in 2008, in the city of Penafiel, Portugal, with the purpose of: - acknowledging public recognition to various individuals and institutions with outstanding contribution in the national and foreign cultural, social and philantropic areas; - promoting India's ancient cultural and philosophical inheritance; - establishing relevant links within the India-Brazil-Portugal cultural circuit; All these actions are publically and officialy marked by the attribution of honorary medals and decorations, and by the organization of several cultural events. The foundation act of this institution was honoured by the presence and the official support of the Portuguese Ministry of Culture, the Health Services Secretary of State, Dr. Manuel Pizarro, the Júlio Resende Foundation (Júlio Resende is a woldwide renowned Portuguese painter) and the Mayor of the city of Penafiel, Dr. Alberto Santos. Among the events put forward by Ordem do Mérito das Índias Orientais as a tribute to DeRose, we would like to mention two in particular: DeRose Culture and DeRose Gala, two annual events made in Portugal, consisting of a series of cultural events, including exhibitions and artistic performances related to ancient India’s culture and philosophy. The 2008 edition of the DeRose Gala featured an Exhibition/Installation based on one of DeRose’s books (Sútras – Máximas de Lucidez e Êxtase) – see the vídeo presentation at: http://www.memoriamedia.net/dossiers/sutras_imagens/dossier_expo/sutras_expo.html. The Exhibition which took place at the Museu Municipal de Penafiel, which was officially nominated for the EMYA 2010 (European Museum of the Year Award), which awards each year the museums that significantly contribute to cultural development on their specific area of expertise and to European cultural exchange. These year’s editions will be specially dedicated to celebrating DeRose’s Golden Jubilee. This way we will be marking the 50 year mastership of this worldwide renowned writer, educator and philosopher with a special tribute during the DeRose Gala 2010, for which several institutions and individuals were invited. Already for DeRose’s 25 year mastership celebration a commemorative medal was released in Portugal to mark that significant date. These events welcome yearly some of the biggest international authorities on Ancient Yôga and also a few hundred participants coming from Portugal, Brazil, Spain, France, Italy, United Kingdom and Germany.[reply] As per our official invitation, DeRose joined Ordem do Mérito das Índias Orientais as Grand Master, which very much honours this institution. In that post he awarded several individuals in 2008 and 2009, such as: - Júlio Resende (worldwide renowned painter) and the Júlio Resende Foundation - Journalist and writer António Mateus - Dr. Manuel Pizarro (Health Services Secretary of State, member of the Portuguese Republic’s government) - Prof. Giuseppe Mea (representative of the Italian community in Portugal). As referred in DeRose’s Historic, between years 2001 and 2002 he was acknowledged as Master in Yôga and Honoris Causa doctorate (Notorious knowledge in Yôga / non-academic) by Universidade Lusófona de Lisboa and by Universidade do Porto (Portugal). The prestige he has gathered throughout the years for his honest and anti-commercial posture has found an echo in the international media and is materialized by the cultural support of various official institutions, like the Indian Embassy in Brazil and Portugal. One of the most recent interviews to DeRose was made in 2009 by Portuguese journalist and writer António Mateus*. It was released on a DVD entitled “Conversas com Rumo”. The following caption languages are currently available: spanish, german, italian, The english version will soon be released (http://www.uni-yoga.org/entrevista_derose_tv.php). Also in April 2009 DeRose was interviewed by Portuguese State TV Channel TV2. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqHVm2u1T6I). On May 2007 he was the special guest of Portuguese TV show “Páginas Soltas”, hosted by Bárbara Guimarães http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T0pEOayeCc).
Ten of DeRose’s 25 literary works were published in Portugal: Tudo sobre Yôga Origens do Yôga Antigo Mitos e Verdades Encontro com o Mestre Eu me lembro… Alternativas de relacionamento afectivo Chakras e kundaliní Sútras – Máximas de Lucidez e Êxtase Quando é preciso ser forte and Tratado de Yôga (in Sanskrit: Yôga Shástra), the world’s most comprehensive book on Yôga ever published, in the whole history of Yôga. It comprises 58 breathing exercises, 32 mantras, 27 kriyás, 52 concentration and meditation exercises, 108 mudrás and their correspondant pictures, and over 2.000 physical techniques (ásanas) and their correspondant photos. This book is a classic. It teaches a peculiar, far reaching subject, which is treated in an accurate and elegant language, as never seen before in this publishing field. DeRose’s Tratado deYôga is a canonical masterpiece when it comes to dealing with the millenary philosophy of Yôga. DeRose has been researching and teaching for 50 years, in a continuous struggle to rescue the Ancient Yôga’s true essence, without ever giving way to modern trends that tend to simplify, adapt, westernize or mix this noble cultural inheritance with other proposals. This masterpiece was made with over 200 collaborations, improvements and additions. We replaced the two thousand, one hundred and sixteen ásanas photo file by a new one with higher definition, we inserted more varied photos, we revised the text, we added footnotes, we included more information and instructions wherever there was available space. We enhanced a few paragraphs, we ameliorated some of the test replies, we updated the recommended bibliography, as well as the History of Yôga in Brazil, we chiseled some of the pages’ layout in order to make them more didactical or more aesthetic, we perfected the cover so as to make it more elegant and the title clearer, and, finally, we couldn’t help adding 30 new pages. Tratado de Yôga has been commended by the Chairman of the Yôga Federation of India, M. S. Viswanath, who stated: “This book is the monumental contribution to this century’s Yôga and the most priceless gift to the forthcoming’s one”. The book includes also the statements of several Ambassadors of India in Brazil and Portugal, together with the cultural support of those Embassies. For more information on Tratado de Yôga: http://www.tratadodeyoga.com
For more information on Ordem do Mérito das Índias Orientais: http://www.ordemmeritoindiasorientais.eu http://www.ordemmeritoindiasorientais.eu/doc/ For more information on writer, educator and philosopher DeRose: www.uni-yoga.org www.uni-yoga.org/blogdoderose www.uni-yoga.org/blogdoderose/comendas-e-condecoracoes/ With our most respectful salutations Luís Lopes Presidente da Ordem do Mérito das Índias Orientais
DeRose is an Honoris Causa Doctorate, Notorious Knowledge, Commendation-awarded by several cultural and humanitarian institutions, Counsellor of the Order of Parliament Members of Brazil, Counsellor of the Brazilian Art, Culture and History Academy and Counsellor of the Latin-American Art Academy. He has accomplished 50 years as an educator, of which 24 years were spent travelling to India. During his journeys he attended countless schools, monasteries and other cultural institutions, and in all of them he endeavored to master his knowledge on hindu philosophy. Here is a brief overview of his career trajectory: 1960: He began teaching in a respectful philosophical society. 1964: He founded the Instituto Brasileiro de Yôga. 1969: He published his first book (Prontuário de Yôga Antigo), which was belauded by Ravi Shankar himself, by Master Chiang Sing and by other reputed authorities. 1975: Already consecrated as a truthful teacher, he raised the necessary support to found União Nacional de Yôga (Uni-Yôga), the first institution to congregate teachers and schools of all types of Yôga, without discrimination. It was União Nacional de Yôga who started the union, ethics and mutual respect movement among the professionals in that teaching area. Since then, the institution has grown widely and today has hundreds of schools in just about the whole of Brazil, and teachers in Argentina, Chile, Portugal, Spain, France, United Kingdom, Scotland, Germany, Italy, Hawai, Indonesia, Canada, U.S.A., Australia and other countries.
1978: He led the campaign to create and promote the first bill to regulate the Yôga teacher professional status, which set in motion a few heated and lively debates across the country. From the 70s on, he introduced the University Extension Courses to form Yôga teachers in almost all Federal, State and Catholic Universities. 1980: He started administering courses in Indian territory and giving classes to Yôga teachers in Europe. 1982: He put together and conducted the First Brazilian Yôga Congress. Still in 82 he released the first teacher-orientation book, the Guia do Instrutor de Yôga, and the first translation of Pátañjali’s Yôga Sútra ever made by a Brazilian Yôga teacher. Yôga Sútra is the most relevant book on Classic Yôga. Unfortunately, the more Prof. DeRose stood out, the more he became the target of a merciless persecution made by those who felt harmed by his clarification campaign. 1994: When accomplishing 20 years of travelling to India, he founded the First Yôga University of Brazil and the International Yôga University in Portugal. 1997: He launched the foundations of the Federal Yôga Council and the National Union of Yôga Teaching Professionals. 2000: He celebrated his 40th anniversary as a reputed Yôga teacher and researcher. In the subsequent years, as follows, he was awarded many honorary titles by several cultural and humanitarian institutions. 2001 and 2002: Master in Yôga and Honoris Causa doctorate (Notorious knowledge in Yôga / non-academic) by FATEA – Faculdades Integradas Teresa d’Ávila (SP), by Universidade Lusófona de Lisboa (Portugal), by Universidade do Porto (Portugal), by Universidade de Cruz Alta (RS), by Universidade Estácio de Sá (MG), by Faculdades Integradas Coração de Jesus (SP) and by the Curitiba City Hall (PR). Commendation of the Ordem do Mérito de Educação e Integração by the Sociedade Brasileira de Educação e Integração. 2003: Commendation award by the Brazilian Academy of Art, Culture and History.
2004: Knight’s degree, by the Ordem dos Nobres Cavaleiros de São Paulo, acknowledged by the Commander-in-Chief of the Nineth of July Cavalry Regiment, of the São Paulo State Military Police. 2006: Tiradentes Medal by the Legislative Assembly of the Rio de Janeiro State. Peace Medal, by ONU Brazil. Honoris Causa doctorate by the Câmara Brasileira de Cultura, by Universidade Livre da Potencialidade Humana and by several other cultural institutions. Historical and Cultural Merit Diploma (Grand Officer degree). He was also appointed as Counsellor of the Order of Parliament Members of Brazil. 2007: Honorary Associate Member of the Rotary Club. Paul Harris’ Medal of the Rotary Foundation (Rotary International). International Medal of the United Nations and American States Veterans. Academic Cross by the Federação das Academias de Letras e Artes do Estado de São Paulo “for meritory and uplifting actions on behalf of the Nation’s development”. 30th January: Moção de Votos de Júbilo e Congratulações by the São Paulo City Hall (RDS 3059/2006). 27th March: Voto de Louvor e Congratulações by the Paraná State Legislative Assembly “for relevant services rendered”. December: Marshal Falconière’s Medal. 2008: Láurea D. João VI, included in the celebration of the 200 years of the Harbour Opening. 18th February (considered as Yôga Day by state law in thirteen Brazilian states) Title of São Paulo’s Citizen, by the São Paulo City Hall. March: Omnium Horarum Homo Diploma of the Civil Defense, attributed by the governor of the São Paulo State, José Serra, “for his commitment towards the humanitarian cause”. Peace Cross of the II World War Veterans. Merit Medal of the Brazilian Expeditionary Corps. MMDC Medal by the Commander in Chief of the São Paulo State’s Military Police. Medal of the Bicentenary of the Independence Dragons of the Brazilian Army. Union’s Military Justice Medal. November 2008: Appointed Grand Master of the Ordem do Mérito das Índias Orientais, Portugal. Appointed as Cultural Attaché of the Université de Yôga de Paris, France. 2nd December: Medal attributed by the São Paulo Press Association, in view of his initiatives in social and humanitarian causes. 4th December: Sentinelas da Paz Medal, by the UNO Blue Berret Corps from Joinville, Santa Catarina. 5th December: Social and Cultural Recognition Cross, at the São Paulo City Hall. 9th December: Military House Medal, by the Civil Defense, at the Government Palace, in view of his participation in the various Clothing Campaigns organized by the São Paulo State and for his
2009: January: Diploma of the Amigo da Base de Administração e Apoio do Ibirapuera, of the Brazilian Army. D. João VI Collar, by the Judicial Power, Military Justice. Attestato di Riconoscimento, by the Accademia del Fiorino di Arti, Lettere, Scienze, Lavoro e Spetaccolo, Italy. Marshal Deodoro da Fonseca’s Collar, by the Brazilian government, on the occasion of the celebration of the 120 years of the Brazilian Republic and national flag implementation. Medal by the Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil. Emeritus Federal Counsellor Diploma, Brazilian government award Grand-Collar by the Sociedade Brasileira de Heráldica, on the occasion of DeRose’s 50 year mastership.
DeRose’ anniversary date, 18th February, was adopted by thirteen Brazilian states and established, by state law, as Yôga Day. Those states are: São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Paraná, Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul, Minas Gerais, Bahia, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Pará, Goiás, Piauí, Ceará, and also the Federal District. Currently, writer and philosopher DeRose celebrates his 25 book publishing, in several countries and with over one million copies sold. His anti-commercialist posture has attained something never before accomplished by an author with their editor: the liberty to allow free internet download of several of his books in Portuguese, Spanish, German and Italian, free of charge MP3 of his Yôga practice CDs and tens of webclasses, also for free, at the Uni-Yôga site: www.Uni-Yoga.org, which doesn’t sell anything whatsoever. All of these were historical precedents, which made DeRose the most quoted and, undoubtedly, the most important Brazilian Master of Yôga, for the tireless energy he uses in promoting Yôga for the last 50 years, in books, newspapers, magazines, radio, television, conferences, courses, trips and new teachers’ training. He has formed over 6.000 good Yôga teachers and has helped create thousands of Yôga centres, professional associations, Yôga Federations, Confederations and Unions. As of today, his work has spread throughout Argentina, Chile, Portugal, Spain, France, United Kingdom, Scotland, Germany, Italy, Hawai, Indonesia, U.S.A., Canada, Australia, etc. DeRose is supported by an expressive number of cultural, academic, humanitarian, military and governmental institutions, who recognize the value of his work and made him the world’s most decorated Master of Yôga with medals, titles and commendations. Notwithstanding, he always states: “The honors I am awarded from time to time by the Brazilian Army, the Legislative Assembly, the State government, the City Hall, the Military Police, the Civil Defense, the São Paulo Press Association, the Rotary, the Brazilian Chamber of Culture, the Order of the Parliament Members
I accept these tributes, because they do not serve to inflate one’s ego, but their purpose is the recognition of Yôga by society and by the institutions. It is Yôga which is being commended”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OrdemMeritoIndiasOrientais (talk • contribs) 15:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Dear wiki
I have known Prof. DeRose's work for 18 years now, and I can clearly state that Professor DeRose is one of the most serious educators and Masters of Yoga, his work leading the area in several countries. All of his bibliography is hyper-linked (although not in English) and they prove his good reputation In my point of view, it will be very important to have his work in English language, as every country should get accesses to his work, as I think is a amazing contribution for man kind. Kind regards Gustavo Cardoso Well-being consultor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustavo321 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It doesn't matter how many testimonials we receive here, if there are no independent reliable sources in English, then we cannot have an article in the English Wikipedia. It is perfectly possible to have a subject which has a Featured Article in one language and no notability in another. (Granted, some wikipedias where there is very little literature in the given language need to accept references in other languages, but that is not an issue for en). Also, if kept, the article would need to move to Luís DeRose, since titles are not included in article names. dramatic (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This guy is really well-known in Brazil and there is plenty of sources atesting to his notability. I agree with Dramatic that the article need to move to Luís DeRose. Another possibility here is to recast the article to Method DeRose, the method he created and which has become the most popular Yoga method in Brazil. Lechatjaune (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ronz, I am not a practitioner of yoga, I have no personal interest at all in keeping this article and I deprecate the use of Wikipedia for promotion or posting of partial information. But I'm a brazilian myself and I must recognize the enormous comercial success of DeRose. The article itself brings some links to Estadão, which is a well-established brazilian newspaper. Lechatjaune (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/stub While we have testimonials and assertions of notability, the article would need a complete rewrite from sources meeting WP:BIO criteria once they are provided. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In Argentina he is also very well known. Here's a link to a site with many news articles about he's work. Also many states of Brazil have declared DeRose's birthday as "Day of Yôga". This is definetly proof of notability. He has also been very present in the media. On top of these Van Lysbeth includes DeRose's book in his bibliography on one of his latest books(I'll come back later with the exact information). These should also validate it's notability. --Dwaynemac (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning keep. Although it's still early to tell, I think we shouldn't delete this article prematurely. What is strongly required though is references outside(!) of DeRose's circle, such as media coverage etc., that verifies his notability. Nageh (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC) PS: But yeah, this article would need to be moved to his real name. Nageh (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 06:02, 25 April 2010 (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) --Darkwind (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of black ice hockey players
- List of black ice hockey players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Race based list, regardless of what nation a player's family came from, or if they are not even fully regarded as "black" is just trivial. Nominating this article separately from the other race-based hockey articles since it is actually sourced properly. Львівське (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For previous Afd on List of black ice hockey players see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latino ice hockey players. -DJSasso (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, leaning keep. I ride the fence on this one, but given there are two published books, at least, that focus on black hockey players, it seems obvious that the topic of blacks in hockey is notable. This would distinguish this list from the others. Resolute 05:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Notable topic, plus better-sourced than 99.99% of Wikipedia's other lists. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject African diaspora. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable article shows reliable refrences,It is worth staying on Wikipedia for history purposesMatt-tastic (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I could have sworn that this had been debated a year or two ago. I do think that it should be moved back to its earlier title of List of black NHL players. Somebody moved it a couple of years ago with the vague comment of "NHL is too narrow. Expanding research", but it's still just an NHL list. It's well-sourced, and anyone who knows the history of the NHL, or has heard of Willie O'Ree, is aware that African-Americans and black Canadians have been a very small minority in professional ice hockey. Mandsford (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Though it is sourced better than the other 3 up for deletion, I don't see the relevance of a player being of partial descent, or how all these players fit together. I think if this article is kept, a stronger and more well defined lead of what constitutes "black" is needed, as the list is comprised of a multiple of nationalities.--Львівське (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, some peopel might think its about guys who play hockey on black ice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.249.129 (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Being a black hockey player is is something that is noted. In an ideal world, being a black and an ice hockey player would not be worth noting. However, that is not the world we live in. A Google book search shows that the topic is noted. And from that results list we have an enire book devoted solely to the subject as well as coverage in magazine articles. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Looks like there are plenty of sources indicating it's natability. Patken4 (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This well sourced article is notable and should bee kept. Dolovis (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Whpq. Shouldn't be particularly notable in a perfect world, but the world ain't perfect. COMMENT: The title should be "List of black professional ice hockey players". PKT(alk) 14:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: notable? Do other sports find this notable? Is there a "list of white basketball players"? I mean really now--Львівське (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other sports don't have such a disparity like this one. Even basketball has a large number of white players. Out of 600 active players in the NHL...what are there like 27 (atleast according to this list) who can even claim partial black ethnicity? -DJSasso (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What disparity? Blacks make up 2.5% of the Canadian population but constitute 5% of the leagues players, so proportionally more blacks are in the league than there probably should be. --Львівське (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hockey isn't only played in Canada. -DJSasso (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple players, Donald Brashear, Dustin Byfuglien, Mike Grier, Greg Mauldin, Francis Bouillon, and Kyle Okposo are American, while Johnny Oduya is Swedish. Patken4 (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What disparity? Blacks make up 2.5% of the Canadian population but constitute 5% of the leagues players, so proportionally more blacks are in the league than there probably should be. --Львівське (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other sports don't have such a disparity like this one. Even basketball has a large number of white players. Out of 600 active players in the NHL...what are there like 27 (atleast according to this list) who can even claim partial black ethnicity? -DJSasso (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: notable? Do other sports find this notable? Is there a "list of white basketball players"? I mean really now--Львівське (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It all still supports my point, blacks aren't disproportionally represented.--Львівське (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, your point was that Canadian blacks represent a much greater proportion (twice as much) of the population in the NHL than they do in general Canadian society. Not all these players are currently playing for their NHL team. Quite a few have played a lot more with their team's AHL affiliate than with the NHL side (P. K. Subban, Maxime Fortunus, and Shawn Belle just to name a few). So, you are comparing this list to a lot more than 600 NHL players. In actuality, it is statistically equal to your statistic of 2.5% of the population. Besides, there are a lot of white players in the NBA. Just most of them are European. There are many white American basketball players that are enshrined in the basketball Hall of Fame. There is only one black hockey player. If want to start an article on white, American basketball players in the NBA, go ahead. Patken4 (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It all still supports my point, blacks aren't disproportionally represented.--Львівське (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit - As opposed to having a list, would it not be more logical to have an article about the history of blacks in ice hockey? As Whpq says, it should not be worth noting which ice hockey players are black. The history of said players, however, is worth noting. Viruk42 (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP: Its a keeper!!! This is a well sourced article which actually predates the NHLs own program of recognition of black players. It would be a great companion, at some later date, to a comprehensive history of the contributions and innovations of blacks to the sport. A few black players and black authors have commented favorably to me on this article. Oh, and also worth keeping because there is a racist movement underfoot to remove this article, and if there is anything that I hate more than a high-stick to the face, that has got to be racism. Garagehero (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Make up your mind, you hate racism but support an article that merits players based on race? You can't have it both ways--Львівське (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not having it both ways as I don't see any widespread support of your notion that having a list of players based on race is racist. As I noted on the talk page, much was made in the newspapers about how a recent call-up to a local team was the first Middle-Eastern to play professionally. Calling this racist is political correctness gone way too far. --NeilN talk to me 17:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Make up your mind, you hate racism but support an article that merits players based on race? You can't have it both ways--Львівське (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can guarantee you that I'm the least PC guy on the hockey project, this isn't a matter of political correctness, its about grouping players together based on some being carribean, some being half black, some being from africa as immigrants, some are born in north america, etc. there is no legitimate qualifier for this listing other than that they have some sub-saharan descent from a wide range of black nationalities. That said, like i stated above, I'd totally be on board with this if it was an article and not a list, making clear the qualifiers and more importantly why this is a relevant subject. Keep it, but legitimize the article and subject.--Львівське (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Well-sourced and notable. --NeilN talk to me 17:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While I will admit that having a "White Professional Basketball Players" would cause a firestorm, I think having a page on black hockey players is a solid idea and should be kept.Trendon (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2010 (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. (non-admin closure) ℳøℕø 06:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of ice hockey players of Asian descent
- List of ice hockey players of Asian descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Arbitrary list that is also original research.
Article sorts players by "Asian race", comprised of certain oriental nations, and India, but not the rest of Asia (middle east, russia, etc.). Poorly sourced. Львівське (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are exactly the same:[reply]
- List of ice hockey players of Latino descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of ice hockey players of Middle Eastern descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete: I could understand a sourced article on a specific nation (ie. Japanese players in the NHL), but quasi-races like "Middle Easterners" (including Jews) and "Asians" (including Indians, but excluding others), or "Latinos" (including white European Spaniards in a list with South/Central Americans) is just silly. Plus, all listed articles are poorly sourced as stated above.--Львівське (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For previous Afd on List of ice hockey players of Latino descent see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latino ice hockey players. -DJSasso (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've called for this page to be deleted before, and I'll stand by it. Arbitrary definitions, and excluding several Russian/Kazakh players born and raised in the continent of Asia only helps to make this list even less accurate, not to mention leaving out players of Middle Eastern descent. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, I guess by this arbitrary definition, ethnic Kazakh players would be allowed but ethnic Russian Kazakhstani players excluded? It's just all over the place. Mogilny was born so close to China, but he's not Asian enough for the Asian article, but Paul Kariya, a half-scot half-japanese from BC, is. --Львівське (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the editor who seconded the prod. This is original research with no objective rules of inclusion/exclusion. Would an NHL player with one great-grandparent who was born in Siberia be included in this list? B.Wind (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Although I understand that these lists are somewhat ambiguous, I still feel they provide some useful information. What's most sorely needed now for these lists is proper sourcing and also clear definitions on what constitutes as "Asian", "Latino", "Middle Eastern", etc. The previous AfD for List of ice hockey players of Latino descent brought up some good points (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Latino_ice_hockey_players) and I think it's worthwhile to ponder a bit about them as well. Soggybread (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as there are article and category pages that note individuals by ethnicity and sociological race. Certain Russian, Kazakh players of Russian descent, etc. need to added to the page listing Asian players / players of Asian descent, for sure. Sourcing may need to be improved, but this is true of many WP pages. Mayumashu (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This article is notable, and most of the players are verified with a reference. With a list such as this, it is important that each and every player should be either referenced or removed. Dolovis (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: This article is very unique for this sport and it should be notable or recognize for their accomplishments. Marc87 (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elsinore (band)
- Elsinore (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable band. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. Probably just enough coverage to demonstrate notability. The AV Club article is already linked, and there's also this from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, as well as less refworthy further coverage in student newspaper the Daily Illini ([19], [20]). --Michig (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - yet another indie band with one album and minimal "coverage". Rklawton (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "It's been a long road, but Elsinore still going full speed ahead" by Michael Miller in The News-Gazette, 25 February 2010. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My biggest problem with this article isn't that the band is non-notable; the whole article is a stub. If this isn't rectified soon, the article should remain candidate for deletion. --George The Man (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stub status is seldom a valid rationale for deletion. AfD is for articles that cannot be improved upon because they are non-notable or not verifiable. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 20:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My biggest problem with this article isn't that the band is non-notable; the whole article is a stub. If this isn't rectified soon, the article should remain candidate for deletion. --George The Man (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This band will be releasing their debut full length this summer, paying for album promotion and touring extensively. Please keep them and give them another few months to develop meaningful content. Seems like they finally got their ducks in a row. --User:Transpanther (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2010
- Note User:Transpanther is a WP:SPA with only three edits - all related to this article/AfD. Rklawton (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Probably just stumbles over WP:BAND #1 with the sources linked from the article and those mentioned by Michig. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 20:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per PdCook; also may pass WP:BAND #5 by this summer (2 major indie CDs). Bearian (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lunch Box Boys
- Lunch Box Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged since 2007 for lack of independent references, this article doesn't show any significant gains toward reaching the WP:BAND notability bar after I've removed all the circular links (and two to a disambiguation page that doesn't mention the band member in question). If this does meet the bar, the article is in serious need of rewriting, to say the least. Article originated by User:ChrisHurn, apparently one of the band members. B.Wind (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Disbanded in http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=149101490&blogId=471467152 Feb 09, no album, no record deal, no notability. Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.David V Houston (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Foundation for the Blind in Thailand
- Christian Foundation for the Blind in Thailand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ORG. 6 gnews hits in 32 years of existence is hardly notable. [21]. LibStar (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: How exactly does the subject fail WP:ORG? To me the Google results demonstrate multiple instances of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. That Google news often lacks older results is no surprise; how many publishers do you expect to run their archives through OCR and post them on-line? --Paul_012 (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- only 2 of the sources are anything close to indepth, the rest are passing mentions. read the very beginning of WP:ORG. An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.. how is 2 articles significant coverage? this organisation currently exists so it should therefore be able to get signficant coverage if notable. if it closed in 1985 that's a different story. but gnews has many newspapers from 1950 even from 1850. LibStar (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that "the longer an organisation has existed, the more sources are required to prove its notability" is included in the notability criteria. Please correct me if I am wrong, though. Why is two articles insignificant anyway? --Paul_012 (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2 sources is not significant coverage. signficant refers to number and depth of coverage. please find additional sources. LibStar (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not talking about two sources either. What you said was two sources provided near in-depth coverage; plenty of other sources mention the subject in less detail. These Bangkok Post articles [22][23][24] directly mention the subject, and these publications and transcripts [25][26][27] should all count as sources, since they were published by independent third parties or presented at international conferences. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- you should have provided these sources in your original vote argument. instead of saying WP:ITSNOTABLE without evidence.LibStar (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [28] doesn't seem to link to anything and [29] is not third party since it was written by someone from the organisation itself. LibStar (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And you should probably have said how the subject was not notable in your original deletion request. I never said "It's notable". The links I provided were all taken from the Google results included in the discussion header (which I assumed everyone had seen; apologies if I was wrong). And as for your last argument, it's a third-party publication by the FAO. If Jimbo Wales wrote about Wikipedia for Time Magazine, it would be a publication by Time, an independent third-party. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not talking about two sources either. What you said was two sources provided near in-depth coverage; plenty of other sources mention the subject in less detail. These Bangkok Post articles [22][23][24] directly mention the subject, and these publications and transcripts [25][26][27] should all count as sources, since they were published by independent third parties or presented at international conferences. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2 sources is not significant coverage. signficant refers to number and depth of coverage. please find additional sources. LibStar (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that "the longer an organisation has existed, the more sources are required to prove its notability" is included in the notability criteria. Please correct me if I am wrong, though. Why is two articles insignificant anyway? --Paul_012 (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- only 2 of the sources are anything close to indepth, the rest are passing mentions. read the very beginning of WP:ORG. An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.. how is 2 articles significant coverage? this organisation currently exists so it should therefore be able to get signficant coverage if notable. if it closed in 1985 that's a different story. but gnews has many newspapers from 1950 even from 1850. LibStar (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- time magazine is a highly reliable source which would have huge editorial discretion. publishing of conference papers is not as third party as time magazine. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MuZemike 19:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per improvements made to the article and additional sources found. Brad 19:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per WP:GHITS. A high number of Google hits does not make an article notable, and a low number does not make it not notable. Ans-mo's observation that Google's lack of hits in a third world nation does not automatically make this article non-notable. The fact that it was founded by a blind man makes it highly notable IMHO. --Morenooso (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The fact that it was founded by a blind man makes it highly notable". is not a criterion for notability. Please stop inventing criterion for WP:N. LibStar (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY. I am especially impressed by this cite. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely the spirit of An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. bit at the top of this AfD is to prevent Wikipedia being flooded by articles on my Auntie May's local Knitting Society? While this organisation's notability - at least as far as the general public is concerned - comes nowhere near that of the UK's RNIB or Spain's ONCE (who?) to professionals working in the field of organisations for the blind, it is sufficiently notable. Regardless of Google hits or write-ups in girlie magazines. --Technopat (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strange Fruit Project
- Strange Fruit Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nom no evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC. There are two external links, one is broken and the other doesn't mention anything about the group. There are two references - both broken. The group claims to be "underground" - but I think "dead and buried" would be more accurate. withdrawn Rklawton (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, perilously close to an A7 and would be one if we removed unsourced peacock terms. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence given to support notability. Truthsort (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Did you not notice the link to an Allmusic biography in the article? The URL is incorrect but a quick search at Allmusic would get you to this. Or the link to a substantial Allmusic review in their album's article? Did you not find these when you Googled the group's name: PopMatters, Prefix magazine, PopMatters, Dallas Observer, Waco Tribune-Herald, Oakland Tribune, Dallas Observer, San Francisco Chronicle? And there's more coverage out there. Clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:BAND.--Michig (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It appears that this group is notable based on the new refernces presented here. I assume the confusion was that this group has gone by a lot of different names. Is this correct? For example the chronicle article seems to suggest the the fruit project name is a name of one of their songs and not the band name. I just skimmed it so perhaps I am ill informed, however it appears to be a keep via WP:GNG.MATThematical (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Chronicle article includes "Om recently released Strange Fruit Project's "The Healing." The album has already garnered some of the strongest reviews in the label's history and lodged in the top 10 on the iTunes charts". I'm not aware that they have gone by different names. If you take a look at the article now, there are several further sources covering the group.--Michig (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Per Michig.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Michig, WP:GNG and the nom's withdrawal. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Untitled English Album (Sakis Rouvas)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.
- Untitled English Album (Sakis Rouvas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:HAMMER suggestions and WP:NALBUMS guidelines. No sources confirming concrete information such as release territories, labels, completion of new work, etc., because the project itself never took off and probably never will. Current writing style is borderline synthesis of (vague) sources. Imperatore (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (weak). Following link to the singer's official site[30], it looks like the title is "This is our night" and was released on CD in 2009. In which case, this article would need to be renamed. Hmmm... Maybe not. Where other albums of his have a ?Tragedy? section listing what seem to be tracks, this one has none. Maybe it's just the single. (my Greek is next to non-existent, so I might be missing something.) David V Houston (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to This Is Our Night (album) and delete the resulting redirect. The act's official website (at [31]) lists the song lineup, but has the release date of the CD only as "2009." Currently the proposed new name of the article is a redirect to the act's previous album. B.Wind (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The single This Is Our Night already has a page as it was Greece's entry in the 2009 Eurovision Song Contest. The premise for this album was to exploit Rouvas' international exposure in the said contest as leverage for a Europe-wide English language album. However, after a slightly dissapointing finish at the contest, Rouvas redirected his focus to his Greek career. Especially with his recent career commitments in Greece, the prospects for this album are dwindling, if not completely dead. Furthermore, This Is Our Night as an album, as presented above by User:B.Wind, is actually the 2009 re-release of 2008's Irthes, and is already covered on the said page. Hence, This Is Our Night (album) should rightfully redirect to Irthes as it stands now.Imperatore (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per comment by Imperatore. No new album was released in 2009, just a repackaging of the act's 2008 CD. The appropriate redirect is already in place; the nominated redirect clearly violated WP:HAMMER, and now there is no point to keeping it as the repackaged CD does have a name. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SimulTrans
- SimulTrans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced article on a company which restates marketing claims (ISO 9001, for example, is about as generic as you get) but fails to establish why being "the largest and oldest full service localization and translation firm on the West Coast" is actually significant (it could, for all we know, be the only one). Created by a WP:SPA, this one lights up the WP:COI sensors especially given the history, which is spammy to say the least. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per nom as the editor that previously
{{prod}}
templated the article for the same reasons. Toddst1 (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't seem to pass WP:COMPANY. See [32]. — Rankiri (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While I restored the deleted article per a request at WP:REFUND, a subsequent google and gnews search isn't turning up independent, reliable sources showing notability. Lots and lots of press releases, but little that's independent and substantial. More than willing to reconsider if sources turn up, but as of now, I say delete.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When the Boys Come Marching Home
- When the Boys Come Marching Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable song. DimaG (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep The fact that it is a David Bowie-song made me unsure here... KzKrann (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep yeah, the song just needs few edition. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just because it's a Bowie song doesn't make it automatically notable. The song needs some indication of independent notability. Google books only has trivial references to the album directory, Lexis only has a single trivial reference from 2002, and Westlaw has nothing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Any information on the song can be added to one of the singles it features on, given its B-side status. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the most that can be contained in the books and some are not previewed. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per LuciferMorgan. Off2riorob (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2010 (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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
UiTM Stadium
- UiTM Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previous removed by prod with this reason: no assertion of notability independent of the university Eeekster (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think it highly unlikely for a stadium not to be notable. Here there are sufficient sources to verify that the stadium exists and also some sources demonstrating the activities that have been held there: [33]. I dare say if this were in the USA or UK there would be no question about having an article on it. So it must be here. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (weak) he may have a point there. Checking 'Category:College_basketball_venues_in_the_United_States', the first one on the list is A._J._Palumbo_Center which only seats <5400 - about half the size of the stadium in question. The Google news link he provided above mentions 'Five Nation' and 'Seven Nation' competitions held there (although it wasn't immediately obvious what nations or what sports, I'd suspect an international competition is pretty much by definition notable...). Certainly, the article needs better references, but the stadium itself may well be notable. David V Houston (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Decent information. Not suitable for Wikipedia, but keep until someone can move it elsewhere. See Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for where to move it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KooBoo
- KooBoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotion for non-notable software product. My searches have yielded no significant coverage, and the sources given are only incidental mentions. Haakon (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete' - The only reference provided in the article that would help establish notability is this one, which is still rather insubstantial. I can find no other coverage about it aside from press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noah Ringer
- Noah Ringer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Speedy declined. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and would do so even if sourced. One upcoming film role, one rumour, and one television appearance do not amount to notability, or anywhere near it. Has previously been deleted for the same reasons. Rodhullandemu 16:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This page has been deleted before and has not become any more notable since then. I Feel Tired (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 21:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 21:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added some references. Actually, Rodhullandemu, it is enough if it is sourced, if you read WP:ENTERTAINER more closely. The basic criteria stands alone. The Additional Criteria, which is specific for different things, states, "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability."
- This means that if he is sourced properly, then he would still meet notability standards. For these reasons, I vote keep. SilverserenC 21:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the "Delete" votes in the last Afd cited WP:BIO and WP:GNG as well as WP:ENT. I thought it would just be cruel to add these to the equation, but I have been watching the recent desperate efforts to make this article viable according to our standards. Best of luck with the {{rescue}}, but as long as editors persist in adding unsourced content, rumour (what!!!) and breaches of copyright from the Avatar wikia, I will be strictly applying WIkipedia policies, and you should learn to live with that, or rise above it and make this article worthy of being here. So far, it ain't. Rodhullandemu 21:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would ask that Rodhullandemu stop removing information from the article. After this AfD is concluded, if it ends with Keep, then it can be discussed whether certain information is notable or relevant enough to keep in. SilverserenC 22:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely not. The basics are not negotiable, particularly WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS, and these are policies, not guidelines, and certainly not "suggestions", whether an article is up for deletion or not. An article, particularly a biography, lives or dies by its sources. As for inclusion, apart from the above policies, WP:BURDEN applies, and it's just not good enough to include unsourced content in the optimistic expectation that a source will magically turn up later, when you can be arsed to do so. It's fundamental to the values of Wikipedia that if it ain't sourced right up front, it goes. No "later"; no "ifs", no "buts". When we are talking about real people, our legal responsibility is to get it right, and get it right now. It's not that difficult to achieve, if the sources are there, but later is not an option. Rodhullandemu 22:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um...thank you for that, except it has absolutely nothing to do with the content you are attempting to remove. All of the policies you mentioned are about verifiability and notability. WP:BURDEN is about removing unsourced information. All of the information in the article is currently sourced, so that doesn't apply at all. So...i'm not entirely sure what your argument is here. SilverserenC 23:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. WP:BURDEN, which you obviously have not read, is about the responsibility of editors to justify their edits; that follows from WP:V, if nothing else, and follows on to WP:RS. I'll make my argument quite plain, however: Whatever sources you might find to support the notability of this article, our requirements in this respect are not negotiable and are independent of your personal opinion. Thus far, we have a young actor who has one role in one film, and a potential role in another. Per WP:ENT, that is not even close to establishing notability, and the sooner you realise this, the better. Rodhullandemu 23:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are accusing me of not having read WP:BURDEN? *sighs* It says in the first two lines there that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." It goes on to discuss how original research and synthesis should not be created from the references. It then goes on to discuss how unreferenced material can be removed, but the person that removes it should make a good attempt first at finding sources for the information being removed, in order to confirm that it should be taken out. So, like I said, WP:BURDEN has nothing to do with the information you are trying to remove from the article, as all of the information is properly sourced. SilverserenC 23:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And, as I stated before when I first commented in this discussion, failure to meet WP:ENT (and it is only failure for now, at least) does not mean that the person is not notable as "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Thus, if a person still meets the basic criteria for inclusion, which is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject," then even if they fail WP:ENT, or any other additional criteria for that matter, they are still notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. SilverserenC 23:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe it is me that has to review the policies. SilverserenC 23:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. WP:BURDEN, which you obviously have not read, is about the responsibility of editors to justify their edits; that follows from WP:V, if nothing else, and follows on to WP:RS. I'll make my argument quite plain, however: Whatever sources you might find to support the notability of this article, our requirements in this respect are not negotiable and are independent of your personal opinion. Thus far, we have a young actor who has one role in one film, and a potential role in another. Per WP:ENT, that is not even close to establishing notability, and the sooner you realise this, the better. Rodhullandemu 23:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um...thank you for that, except it has absolutely nothing to do with the content you are attempting to remove. All of the policies you mentioned are about verifiability and notability. WP:BURDEN is about removing unsourced information. All of the information in the article is currently sourced, so that doesn't apply at all. So...i'm not entirely sure what your argument is here. SilverserenC 23:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If only you'd spend as much time finding reliable sources for this article, that appears to mean so much to you, than wikilawyering at me, perhaps you'd be making some headway with it; as it is, I still don't yet see the article becoming a defensible inclusion here. I recommend you stop having a go at me, and actually deal with the deficiencies in the article. Rodhullandemu 23:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you're accusing me of Wikilawyering (violating the spirit of policies) now? And i'm not following your edits or stalking you in any way, so i'm not hounding you. Im trying to explain, according to policy, why the subject of the article is notable. You have yet to actually respond to my explanations in a policy-based manner, you've just been accusing me of things. And I have been working on the article and I will continue to do so. You also have yet to actually point out any deficiencies either. SilverserenC 23:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are "trying to explain, according to policy, why the subject of the article is notable", that is best addressed by adding reliable sources to the article to support that proposition. Meanwhile, while you are not doing that here, which would be somewhat irrelevant, since what is under consideration is the article, as opposed to this discussion, which is directed to our policies and guidelines. The bottom line is that if you can make this article defensible with respect to WP policies, you should do so. And if you can't, or won't. you should go elsewhere. Rodhullandemu 00:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already added sources to the article, I did that a while ago. Thus, since I have already done that, i've been stating my stance and you have been ignoring it. I have been explaining in this discussion just how the subject of the article is notable, in regards to the sources that I have already added. I really don't know why you keep acting like there are no sources at all. SilverserenC 00:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- However much you struggle and wriggle, reliable sources are not negotiable, and those you've cited are shite, self-published, unreliable, and, it has to be said, fall below our normal criterion of objectivity. I'd rather have no sources than self-satisfying twats. If you don't think that's a problem, you are coming from nowhere. Rodhullandemu 00:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it interesting that you would consider Variety, USA Today, LIFE, and the Los Angeles Times to be "shite, self-published, unreliable, and...below our normal criterion of objectivity". I think pretty much every single user and administrator would disagree with you there. SilverserenC 00:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not interested. It's up to those seeking to make this article defensible, not me. I'm not here to mend your inadequacies, although I will assist if you ask me politely. Rodhullandemu 00:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, you've completely lost me by this point. I HAVE made the article defensible by the sources i've added and I HAVE been stating my defense here in this discussion, but you haven't been listening. You keep trying to use policies that have nothing to do with what you're saying. WP:BURDEN is about unsourced material. The article is sourced with reliable sources, so that policy needs no longer apply to it. SilverserenC 00:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I think that's enough, both of you have valid points but are obviously getting a bit upset. You're both experienced editors and know that this back-and-forth is not going to end in anything constructive and is not going to even be ready by the closing admin (most of it is not even about the article, but about each others' behavior and each others' understanding of policy), so can we all agree to WP:STICK and focus on letting the AfD run its course? And if no one minds, can I
{{collapse}}
this? rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I don't want to argue anymore. I'm done. I would rather you not collapse all of it, as some does relate to the article. I'm fine with you collapsing back to the undent 8 comments before yours though, the one by Rod that starts "If only you'd spend as much time". Everything between us from there to here hasn't really been about the article, but the stuff before it was. SilverserenC 03:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I think that's enough, both of you have valid points but are obviously getting a bit upset. You're both experienced editors and know that this back-and-forth is not going to end in anything constructive and is not going to even be ready by the closing admin (most of it is not even about the article, but about each others' behavior and each others' understanding of policy), so can we all agree to WP:STICK and focus on letting the AfD run its course? And if no one minds, can I
- Okay, you've completely lost me by this point. I HAVE made the article defensible by the sources i've added and I HAVE been stating my defense here in this discussion, but you haven't been listening. You keep trying to use policies that have nothing to do with what you're saying. WP:BURDEN is about unsourced material. The article is sourced with reliable sources, so that policy needs no longer apply to it. SilverserenC 00:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not interested. It's up to those seeking to make this article defensible, not me. I'm not here to mend your inadequacies, although I will assist if you ask me politely. Rodhullandemu 00:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it interesting that you would consider Variety, USA Today, LIFE, and the Los Angeles Times to be "shite, self-published, unreliable, and...below our normal criterion of objectivity". I think pretty much every single user and administrator would disagree with you there. SilverserenC 00:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- However much you struggle and wriggle, reliable sources are not negotiable, and those you've cited are shite, self-published, unreliable, and, it has to be said, fall below our normal criterion of objectivity. I'd rather have no sources than self-satisfying twats. If you don't think that's a problem, you are coming from nowhere. Rodhullandemu 00:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already added sources to the article, I did that a while ago. Thus, since I have already done that, i've been stating my stance and you have been ignoring it. I have been explaining in this discussion just how the subject of the article is notable, in regards to the sources that I have already added. I really don't know why you keep acting like there are no sources at all. SilverserenC 00:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are "trying to explain, according to policy, why the subject of the article is notable", that is best addressed by adding reliable sources to the article to support that proposition. Meanwhile, while you are not doing that here, which would be somewhat irrelevant, since what is under consideration is the article, as opposed to this discussion, which is directed to our policies and guidelines. The bottom line is that if you can make this article defensible with respect to WP policies, you should do so. And if you can't, or won't. you should go elsewhere. Rodhullandemu 00:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: "fails WP:ENTERTAINER" is not in of itself enough of an argument for deletion, those guidelines just mean "someone who meets these minimum criteria is probably notable", not "someone must meet these criteria to be notable". Since he has the lead role in a major film (not just any role, but the lead role; not just any film, but a big and widely-known film), he meets the GNG. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per rʨanaɢ (talk) Evalpor (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A wise pirate captain once said: "the code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules". So you have to interpret WP:Entertainer for every situation new. Since the first nomination for deletion a lot happened. Today even I heard of that dude. Furthermore: He's not having a role in an unknown art house movie, he's the protagonist of an upcoming blockbuster trilogy. If you search that kid on the internet you already find some fan sites. Hive001 (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:ENT is superceded by WP:GNG--Sodabottle (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I can't believe someone nominated the lead actor in a movie that big. Click on Google news link at the top of the AFD. He gets plenty of coverage. Plus common sense, the guy is clearly notable. Dream Focus 05:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree, this kid is clearly notable. Just because someone hasn't heard of him (I haven't) doesn't mean he fails WP:GNG. The Los Angeles Times, Variety, USA Today say differently. —Mike Allen 06:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep rʨanaɢ, Hive001, and Dream Focus, I don't think Ringer fits WP:ENT. While it's true that WP:ENT is not Wikipedia policy, I think it does have its merits. Most of Ringer's coverage are brief comments in articles about the movie, not about Ringer himself. The few articles solely about Ringer are extremely short. That said, I think that he has great potential to be extremely notable in the future, and while it is not good policy to make articles based on how notable you think someone will be in the future, it would be a waste of writing time and effort to recreate this article later. I say write this off as something that should've been caught earlier and keep the article, then delete it after the movie is produced if he still doesn't fulfill WP:ENT. --PostScript (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources. That's more important than marginal debates around the edges of WP:ENT. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets WP:GNG by some margin, regardless of any other guidelines. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of animals from "The World Of Kong: A Natural History Of Skull Island"
- List of animals from "The World Of Kong: A Natural History Of Skull Island" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod (Added by someone else and seconded by me) removed by author. Listcruft and WP:OR. Not even a notable list. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As original prodder. WP:SYNTHESIS of source (movie tie-in book) and WP:OR. The reference so listed (but not cited - and which anyway didn't work directly until I edited it) is an RPG fansite and searches did not turned up any WP:RS. Fails WP:N. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- entirely original research and fan cruft without any real hope of adequate sourcing. Reyk YO! 19:30, 20 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A can of kick ass
- A can of kick ass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't believe this is an oft-used phrase. It doesn't even appear in Urban Dictionary. If anything, it could be mentioned as a variation of "Can of whoop ass" but even that is debatable. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 16:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nothing in the article suggests it should be kept. . . Galloping Moses (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NEO Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 16:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Can of whoop ass. There's enough ghits that it appears to be in use, but I'm not seeing anything that makes it notable on its own. Help the reader out and send them to something useful.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN neologism. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Can of whoop ass per Fabrictramp. That Waterboy term I believe came and was popularized first. –MuZemike 16:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This seems like a hoax. Truthsort (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:NEO. Décembër21st2012Freâk Talk at 17:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree with the above point, it's most likely a hoax, and either wat it's pretty unnotable. I Feel Tired (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary by being about the term.- Wolfkeeper 02:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Wiktionary and rewrite... Wiktionary takes phrases and neologisms. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:MADEUP. Lugnuts (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Whoopas is real, this is not.--Milowent (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a definition of a neologism. Take it to Urban Dictionary. Cnilep (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete neologism/dicdef. Bearcat (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete neologism. Freikorp (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Open a can of whoop ass and soft redirect to wikt:open a can of whoop ass -Atmoz (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2010 (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 Infinity Ward#Respawn Entertainment. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Respawn Entertainment
- Respawn Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
IP Contested CSD. Company not notable. Might be in the future but WP is not a crystal Ball. Codf1977 (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I disagree entirely that this article should be deleted. I myself searched wikipedia for information contained in this article
- Respawn Entertainment has just been created by Jason West and Vince Zampella, who were responsible for extremely successful Call of Duty Modern Warfare Series as well as the Medal of Honor series (look these up on Wiki if there is any doubt to the commercial success of these titles) - Respawn has the backing of EA - the worlds second largest games publisher.
- The founders of Respawn are currently contesting that they are the intellectual propperty owners of the Modern Warfare series.
- Here is an article by ArsTechnica (an extremely well respected source often cited and quoted by BBC News and Guardian.co.uk in technology articles):
- http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/04/ex-infinity-ward-heads-create-respawn-entertainment-with-ea.ars
- Respawn is likely to be extremely well know in a short time, I doubt it would be wise to delete the article, a rewrite maybe useful though :)
- Here is a page where the BBC Quotes Ars Technica (linked above) - if it's good enough for BBC its good enough for Wiki:
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7334123.stm Williambrodie (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Not notable company. A couple of start up promo articles only. Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It's not notable, even if it might be well known in the future we should make an article for it in the future but right now it's just not needed. I Feel Tired (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's not less notable than Sledgehammer Games which has an article. So I don't see any reason of deleting it. The game company is already notable through the well covered Activision vs. Zampella/West "battle".--PhantomT1412 (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep.The event is notable, not the company itself. That said, the company will most likely become more notable in the future. WP:CRYSTAL aside, rather start early than later. Also the BBC coverage should be added to the article. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 01:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Neutral - Telegraph, 1UP etc. But until they actually produce something, this could be a case of WP:SINGLEEVENT. Marasmusine (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This company is going to get big. The founders are well known, and Respawn is more well known than sledgehammer games, which has a page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.235.199 (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The founders are notable (by virtue of the extreme success of their previous games, for example) and so "what they did next" is also notable. The article already contains useful encyclopedic information and the company is something that people are likely to search for by name. JJC1138 (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now - having notable founders is not sufficient for the company to meet WP:CORP. The company has not been subject to coverage by independent reliable sources (in fact, the article simply cites one article mentioning its founding. Up to this point, speculation of the company going to "be big" is simply crystal balling. Until such evidence showing that it can "stand on its own two feet" and satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for verifiability and corporate notability, this article should wait and be a non-presence here (suggestion to those who wish this article maintained: please resist to speculate on how big the company will be, but please add evidence of the company's significance - cited, of course - to the article. Arguments of the "more notable than X" variety generally become more reasons to delete both topics than reasons to save either). B.Wind (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I see it, there are two possibilities: either the company will be successful, or it will be a failure. Either of those outcomes would make the company notable (in the case of failure it would be notable in contrast with the founder's previous successes), so I would argue that since it is definitely going to be notable at some point in the future, there is no reason to delete the article and the useful information that is there now. JJC1138 (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW All companies are either a success, or failure. If it does not succeed I can't see how that would be notable. There is nothing stopping any future creation of an article if the company becomes notable at some point but at the moment any claim to notability is based on either association (see WP:ORG and WP:NOTINHERITED) or on self published promotion about the future, which runs contra to WP:CRYSTAL Codf1977 (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I see it, there are two possibilities: either the company will be successful, or it will be a failure. Either of those outcomes would make the company notable (in the case of failure it would be notable in contrast with the founder's previous successes), so I would argue that since it is definitely going to be notable at some point in the future, there is no reason to delete the article and the useful information that is there now. JJC1138 (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Though there may only be one reference on this age about the company, there are four references to the creation of this company under the Infinity Ward article. Spitfire19 (Talk) 14:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRedirect to Infinity Ward - The event is notable here, not the company. I have no bias against recreation once it passes WP:CORP --Teancum (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Here's why... http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&q=Respawn%20Entertainment&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&sa=N&tab=wn&fp=1&cad=b 174.3.214.24 (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect back to Infinity Ward Until there is something above and beyond what's covered there already there's no need for an article. Someoneanother 04:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Redirect to Infinity Ward with information merged there, it is mentioned in other articles in what I presume are notable occurances, thus it is entirely likely that readers may search the article, so we should at least keep a redirect in place. Whilst it won't make a good article at this time, what's wrong with an informative stub either at that page, or inside another article? The company has been mentioned by Gamespot news and others quite a few times during the entire Infinity Ward developers leaving event. --Taelus (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CORP, sorry guys. If deleted, save the information and when recreated, readd and clean. The Phantomnaut (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Infinity Ward#Respawn Entertainment. A notable event and a plausible search term, but not notable in their own right. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete They may become as big as microsoft or as small as some bloke what wrotes games in his back room. WP:CRYSTAL come in here, as far as I know we do not have articels on things that may be notable one day, we have artciels on things that are notable.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete. * 00:36, 23 April 2010 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "Rica Paras" (Expired PROD, concern was: unsourced BLP) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rica Paras
- Rica Paras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
IP removed BLP PROD, taking to AfD per policy. Currently neutral as I am only taking to AfD and not requesting deletion per technicality. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I thought BLP Prod policy was that removing without a source meant you could reinsert the prod, not have to go to AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops! Never mind, let's see the comments first. I am still neutral though. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per policy at WP:BLPPROD, the proposed deletion template cannot be removed until sources are added. I've restored the tag. Brad 22:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Errrr.... somebody deleted it during the course of this AFD, so it's going to be difficult to either improve the article that was sent here, or offer an opnion as to its worth. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:06, 23 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sachin Bharti
- Sachin Bharti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A junior faculty member who has written a book, but who shows no evidence of passing WP:PROF, WP:AUTH, or any other notability guideline. This was prodded, but the prod was declined by the article's creator (who, other than the prod, has been its sole contributor) without explanation. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No indication of notability; poorly referenced article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-Doesn't seem to yet pass any of the conditions of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A book that is held by only 3 institutions (per WorldCat) and a claimed award ("National Scholarship in Theatre, Ministry of Culture, Govt. of India") that has no documentation and no sourcing. I'm afraid this is a textbook case of a not-yet-notable assistant professor. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2010 (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 and redirect to Dean Burgon Society. Clearly a consensus to Delete this and those commenters appear to be accurate on the lack of reliable sources. Redirected to the (notable) organisation that he's head of as a reasonable search term. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D. A. Waite
- D. A. Waite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a community leader. Does not obviously meet notability criteria. Chief contribution seems to be publishing of two books explaining ideas, but article states that subject was not originator. Also, one book has no WP article and the other one seems not to pass WP notability criteria, and I am nominating it also.
Subject has written many articles and does audiocasting, and various sites link to these, but I am not finding critical review anywhere. His body of work is well-advertised and sometimes reviewed as a product, but I do not see how this is different from any other blogger. Also, everything I am seeing is self-published and distributed; this does not indicate non-notability, but it makes this WP article look a little like self promotion. Blue Rasberry 14:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Defined King James Bible is subject's main work. Blue Rasberry 14:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't use any secondary sources for the life of the subject. All I could find in a quick Google check was an article about a libel case about a book written about him, yet the book's authors didn't even realize he was still alive.[34] Perhaps someone will dig up some better sources to justify keeping this article, but until then I'd say it should be deleted. Will Beback talk 16:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- There is no proof of notability. RaaGgio (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Google search for "D.A. Waite" produced 81,000 hits. He is the president of the Dean Burgon Society who is frequently mentioned in articles about the King James Only Movement by James White 1, Bart Erhman 2 and would be, besides Peter Ruckman the most influential supporter of the King James Bible in the past 30 years, (as clearly evident in articles on Wikipedia about this topic). 124.184.99.144 (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. 445 Google hits and 53 hits at Google Scholar for search string <"D A Waite" bible>. Would probably not meet WP:ACADEMIC (especially since several of the hits appear to marginalize Waite's work) but perhaps is some slight evidence of notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there are 69,100 hits not 445 see here. Notability is not nulified because people "marginalize" ones work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.99.144 (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some of the the requirements for academic notability:
- The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. ~ The very fact that D. A. Waite is mentioned in all article concerning the topic of the King James Only Movement shows this.
- The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE) ~ Waite is the PRESEDENT of the Dean Burgon Society.
- The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. ~ Obvious throughout the field of King James Onlyism.
- The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. ~ again - President of the Dean Burgon Society
- The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society. ~ again - President of the Dean Burgon Society
- The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. ~ Google search for "D.A. Waite" produced 81,000 hits
- The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area. Waite produced the Defined King James Bible
- The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. ~ The fact that Bart Erhman and James White who are the King James Only Movement's strongest critics, make mention of Waite numerous times in their books, shows the influence he has had in this field of scholarship. 124.184.99.144 (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you click through the Google search results to page 45 or so, you'll probably find (as I just did) that there are actually about 450 non-duplicated hits. I absolutely agree that notability under the general notability guideline is not nullified by criticism; my mention of marginalization was made with respect to its possible relevance to the alternate criteria spelled out at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I appreciate your comments with respect to these criteria, but I don't think the case is yet made that the Dean Burgon Society is a major educational institution or organization; and I would question whether the case has been made that the King James Only Movement itself qualifies as a notable "field of scholarship" in the mainstream sense contemplated by the special alternative rules at WP:ACADEMIC, as I understand them. Please note that even if a person does not pass WP:ACADEMIC they may still qualify under WP:GNG, and I remain open to seeing if that case can be made here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As it stands now, this might conceivably be G10'able. The belief that e.g. Codex Sinaiticus is a corruption of the Texus Receptus is a fringe view that could damage a scholar's reputation if untrue. Right now, the assertion is sourced to the subject's own work rather than to independent reliable sources. Is he notable? Probably. Should this article be kept in this form? Probably not. I'm torn as to whether this should be deleted as an undersourced contentious BLP or simply trimmed, sourced, and focused. Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He is the president of the Dean Burgon Society and author of several books, the article should be improved but not deleted. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment President of the DBS is hardly an indication of notability. The group holds to a minority position, even among evangelicals. This is certainly not a "major academic society" as described in WP:PROF. StAnselm (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep He is an author and educator on a controversial subject which should be covered in Wiki in at least a fairly Neutral article with references to his works, positions and honors etc.
To remove the article would actually be siding with the opposition party which is already represented in many articles here... Wiki does not subscribe to a policy of Bias but one of Neutrality in such areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Maranatha (talk • contribs) 12:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- just a NN pastor, bho takes an extreme position in favour of a rather ancient (though respected) Bible translation and has self-publihsed a gloss on it. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. NN pastor who has a self published book. Usually I give benefit of doubt in these cases but I decided to look a bit deeper for sources, there's nothing of substance. Szzuk (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I have reviewed the article's sources / external links and have not found reliable sources. The article's sources are mainly books written by the subject or websites related to the subject. Because this biography of a living person lacks sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources to verify the article's content, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Self-published sources only, no evidence of even coming close to passing WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No independant coverage beyond one local newspaper article (which seems to be a dead link anyway).Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2010 (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 London Victory Parade of 1946#Political Controversy. Some material might also be merged to Polish Armed Forces in the West per Peterkingiron. Shimeru (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946
- Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article hasn't gained enough interest to attract a first review in the 2 weeks since it was made. It was created in the midst of WP:CONSENSUS disagreements at London Victory Parade of 1946, where as far as I am aware there had been WP:ANI and arbitration reports and actions, as well as ongoing ARBCOM discretionary sanctions around the subject area. This article was made by an editor moving content from, and undertaken section blanking at, London Victory Parade of 1946:- so this article is known as a WP:CFORK. When this article was made, there was already supplementary content to London Victory Parade of 1946 at Polish Armed Forces in the West, where that content remains. This article has problems with WP:CLAIM, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYNTH and therefore WP:OR. It may also have WP:COATRACK and WP:UNENCYC issues. There are also WP:NPOV issues, starting with the title, which takes a position on the debated subject of whether there was or was not Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946. For these reasons, I submit that it should be deleted. Chumchum7 (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As can be seen from a glance at the discussion page from the London Victory Parade of 1946, the consensus from editors there is that this article should have been created. The idea that Polish participation may be better as a separate article was first raised by user:Jacurek on 8 October 2009 [35] saying “perhaps a separate article about the fact that Polish Armed Forces were not invited should be created.” Then on 25 October 2009 I myself proposed that a separate article be created [36]. In the replies to that proposal there was not have even a single word of objection to that proposal [37], instead I was accused of being a racist. On 29 October a completely uninvolved editor, Stephan Schulz, created a new section titled “ WP:WEIGHT issues” [38]. I again propose a new article. Nobody objects, including Chumchum7. On 21 November another uninvolved editor, Bobanni, comments “The fact that Poland did not participate in the parade is noted on the article. It should not be the focus of this article. That does not take away the insult that many Poles feel. The article should reflect the joy felt in England that the horror of WW II was over. This probably deserves an article all to itself, ie Betrayal of Poland by the Allies.” [39]. I again agree that a new article is needed [40] and nobody objects to the idea of a separate article. As we have had many different editors complaining about WP:WEIGHT problems and/or proposing that a separate article be created to cover Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946 and the only editor who has ever had a word of objection to that proposal was me (and I have obviously now been convinced of the wisdom of creating such an article), we can very much conclude that the new article has overwhelming support from editors and that consensus has already been gained.
- I note that although Chumchum7 mentions a number of WP policies and claims that this article breaks them but despite repeated requests, he has failed to go into detail about how the article supposedly breaks them. Isn't it interesting that he completely fails to ignore the WP:CONS that this article is necessary? Varsovian (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also like to add a question for the proposer: the majority of the information and sources in this article refute the oft-made assertion that Poles were excluded from the parade. What do you propose is done with this information if this article is deleted? Should it simply disappear? Varsovian (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep See above. Varsovian (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the subject is already overcovered in London_Victory_Parade_of_1946#Political_Controversy and I can see no good reason for it to be further covered in it's own article. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 13:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's an interesting topic, and a point of contention for many people - so it's certainly notable enough. That said, whether the content of the article is appropriate is another issue entirely. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am open to persuasion, but a minimum requirement for me to join you in the idea would be your commitment to help us tackle the issue you have identified. Take a look at the article this has forked from, and what has been going on there for the past month, and help us deal with the issue. Please. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to London Victory Parade of 1946. While I'm not keen on the undue weight that the Polish controversy has on the parade article (far mor mention of the controversy than the parade itself); but this coatrack fork is clearly not a better alternative. It might be possible to argue that the controversy is more notable than the parade itself, but it's hard to sort where this is POV and where it's not. The best I can say is to merge it for now, and then broaden the discussion by asking for more opinions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 01:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I`m ready, willing and able to support this idea provided we can get a commitment from Bahamut to participate in realizing this idea. As you can see at Talk:London Victory Parade of 1946 an administrator has identified it as a "battleground". So we need experienced assistance, for this to work. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm hardly a qualified moderator. I'd like to think I'm impartial, but I'm not the right man to sort out this muck, nor do I have the time to devote to it. Like I said, you can broaden the discussion by calling in for help at MPHILHIST and possibly at WP:dispute resolution. But I will reiterate that I don't think AfD was the proper venue. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I`m ready, willing and able to support this idea provided we can get a commitment from Bahamut to participate in realizing this idea. As you can see at Talk:London Victory Parade of 1946 an administrator has identified it as a "battleground". So we need experienced assistance, for this to work. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Polish role is an interesting topic in its own right. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge a summary to Polish Armed Forces in the West. The article consists largely of quotations, which I presume to be accurate, but this is all rather too detailed for an encyclopaedia. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to London Victory Parade of 1946#Political Controversy. Polish participation or non-participation in the parade is an aspect of the parade and should be covered in the main article. The article up for deletion seems to have been written mostly by copying a lot of block quotes rather than assembling the facts into a proper encyclopedia article anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the one aspect then dominates the article and the article is no longer about a British Victory parade: it is about the perception that many Poles have that Polish representatives were not invited. Varsovian (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At London Victory Parade of 1946#Political Controversy there has been quite a bit of sourcing from PBS, Norman Davies and Olson & Cloud - none of whom are Polish sources. They have all said that the Polish aspect of the parade was controversial. I am inclined toward Metropolitan90 and Stifle`s idea of a redirect, with liberty to merge, and with close attention to this administrator intervention here: [41] -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the one aspect then dominates the article and the article is no longer about a British Victory parade: it is about the perception that many Poles have that Polish representatives were not invited. Varsovian (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to London Victory Parade of 1946, with liberty to merge. Doesn't seem to be a notable enough topic for a standalone article. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, won't be much need to merge, as the subtopic is in fact still being covered at the main article too. The problem with the article has never been that the weights of the different topic aspects are objectively too difficult to balance out. The problem has been a dispute owing to national agendas, OR tendencies and ownership attitudes among some of the contributors to that page. In situations like that, it's always a cheap way out to allow the conflict to spread out across more and more articles. It's long been my position that this is counterproductive: the solution to intractable, internally produced POV disputes is not to write more about them, but to write less about them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The current main article has 747 words about Polish participation at the parade and 571 words about everything else connected to the parade. I entirely agree that we should write less: perhaps "Representatives from Poland were invited but did not attend." would be suitable? All editors agree that such representatives were invited and all agree that they did not attend. Aren't topics such as the wrong Poles being invited or not enough Poles being invited etc simply PoV issues? Varsovian (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Muhammed Aburub
- Muhammed Aburub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject fails both WP:ATHLETE and WG:GNG; no evidence of a professional career. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He played for Al Hala Club of the Bahraini Premier League. It doesn't explicitly say that that's a professional league, but I'd guess it is... ASSUMING that that league is 'fully professional' (which may be an invalid assumption), he'd only just barely be notable? There's enough uncertainties there that I'm not even making this a weak keep. David V Houston (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there's an article here about a "Muhammed Aburub" who was about to join Portuguese club in August 2009. Whether or not this is the same guy, I don't know. If it is, he is probably just above the bar as he was voted the "best young professional player in Morocco" in 2005. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The Bahraini football league is not fully pro, nor is the club for which he played in Cyprus. As such, he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, and there is nothing to suggest that he meets WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The image associated with http://soccerandstars.blogspot.com/2009/08/muhammed-aburub-caminho-do-fc-amares.html does not appear to be a Ghanaian. And did this player really play professional level football at the age of 15? That link is also a blog posting. Woogee (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- No reliable citation to support profesional status, fail wikipedia:athlete Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 21:32, 21 April 2010 (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 College of William & Mary. (non-admin closure) ℳøℕø 06:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Global Film and Music Festival
- Global Film and Music Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Impressive sounding title but it lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Only reference provided is to a primary source. Google web search on the title brings up only this article and the official blog administer by the organizers of the film festival. RadioFan (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No 3rd party indication of notability in article or by Google searches. AllyD (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect without prejudice to The College of William & Mary, the facility that hosts this local event.[42][43] As the article itself asserts the "event is quickly becoming a film festival staple in the state"... if or when it actually gains independent and soucable notability, we might consider recreation... but it ain't there yet. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect. Fails WP:GNG at present; it may become notable in the future, but I can't see a reason to keep it now. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aftek
- Aftek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable organization. Created and maintained by 2 WP:SPA accounts (Jayantw and Kavitachate12) that have been systematically adding link spam to other WP articles. Previously removed in 2009 as Aftek Infosys Calltech (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Articles Aftek Ltd and Aftek Limited have been also removed in 2009 as spam. User:Aftekology has been blocked from WP for continuous spamming of WP after multiple warnings. New users mentioned above (along with anonymous IP's) are simply continuing the same practices. Calltech (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It is a listed company in both Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange. Meets WP:CORP. As a heavily traded midcap IT stock in India, has had continuous coverage in Indian financial media/analyst reports etc for fifteen years - Livemint, CNBC-TV18, Financial Express, Business standard and Businessline. I have
partiallyfully sourced and stubbed the article now.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am attempting to give references to external websites from this page. (These will be websites not associated with the company). Also attempting to write this page with a neutral angle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavitachate12 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Kavitachate12 is a representative of Aftek Ltd per company blog. Calltech (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Calltech, a question- do you still feel the company itself does not meet our notability guidelines?. Has that concern has been addressed? (by the third party sources i added, sources shown etc). If so we can move on to helping Kavitachate12 to editing the article without violating any of our guidelines (avoid peacocking/promotion etc). I have already removed most of her edits to the article while stubbing, so the promotional/peacocking has gone out. --Sodabottle (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a publicly traded company by itself does not establish notability WP:ORG. WP:SPA users have been continously spamming WP with EL's. 3 previous articles have been removed for both lack of notability and advertisement within the last year. Based upon these facts, my concern has not been addressed and I would like other community input on this AFD. Thanks. Calltech (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sodabottle didn't say that being a publicly-traded company establishes notability, but that the sources do. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a publicly traded company by itself does not establish notability WP:ORG. WP:SPA users have been continously spamming WP with EL's. 3 previous articles have been removed for both lack of notability and advertisement within the last year. Based upon these facts, my concern has not been addressed and I would like other community input on this AFD. Thanks. Calltech (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Calltech, a question- do you still feel the company itself does not meet our notability guidelines?. Has that concern has been addressed? (by the third party sources i added, sources shown etc). If so we can move on to helping Kavitachate12 to editing the article without violating any of our guidelines (avoid peacocking/promotion etc). I have already removed most of her edits to the article while stubbing, so the promotional/peacocking has gone out. --Sodabottle (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Google News archive search results linked above, some of which are now in the article as sources, clearly show that the subject passes the general notability guideline. Issues with editor behaviour can be addressed by (semi-)protection, blocking and/or external link blacklisting - deletion of an article on an obviously notable subject is not an appropriate response to such issues. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Rabbabodrool (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The nominator made several different statements. Which particular ones do you think are valid reasons for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Significant coverage in 5 reliable sources, so it meets WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Artyem Saveliev
- Artyem Saveliev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Temporary notability concerns - Wikipedia is not a news source. It does not take more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event. Articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may meet the criteria in the future. --Smilemeans (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Actually the temporary notability guideline linked by the nominator says that notability is not temporary, so if the kid is notable now he always will be. However, I agree that the one event standard is relevant here and there is too much speculation in the article. Perhaps if the Russian/American adoption process truly blows up into a notable controversy later, this poor kid could be mentioned in the appropriate article, but who knows if that will really happen. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is not Wikinews. No lasting notability. DonaldDuck (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slovene Volunteer Guard
- Slovene Volunteer Guard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable organization. It has never been officially registered. There are no reliable sources available online about it except for a short mention (as Slovenska garda) in a graduation thesis about the Pekre training centre. [44] Eleassar my talk 09:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No references and only a list of members do not meet requirements for an article. If sources appear (I can't find anything else than a couple of forum posts), I may change my mind but otherwise it's a delete here. --Tone 21:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nomination. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of short nz films
- List of short nz films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article consists entirely of (a) unreferenced comparison of short films in N America and the rest of the world, and (b) synopses and credits for a selection of recent films. The first part is copied directly from Short film and the remainder is all lifted directly from the site http://www.nzfilm.co.nz. The synopses have now been reworded or removed. With the possible exception of The Six Dollar Fifty Man, none of the films seems to be notable and as all the article has on any of the films is copied directly from the nzfilm site, there is nothing that can be retained, even for films which are notable. Delete. I42 (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Should be converted into a category if recreated. Plus, How long is "short"? 60 minutes? 100 minutes? Minimac (talk)
- Delete Reads like an advert for someone's list of newly discovered (non-notable) films. Nothing here that isn't already covered in the short film article. Minimac - a short film is usually less than 40 minutes. Lugnuts (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per above. reads like an add. Shadowjams (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyvio of [[45]], therefore speediable.
However, the other reasons for deletion cited do not comply with the relevant policies and guidelines, and should be disregarded. It would be perfectly possible to have a List of short films from New Zealand with this title as a redirect to it. "None of the films seems to be notable" is not a valid challenge, because individual elements of a list do not have to be notable. "Should be converted into a category" is not a valid challenge, because WP:CLN says that lists and categories can and should co-exist. "Reads like an advert" is not a valid challenge because it's a signal to rewrite, not a signal to delete.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I can't see any circumstances under which we would want to have a Wikipedia article consisting mainly of the credits and plot summaries of several films which are unrelated except by their country of origin and length. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I declined the nomination for speedy as a copyvio because the copied text is exclusively information — saying that actor A played character B, actress C played character D, etc., isn't imaginative — except for the summaries, which as the nom noted have been reworded or removed. I don't see why this isn't a valid article topic, but I can well understand that this isn't the article to have on the topic. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 19th Step
- The 19th Step (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NFF since filming has not begun. —Mike Allen 06:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ——Mike Allen 07:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see no evidence that principal photography has commenced. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice toward recreation. While the film has a great deal of coverage in reliable sources, and such might merit a keep per WP:GNG, those same souces[46][47] show that the project may have been put on hold in July of 2009. Wikipedia can wait. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, seems as though the film has failed to take off. Universal Hero (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no word about it in recent times by anyone who were to take part in it. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2010 (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 Uninstaller. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ken Spreitzer
- Ken Spreitzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable. The article says his one claim to fame is that he wrote a program called "Uninstaller". Whatever that program is,it doesn't have an article (the link just goes to a generic article on uninstallers, which notes that they were invented by someone else).
Granting that given the rather generic nature of the program's name it's difficult to google that particular program, I haven't found anything that indicates the program is or was seminal or important.
The article says that the program is "now" sold by CyberMedia -- but "now" is 1998, so I assume the program is long defunct. In fact, for an article created in 2005 (as this one was) to refer to 1998 as "now" seems rather fishy, redolant of a paste from some long-ago press release. It's not clear who CyberMedia is or was.
Another listed accomplishment is given as the founding of Maximized Software, which doesn't appear to be a software powerhouse: their most recent press release is dated 2002, while their flagship product is called "FlashStats 2006".
There is a person called Captain Sensible, but that is an entirely different person, Raymond Burns. The only external link given is link to Maximized Software's web page, further fueling suspicion that this article (and the second para in the Uninstaller article) are vanity or advertising. Herostratus (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Herostratus (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep To nominator: there are references in the article which are external links, including one to the New York Times, which devotes an entire article to the product and half that article to covering Ken Spreitzer. I think there's notability here. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Some published references, but I don't think it meets WP:ANYBIO, unless being a graduate is an award. He hasn't won any major awards or participated in any notable events. I may change my vote, but it is very difficult for me to decide whether to keep it or not. Minimac (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - Ginsengbomb's comment is accurate, but I think it overstates the coverage given in the NY Times article, and the Business Wire article is almost the same. I don't think there's enough there on its own. Being quoted in an article about something else is not significant coverage, no matter how reliable the source. Shadowjams (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Eeek, everything's weak! I think Business Wire is just a PR compendium so it doesn't really count for anything in terms of notability. How does that help my "weak keep" argument? It doesn't! I recall the NYT coverage being more than a quote, but perhaps I got carried away in my description of it. Either way, yeah, this isn't exactly a slam dunk keep situation. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We just go with the flow here. Shadowjams (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Fails WP:BIO. --Morenooso (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I added a couple more references. --evrik (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Uninstaller due to similarity of context, the fact this article has nothing more to say in this field and there are no prospects of it ever growing into a full article. A merger would resolve any possible Notability dispute. Fleet Command (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Uninstaller as per FleetCommand. Nageh (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Uninstaller as per Nageh and FleetCommand.Moloch09 (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Uninstaller seems he is notable mainly for his work with uninstaller programs.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Young Artist Award
- Young Artist Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prior AfD (see) ended with a temporary keep to see if this year's awards on 11 April generated coverage in reliable sources. Coverage that I've found is more of what we found previously: fan sites for various young actors listing the award and no substantial coverage of the awards themselves. SummerPhD (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--
- Keeep I originally created this article as I had stumbled on the YAAs while doing some bio articles about a young actor. I don't remember the context, but I didnt want it to be a red link. As the awards were mentioned in their (reliable) bios, I did not consider notability at the time. (I was also on a wikibreak the last time this came up to AfD.) In 30 seconds of searching, here are some of the news articles from reliable sources that covered the awards this year:
- KABC in Los Angeles, "Budding stars shine at Young Artist Awards"
- An Examiner.com article entitled "Twinkle, twinkle, little stars" (Wikipedia presently does not allow linking to Examiner articles. I don't know whether Examiner qualifies as notable.
- "Teen with local ties up for acting award"
- You are correct that there is no major coverage. But, there is "significant" and "reliable" coverage per WP:N. That guideline states that If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.. Significant coverage means "sources address the subject directly in detail" and as these articles are about the awards directly, it qualifies for significant coverage. The sources, although few, are reliable -- and these were for only a single year's coverage and only 30 seconds of searching on my part. Given that, I'm going to suggest that we squeak this by as a keep. But just squeaked by. JRP (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The coverage you've pointed to exemplifies the problems with this article. The first article is very brief coverage, offering very little other than an explanation of what the awards are. Examiner.com, as detailed in its article, offers " hyperlocal news websites (from) citizen journalists". If that's a reliable source with a history of fact checking, I'm the Pope. The third article is essentially a passing mention in a local paper. (In that very paper, my father has received considerable coverage. He is not, in Wikipedia's terms, notable (sorry, Dad!).) You've outlined a path to a permanent stub. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per rationale of JRP. That the awards are notable to the industry which inspired them, acknowledge the work of notables within that industry, and have recieved coverage in reliable sources, we can allow the article to remain and serve the project even as it is improved over the next weeks or months. Certainly an article about someone who receives an award will be about that person who received the award and for what he received it. Even articles about recipients of SAG or AFTRA awards, are about those recipients and and not about the awards themselves. That the Young Artist Awards are worthy of note within the entertainment industry allows that they are worthy of note for Wikipedia, and as such allows that the article might remain and be improved through the course of regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We need "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" to write a "reasonably detailed article". We don't have that. Articles about recipients of the award that mention the award are not the basis for articles on SAG awards. The bare mentions found will create a permanent stub. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, we do not always need "significant coverage in independent reliable sources", as preferred as it might be. WP:GNG does not trump other guidelines, nor does it trump policy. I am reminded that when something is "worthy of notice", all the GNG allows is a presumption and not an absolute. But it also states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". (my emphasis) We have multiples of independent reliable secondary sources that speak toward the Young Artist Awards, even if the awards themselves are not the main topic. But even then, with it being only a presumption, significant coverage is not the grail. And it is to be noted that we do have verifiable evidence that the awards are significant and notable to the entertainment industry. That in itself allows a presumption of notability, and allows that this Start Class article might remain and be made better with time. Guideline and policy do not demand immediacy... and even guideline acknowledges that something or someone can be notable without always having "significant coverage". By way of example, WP:PROF instructs that "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources"... and WP:ATH allows that someone might be notable simply for spending time on a professional team... again, without demanding the preferred significant coverage. Significant coverage is not a mandate, only a encouraged goal, and there are thousands of decent and consensus-accepted articles within this encyclopedia whose topics might fail the GNG.
- That said, the "findsources" link above is practicaly useless because there have been so many various other "Young Artist Awards" around the world and from different organizations and for different reasons since the 1930s. The nearly 2000 news hits become meaningless because of the wide use of the term.
- However, a much more appropriate search is Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, where I do find "significant coverages in independent reliable sources" about the organization that presents the awards, in context to the orgainzation and the awards themselves. Time to improve, not toss. Maybe with a little regular editing, this article can be about the organization, with the awards in a subsection. No need to give the bum's rush to something that can so easily improve the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We need "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" to write a "reasonably detailed article". We don't have that. Articles about recipients of the award that mention the award are not the basis for articles on SAG awards. The bare mentions found will create a permanent stub. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Enough sources have been found. Also, you shouldn't nominate something for deletion again so soon. The last AFD ended with Keep on April 1st. Dream Focus 00:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It was a temporary keep, waiting to see if this year's awards generated significant coverage. They didn't. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage is quite naturallly about the artists who received the awards. However, I am in the middle of a re-write to properly readjust the focus of the article. Below, I suggest a rename and give my reasoning for the closer's consideration. 04:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
- Comment - It was a temporary keep, waiting to see if this year's awards generated significant coverage. They didn't. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article has changed. Being bold, and in trying to address the nominator's concerns and the sourcability of the organization in context to its awards, I have begun a rewrite of the article to emphasize the "Young Artist Foundation" itself with the "Young Artist Awards" being in a subsection. What you now see, and from this point on, is not the same article that was sent to AFD, in it being more encyclopedic and offering more sourced information to our readers. I suggest a rename of the article, if kept, to Young Artist Foundation, with redirect of Young Artist Awards being made to be to the then created section Young Artist Foundation#Young Artist Awards. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Not a slam dunk, but good enough. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2010 (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. There's certainly not a consensus to delete this, but there's no real consensus to do anything else either; a merge or redirect should be discussed at the article's talkpage. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Teabagger
- Teabagger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Rather Redundant, a paragraph or blurb in the tea party movement would be more than sufficient. This is a derogatory term with no historical Usage (unlike the "n-word") There is no need for it to be its own article.Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or redirect to a disambiguation about Teabags. Could also refer to the process of sticking your balls someplace, (cuze me for the vulgarity) or, heaven forbid, drinking tea Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 05:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oddly, beginning of tea bag itself disambiguates four alternate uses. Redirection to "tea bag" is not advisable, since "teabagger" never refers to the literal brewing of tea. If the political usage of the word is merged to Tea Party protests or Tea Party movement, the article should be converted into a disambiguation page distinguishing the political term and the sexual act. Emily Jensen (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems cluttered to have Tea Party movement, Tea Party protests, and this. There are three articles discussing the same thing.
Relegating Teabagging from the primary topic smacks of recentsm andisn't necessary with other articles covering the noun side of things. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary.Cptnono (talk) 07:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up: I have changed my mind on Teabagging but will propose a name change for that article in the next day or so over there.Cptnono (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have a rename discussion open at Teabagging. Tea bag, Tea bag (sexual act), Tea Party movement, Tea Party protests, and a disambiguation page should be good enough. Teabagger is not needed as a redirect unless we are going to go with Teabagged, teabagging, teabagee, and so on. A teabagger could also be one who is teabagging in a sexual or video game context. Not Wiktionary.Cptnono (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Political attack term and the article serves no other purpose. There are articles already on Tea Party protests and Tea Party movement. Clinchfield (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and or redirect to Tea Party movement. That these people have earned the nickname Teabaggers is not really up for debate. So derogatory or not, like it or not, its still a term associated with the movement, and should be discussed, either on its own or as part of a larger whole. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Tea Party movement. Yes, it could theoretically also refer to Teabagging, but in the current political climate, that's probably not what someone who enters this search term is looking for. Robofish (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Either Keep as is (with a hatnote directing to Teabagging), or Keep as disambiguation page – which it used to be until September 11, 2009 – while merging the current content to Tea Party movement. Contrary to assertions above, the term "teabagger" or "tea bagger" is also commonly used to refer to someone engaged in the act of teabagging (see e.g. the pre-2009 entries here and here), so a simple merge-and-redirect will not work well. --Lambiam 22:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SOAP, WP:NEO and WP:RECENTISM. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Is very informative about the origins and usage of the term in the current political climate. Deleting it would be a loss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.122.253.144 (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Robofish Atom (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it's a biased attack term. TJIC (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, culturally significant phrase—it's quite possibly used more frequently than the term these people favor, which is "tea partier" (I think?). Merging and redirecting would also be viable. Everyking (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Tea Party movement. It's a commonly used term for the individual participants of the movement, even if it does lean to the pejorative. --Darkwind (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary
- Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not at all notable. It is a simple fan's article. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 03:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Sodabottle (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. --Sodabottle (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Nothing has changed since the last AfD two months back. Subject has GNG as indicated by the references in the article. He might be "just a Fan" as the nom says, but he is also "a fan with non trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources". And having such an article is not new. We do have a whole category of "Sport Spectators" with 38 other pages in it. I know this is a variation of "Other Stuff Exists", but merely pointing out inclusion of sports fans with GNG in Wikipedia is not a new practice. --Sodabottle (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. However distasteful some editors may find coverage of sports fans, the article contains references sufficient in quantity and quality to show that this particular spectator is notable. Emily Jensen (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - clearly notable as demonstrated by reliable sources.. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep- The provided citation support notability Rirunmot 21:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
- Keep - There was an article on BBC today... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8636516.stm Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2010 (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:SNOW per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lia Montelongo (2nd nomination) & WP:BLP concerns). — Scientizzle 12:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brian Glynn (actor)
- Brian Glynn (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not all that notable in regards to work. He seems to only have done this and dated another actress in the Mortal Kombat series. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of notability.--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of more than marginal notability, and the article is a source of potential harm to a living person. While the issue of harm should not affect our coverage of solidly notable individuals, in cases of marginal notability it's fine to give the potential for harm more weight than the potential for incompleteness. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; not a single bit of evidence that he should covered in an encyclopedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Being the model for a video game character doesn't translate into encyclopedic notability. AniMate 04:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:ARTIST, article is not suitable. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this performer does not appear to have been the primary focus of sufficient non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources to overcome past issues with this article being used as an attack vector. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Certainly fails any wikipedia definition of notability. I'm sure there's no harm in the Mortal Kombat article carrying the information that Bryan Glynn played the body, without there being an article on Brian Glynn. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete. No point letting this run for 7 days.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ksenya Agarkova
- Ksenya Agarkova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No notability except winning a non-notable award. Rin tin tin (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: not notable per WP:MILPEOPLE and I wouldn't have thought that the beauty contest makes her notable either. The referencing is weak too. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can find no evidence to warrent inclusion.Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:42, 17 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Chrucky
- Andrew Chrucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are claims to notability in the article. There are currently two sources in the article, one to the frontpage of the City Colleges of Chicago that at best just verifies he is a professor there, does not help establish notability. The other are multiple links to Chrucky's own website, this does nothing to establish notability. I have found 1 news article that mentions him in passing. None of the web results I have found for him are indepth coverage from reliable sources. Nothing I have found establishes notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 02:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.--Cast (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The most likely claim of notability for him would be under WP:PROF #1: if we could say that he was the leading expert on Wilfrid Sellars, maybe that would be enough? But I don't think he is. Google scholar finds multiple other researchers, writing directly about Sellars, with greater impact. Chrucky comes in at #12 in the list. I'm not sure how seriously to take the citation numbers from Google scholar; they're far too low to consider as evidence for passing WP:PROF, but it may just be that Google scholar doesn't cover this area well. On the other hand the ordering of these authors by impact, given by Google scholar, seriously undermines any claim for notability for Chrucky: he doesn't even make the top 10 of scholars on a very narrow subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete In the article on Sellers in the authoritative Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, [48] he is not mentioned as an authority on him or listed in the bibliography. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2010 (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:SNOW and WP:BLP, a compelling combination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)
Lia Montelongo
- Lia Montelongo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
1) simply not notable
2) Lacks any solid independent sourcing
3) Has been an attractive nuisance to the subject for some four years. Used for harrassment and multiple BLP violations. See this ANI thread for full details
Different reasons here will appear to different people - the net result ought to be delete and salt. Scott Mac (Doc) 02:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia should not be a platform for harassment. Four years of socking and harassment are too much. Borderline notability, which is a guideline and not a principle. Common sense and humanitarian concerns should guide this decision. Durova412 02:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:BIO. Google news archive shows only one press mention: [49]. No independent references in the article. I do not go along necessarily with deleting a bio article because someone persistently vandalized it orp posted inappropriate material in it: we have the ability to protect an article and to block offenders. No one should be empowered to get a biography of a notable person deleted by vandalizing it persistently. This one deos not really seem to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While we shouldn't delete solidly notable BLPs based on real-world issues, it's fine to evaluate marginally notable BLPs based on their real-world impact. In this case, we lose very little by overlooking the subject, and potentially harm them by keeping the article. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Insufficient coverage found. While we know her work from IMDb and such, there is virtually no substantial coverage of her outside of that. From reliable sources, there simply isn't enough to write a reasonably detailed article. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not anyway notable per our various biography inclusion criteria.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Durova and ANI thread. -- Ϫ 04:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Durova hits the nail on the head. Barely notable and a frequent target for harassment. This is one of those cases where deletion is the morally correct thing to do. AniMate 04:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt - Per nom, Durova, ANI thread. Not much else to say, we aren't myspace, and we certainly aren't some soapbox for a stalker to harass someone.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to the closing administrator I have just received an e-mail from Lia after notifying her of this debate and the closer of this thread might want to look over it before doing anything. Let it be known that she supports the deletion of her page, but I think a word from her here might be in order. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having done a bit of reading on celebrity stalking, it is probably better if she doesn't post here. Celebrity stalkers crave vicarious contact with their targets. So let's close the door on this person firmly and politely, to the best of our ability. Durova412 06:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I notified her, too, and got a reply indicating that she's fine with the article being deleted. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per wishes of subject and prior persistent misuse of the article as an attack platform. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Durova. BLP of borderline-at-best notability with a vandal/real life harasser and the subject has no issues with it being deleted, this should be open and shut. Seth Kellerman (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wording like "romantically involved with" and information about competion in fitness championships are not required in at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete G7 ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 01:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dominationship
- Dominationship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original research, no apparent notability. Acroterion (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, original and only substantive editor has blanked the page. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 01:52, 17 April 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ellen Schreiber
- Ellen Schreiber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely unreferenced and marginally notable BLP about a young adult who has written several books. There appears to be a link to a HarperTeen article, but it 404s and I'm having no luck finding it. A quick Google search turns up lots of fansites, but i'm coming up empty for RS.
Vampire Kisses (series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a book series that she wrote, and I don't see any reason to keep it around, either. It consists of mainly character descriptions, very light on actually indicating notability. The WordsmithCommunicate 15:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep' The books are each of them in many hundreds of libraries, thus showing the importance of their author. The first one, is in over 1000. [1] . There are refs to reviews in the G News archive search above. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Idea. Close the AFD as "no consensus" but move to the incubator until a source or 2 can be found. I normally close these no consensus with leave to speedy renominate but I don't feel comfortable doing it with an unsourced BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Her books have been reviewed as follows:
- Vampire kisses. in Booklist v. 100 no. 6 (Nov. 15 2003). and Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books v. 57 no. 2 (Oct. 2003).
- Vampire kisses 2: kissing coffins in School Library Journal v. 51 no. 12 (Dec. 2005).
- Vampire Kisses 3: Vampireville. in Booklist v. 102 no. 22 (Aug. 2006)., and School Library Journal v. 52 no. 11 (Nov. 2006)
- Vampire kisses: blood relatives. in Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books v. 61 no. 6 (Feb. 2008).,
- Comedy Girl. in School Library Journal v. 50 no. 9 (Sept. 2004). [with full text] and Publishers Weekly v. 251 no. 37 (Sept. 13 2004).
- Teenage mermaid. in Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books v. 57 no. 1 (Sept. 2003).
- I think that proves notability for both the author and the series. I've added them to the article on the author (btw, the best place to find reviews for books like this is Book Review Digest, available at any medium size or larger public or academic library) . My apologies for not adding them earlier. DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources added by DGG. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It now shows notability thanks to DGG's sourcing effort. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
- The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable privately made film. No assertion of notability in article. No external sources, fails WP:RS. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google News archive shows a total of one article about the film. Fails WP:N, even though it is written by Alex Jones, directed by Alex Jones, distributed by Alex Jones Productions and stars Alex Jones, along with Jesse Ventura and a few others (playing themselves). Could not find multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Web blogs about movies with user-contributed content are not sufficient. Edison (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, deficient references. Emily Jensen (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2010 (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 to recreation. The topic is probably notable, but I don't see anything in the current article worth saving. Shimeru (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21st Century Education
- 21st Century Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced essay that appears to be one part explanation of a possible neologism, one part promotion of an organization of an Australian millionaire whose article is also under AfD, and no parts demonstration of meeting WP:CORP. Note that the originating editor is User:21stCenturyEducation. B.Wind (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Unreferenced essay" pretty much sums it up. — Rankiri (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lacking encyclopaedic value or external refs. AllyD (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep & expand, changing title to 21st Century education. Not a good article at present, but a suitably encyclopedic topic. Check the hundreds of extremely relevant hits in GNews, books, and scholar. There is even a reference books with the exact title from a fairly respectable publisher. 21st century education : a reference handbook by Thomas L Good, SAGE Publications, 2008. That this started out s a promotional article for a company is irrelevant. Indeed, we can best prevent the promotional use of it by having a real article here. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepA google search bears out the article's claim that this term is widely used in the media [50] and that it's the subject of plenty of books [51] as well. Weak keep, because it's not sourced and it is in essay form, but if someone wants to fix that (I don't) I'd say keep. And if it isn't fixed, deletion without prejudice to recreating would be fine as well. The topic is notable, the execution is poor. Mandsford (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Around here, notability isn't everything, it's the only thing. However, you're right, the only source is a website for a non-notable organization that calls itself "P21" and purports to be promoting "21st century skills", so I agree Delete. It's like clicking on an article about breathing and getting an ad for Mentos. Mandsford (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Repurpose, expand and move to Education in the 21st century. DGG is right in that it could be a notable topic if done properly, but the current title doesn't seem right to me. If we are going to repurpose and expand it then it should be under a more appropriate name with the current one as a redirect. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to using Wikipedia. I just did a search for 21st century schools, then 21st century education, and found this page. It doesn't have much on it. I believe that I could add to it. I have an article online (at my web site) entitled "What is 21st century education?". I would like your opinion as to whether something like that would be appropriate to post. The article was printed in an Australian teachers' journal, Ethos, in Australia last year. And it is also being printed in a German textbook in September of 2010. Please contact me at Director@21stCenturySchools.com The article is online at www.21stCenturySchools.com/What_is_21st_Century_Education.htm
Thank you.
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
War of Ideas
- War of Ideas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article was prodded. Prod removed without explanation. Sources added were a combination of general sources plus Rand Corporation report links. I believe that the "War of Ideas" is not a usage that, like "War on Terror", has notable usage. I request an AfD delete as this article is almost creating an original research paper based on reports named similarly, as such. Request AfD delete. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 17:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is an essay written around a phrase. It is a good essay, but is an essay and is original research. Note the tentative introduction, and the absence of citations in the lead (introduction). Note the typical paragraph structure, with an uncited opening statement followed up by referenced support for the opening statement sentences of the paragraphs, As typical of original research, the references are exclusively primary sources for the subject, just examples; they are not about the subject. As a term, it is not well defined, and is not included at Wiktionary [52]. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orchard Skate Shop
- Orchard Skate Shop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:CORP. advertisement masquerading as an article. 1 hit in gnews [53]. LibStar (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Coverage in Weekly Dig is insubstantial; other references are dead or irrelevant to notability. Article has a promotional tone. TheFeds 20:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It seems a shame to lose a reference to someone with the wonderful name of "Broderick Gumpright", but no, there's insufficient notability and it's somewhat promotional in tone. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-As per nom, fails WP:CORP , not notable skate shop. Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nam Yang Pugilistic Association
- Nam Yang Pugilistic Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a non-notable martial arts organization. According to the article there are only 4 schools. In addition, I can find no third party references or anything that makes this school notable according to WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I have been unable to find independent and reliable sources to support notability. Janggeom (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A small, local group that makes no claim to notability. Google has little to offer [54]
- 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Flash (DC animated universe)
- Flash (DC animated universe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is a creation of original research that pulls information from various Wikipedia articles on comic book characters. Specifically:
- The lead is from Flash in other media#DC Animated Universe, 1st and 2nd paragraphs.
- The section "Key episodes" is from the same article and subsection, 3rd paragraph in full.
- The section "Secret identity issues" is from the same article and subsection, 4th paragraph.
- The Barry Allen elements subsection is from the same article and subsection, 5th paragraph.
- The Wally West elements subsection is from the same article and subsection, paragraphs 6 and 7.
- Powers and abilities
- Flash (DC animated universe)#Cosmic treadmill is from Cosmic treadmill#In other media, both bullets.
- Flash (DC animated universe)#Speed Force is from Speed Force#Other media, full section.
- Locations in the Flash's universe
- Flash (DC animated universe)#Flash Museum is from Flash Museum#Animated series, the entire subsection.
- Flash (DC animated universe)#Gorilla City is from Gorilla City#Television, 2nd bullet.
- Supporting characters
- Flash (DC animated universe)#Elongated Man is from Elongated Man#Television, 1st bullet and all 3 of its sub-bullets.
- Flash (DC animated universe)#Linda Park is from Linda Park (comics)#Appearances in other media, 1st and 2nd paragraphs.
- Villains
- Flash (DC animated universe)#Doctor Alchemy and Mr. Element is from Doctor Alchemy#Television, full section.
- Flash (DC animated universe)#Captain Boomerang is from Captain Boomerang#Television, Bullets 1 and 2.
- Flash (DC animated universe)#Captain Cold is from Captain Cold#Television, 3rd bullet.
- Flash (DC animated universe)#Fiddler is from Fiddler (comics)#Television, full section.
- Flash (DC animated universe)#Gorilla Grodd is from Gorilla Grodd#DC animated universe, full section, including subsection headers.
- Flash (DC animated universe)#Heat Wave is from Heat Wave (comics)#Television, full section.
- Flash (DC animated universe)#Abra Kadabra is from Abra Kadabra (comics)#Television, 1st bullet.
- Flash (DC animated universe)#Mirror Master is from Mirror Master#Television, 2nd and 3rd bullets.
- Flash (DC animated universe)#Pied Piper is from Pied Piper (comics)#Other media, 1st bullet.
- Flash (DC animated universe)#Reverse-Flash is from Reverse-Flash#Animated series, 1st bullet.
- Flash (DC animated universe)#Shade is from Shade (comics)#Television, full section though the sentences are slightly juggled.
- Flash (DC animated universe)#Thinker is from Thinker (DC Comics)#Television, full section.
- Flash (DC animated universe)#Top is from Top (comics)#Television, 1st bullet.
- Flash (DC animated universe)#Trickster is from Trickster (comics)#Justice League Unlimited, full section.
- Flash (DC animated universe)#Turtle is from Turtle (comics)#Television, full section.
- Flash (DC animated universe)#Weather Wizard is from Weather Wizard#Television, bullets 2, 4, and 5.
- Flash (DC animated universe)#Professor Zoom is from Professor Zoom#Other media, 2nd bullet.
- Flash (DC animated universe)#Zoom is from Zoom (comics)#Zoom (comics), full section.
With the villains, note that 3 of the sections refer to the same two characters - and alternate universe version of the Flash that was never see on screen and a robot. Both based on "the costumes look the same".
Presenting the character of the Flash along with the 2 "casts" creates the impression that this article is dealing with "show" even though the characters are supposedly limited to Superman: The Animated Series and the Justice League/Justice League Unlimited series.
This and Wonder Woman (DC animated universe) are the latest two in a recurring "bad content" issue where articles are fabricated in this manner. Frankly, on top of the OR issue, they are an unneeded and ill-advised content fork. We have had a number of like content fork lists and articles come through AfD from this editor, the bulk of which have resulted in the removal of the composite articles. This is becoming disruptive - the discovery of new or additional like "articles" after the last batch has been deleted and having to go through the same presentation that "Yes, it's content fork. Yes, it's a bad fork. And yes it is a carbon copy of already existing material." J Greb (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Flash (comics) Doc Quintana (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - all the information is already in the right place (where the links go) and this serves no purpose other than to confuse. Dozens of similar articles have been deleted and there should be a moratorium on creating any new ones, as all it is doing is wasting everyone's time (those editing them and those coming along behind and deleting them) - there is a clear consensus that they aren't required and are just unnecessary duplication of existing material (without, it is worth noting, any kind of indication which articles the text is lifted from, something that is required). (Emperor (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Having the same information duplicated in different articles is a nightmare - and it looks like it's already in the appropriate places. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:08, 17 April 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
National Union of Greek Australian Students
- National Union of Greek Australian Students (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ORG. no significant coverage of this federation of student societies. 3 gnews hits [55]. LibStar (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Student associations generally aren't notable and this seems to be no exception - there are no references provided to meet WP:ORG Nick-D (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails all relevant guidelines such as WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dominic Soleil
- Dominic Soleil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable dancer, no notability provided, absolutely zero sources provided, this article has been sitting here for three weeks in this horrible state. A PROD tag was removed by an IP editor. Woogee (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is almost completely copy-pasted from this website. --Vejvančický (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the craigslist entry was copypasted from the WP article, check the dates. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources, not notable. Agree with nominator. Minimac (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Zero hits on Google News and nothing substantial on Google Web. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can find no reliable sources -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Vejvanc(ický--SPhilbrickT 14:39, 18 April 2010 (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 List of characters in The Cleveland Show. Shimeru (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rallo Tubbs
- Rallo Tubbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been tagged for notability since last year. This The Cleveland Show character fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect to List_of_characters_in_The_Cleveland_Show per WP:FICT. Eusebeus (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect. No significant coverage so fails WP:GNG. Remember that WP:FICT is still only a proposal so shouldn't play a part in this AfD. However, redirection would also be acceptable. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Money Music
- Money Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non-notable album. The only source given makes a small reference to the album. Violates WP:CRYSTAL and pretty much WP:TenPoundHammer's Law. Str8cash (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep im just tired of dealing with this User:Str8cash he nominates every article ive created if he can just find 1 thing wrong with them even if he can't find anything wrong with them same old excuse STATicVerseatide talk 00:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- STAT: Str8cash is nominating some of your articles for deletion for legit reasons. See the guidelines he/she linked in the original nomination above. These are guidelines that have been developed via years of precedent in the WP community. At least for this album, the nomination is correct. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Nothing to indicate it's notable. CynofGavuf 10:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The real issue here is not non-notability. Instead, the album has not been released and was only mentioned in mid-2009 as being under development, with no verified release date (see the two References in the article). An article in the same online magazine on April 4 says Mack 10 is still "working on" the album and nothing else. We have a violation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. When the album really exists, that will be the time to work on the article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I Have added a refrence for the Release date which is July 13. STATicVerseatide feedbackwhat i've done 01:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, deficient references suggest non-notability. Emily Jensen (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pierrot the Clown
- Pierrot the Clown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Also:
- Follow the Cops Back Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Peeping Tom (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- In the Cold Light of Morning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Probably others.
Someone's personal opinion of a not-independently-notable song from some random album by a band of some sort. No sources (as usual). Guy (Help!) 20:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More of these songs in my recent contribs if anyone wants to bundle them in. Somebody tagged a bunch of them for speedy.--Chaser (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all. Polarpanda (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. Placebo is a marginally notable band, but that doesn't mean every single or non-single off each one of their albums should have a page unto itself. Even in their heyday they didn't have significant airplay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chromancer (talk • contribs) 04:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Songs not notable enough to stand on own. Szzuk (talk) 08:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all: As it says at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums, singles and songs, "Most songs[note 5] do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable" -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:47, 17 April 2010 (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. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
M. P. John
- M. P. John (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable scholar; fails WP:PROF StAnselm (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:V. With regards, AnupamTalk 08:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does WP:V make you think we should keep the article? That the information is verifiable is not in doubt. What is in doubt is the notability. StAnselm (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- While Christians are a minority in India, there are a lot of them. Accordingly theri leading academics should have articles. He appears to have occupied notable positions. The article says little of his role as a Bible translator, only hinting at it, but that is also potentially notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, leading academics should have articles, but surely we should still use the criteria in WP:PROF. Anything else would be quite patronising, to say the least. What notable positions do you think he occupied? StAnselm (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: being Translations Secretary for the Bible Society of India seems non-notable. The main claim to notability here seems to be the Rectorship of Serampore College (1964-1971) and the Principalship of Bishop's College, Kolkata (dates unclear). I'm not sure if heading a small theological college is notable. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails notability. I can find no mentions of him in his principalship roles, nor can I find citations of his publications. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nacho Durán
- Nacho Durán (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Material is biographical and unsourced— H3llkn0wz ▎talk 01:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No notable secondary sources are given.
- The article mostly contains biographic material.
These source is the main pages of what is apparently vlogging web-site and does not directly contain information presented inline:
- Videoblog Feitoamouse: http://www.feitoamouse.org/videoblog
This source is primary source; a video with no information on what it is.
- Videoblog Feitoamouse: First videoblog made in South America First video-post, June 15, 2003 [56]
The sources below are main pages of various web-sites; references do not provide links to actual information. In addition, most of these fail WP:NONENG.
- Academia Internacional de Cinema de São Paulo: [57]
- VisualRadio: [58]
- Coletivo Virtual: [59]
- TeleKommando: [60] - dead
- Showskills-UK: [61]
- T.E.M.P.: [62] - dead
- Festival Internacional de Linguagem Eletrônica: [63]
- VJbr: [64]
- Visual-Log: [65] - dead
- randoX: [66]
- Corposcópio website: [67]
- Lúcia Leão: [68]
- Motomix Art Music Festival 2007: [69] - dead
- arte.mov: Festival Internacional de Arte em Mídias Móveis: [70]
- Mostra do Audiovisual Paulista: [71] - dead
- Manu Chao: [72]
- Museu da Imagem e do Som de São Paulo: [73]
- Fernando Velázquez: [74]
- Clício Barroso: [75]
- Eduardo Kac: [76]
- Luiz Duva: [77]
- Alex Kid: [78] - under construction
- Prêmio Sérgio Motta de Arte e Tecnologia: [79]
— H3llkn0wz ▎talk 01:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The references didn't verify the content. I moved them to External Links in accordance with WP:REF#Embedded links. — Rankiri (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources found to support notabilty. I'd like to see a ref to support the claim to having the first South American video blog.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Depledge
- Joseph Depledge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Is he notable? Couldn't find much information. dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 00:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Stoke was a top-flight club at the time and almost certainly professional. He thus passes WP:ATH. Such is the tragedy of WP:ATH. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it a "tragedy"? He played in the top division of English football. Is it a "tragedy" that a player in the Premier League nowadays is notable??? Keep. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - passes WP:ATHLETE -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I hardly think this is a tragedy of WP:ATHLETE, unless we want to be overrun with Presentism. matt91486 (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - clearly meets WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 21:34, 21 April 2010 (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. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Celebrity Sleuth
- Celebrity Sleuth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails to establish notability. Contains a single, rather trivial mention in a book. EuroPride (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete- I don't even know how this article hasn't been eyed for deletion in a whole year; the subject is clearly not notable. I suggest a speedy delete per WP:SNOW. RaaGgio (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Given the number of newspaper articles[80][81][82] and books[ at least mentioning the magazine revealed through the Google News and Books searches. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Magazine has been deemed redundant as some international network of connected "sites" on a "web" throughout the Earth let you seek out everything this magazine provides for a cost, instead for free if you smartly use a system of search terms on a site named for a large number to find said pictorial representations of respected actresses performing without costume. Also, magazine has few sources beyond the usual ones found on questionable sites of little stature. Nate • (chatter) 23:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Redundancy or obsolescence are not negative indicators of notability. Even if the site is now obsolete, notability is not temporary. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:16, 17 April 2010 (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 Mobile Suit Gundam SEED characters. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Siegel Clyne
- Siegel Clyne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor non-notable character that lacks notability. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 00:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to list of GS characters. --Gwern (contribs) 01:12 17 April 2010 (GMT)
- Comment This characters too minor for a merge. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 01:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to list of GS characters. Character may be minor but having it on a list is better than it's own article and better then getting rid of it alltogether. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Minor non-notable character that lacks notability" > that sounds a little strange, doesn't it? --Anime Addict AA (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED characters. Significant enough within the series to be merged, not deleted. (I said the same thing when I removed the Prod.) Edward321 (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2010 (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aspera GmbH
- Aspera GmbH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company. Article does not show notability. One author, apparently an employee; reads like a press release. No reliable sources; can't find any on Google either. akaDruid (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Other than the processor.com article I was unable to find anything which wasn't a press release online. Doesn't appear to be notable. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The reference from Processor (which appears to be a reliable source, although I'm not familiar with the publication) is probably sufficient to establish notability. I do not see a listing for this company in the German Wikipedia, though. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The processor.com article is not a useful source for this article; it does not have any information on the company (aside from one employees name). Doesn't really count as "significant coverage" in reliable sources. akaDruid (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the processor.com article is not a useful source for the article, I added 2 other independent sources from ECPweb: their 2008 and 2009 evaluation of SAM solutions, which remarks Aspera as "entitlement-centric". These should count as "significant coverage" in reliable sources. Kcweinberg (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge There is also one book that briefly evaluates the SmartTrack product among others. But I don't see that as adequate coverage to establish notability, and so far as I can see the processor.com article is just citing one of the company's people as an expert, not even going into its product. So that is even more of a passing mention, although it would be useful in an article on the approach. I think that's the best thing at this point: to list Aspera among providers of software management tools, as the book is doing, because the book seems the best source on its notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The main point of the article is to describe the technology (entitlement-centric) not the company (Aspera is noted as the creator). The technology is significant to software asset management, which is also in Wikipedia and a Google search for "entitlement-centric software asset management" produce hits from sites not related to the company. So, the technology is recognized by users and other providers. Kcweinberg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete, company is not notable. If the article is about the technology, the article is misnamed. Yngvadottir has a good suggestion. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Insufficient in-depth independent coverage. An article about the concept of "entitlement-centric software license management" could perhaps be written, but here we're debating if this company deserves an article. Pcap ping 02:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 02:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article is shot through with advertising, starting with the first sentence describing the business as a solution provider. O RLY? The remaining text is devoted to not particularly subtle salesmanship about how their technology or method is supposed to be superior to those of their competitors: Aspera is the first company to approach Software Asset Management (SAM) processes from the entitlement side.... This is why the entitlement-centric approach is distinct among SAM applications in that it was developed from the ground up to specifically manage software rather than evolving from a physical asset management application.... The catalog is the core of entitlement-centric SAM and provides the benefit of extensively automating all processes related to license and installation data, something older solutions could not do.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:40, 24 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Hesp
- Michael Hesp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable artist. DimaG (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sources to meet WP:N are not given and usual searches do not turn up anything obvious to justify an article. Ty 13:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin Jennings (broadcaster)
- Gavin Jennings (broadcaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable radio broadcaster. DimaG (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. Group E, Number 4: Does an award count? A newspaper article on one of his interviews. --candle•wicke 03:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources cited. Nothing to indicate notability. Does not even seem to have a regular assignment or time slot, since he is on air "on an intermittent basis". --MelanieN (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2010 (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. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LearnVest
- LearnVest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Spammy article by a WP:SPA primarily drawn from primary sources. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. I normally close non-BLP articles without participation for 2 weeks as "no consensus" but I suspect Guy would rather it be relisted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I created a LearnVest page because it is a notable company that has received extensive press. In the page's current state, perhaps the reliance on primary sources is too heavy. However, instead of deletion, I would like to request that it be updated to reflect more recent sources (such as the New York Times and Fortune). Asfp20 (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC) — Asfp20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- LearnVest suffices as a credible and notable personal finance resource for women. The website has already received extensive media attention and does not need additional advertising through Wikipedia; rather, the page educates the public on the information based and educational resource. I would agree that the page should be updated to reflect more recent sources rather than be deleted. ccf920 (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC) — ccf920 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. While gnews turns up mentions, none of them appear to amount to significant coverage, I only see press releases and passing mentions. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Price (actor)
- Thomas Price (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable actor lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. ttonyb (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- He was in three movies and yet only mentioned in one of the articles here, asserting minor roles in the other two, no personal awards, as per nominator, fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2010 (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phillip Graham Scott
- Phillip Graham Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability, BLP CynofGavuf 10:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Tracy Beaker Returns where he is already listed. This is the youngster's debut. His career fails WP:ENT, and lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable actor. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:ENT. anemoneprojectors talk 11:31, 24 April 2010 (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Order of the Bull's Blood Society
- Order of the Bull's Blood Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not enough sources to make it worthy of being separate from Rutgers CynofGavuf 09:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Rutgers_University_student_organizations. Warrah (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, if (and only if) adequately sourced by the closing date of this discussion. Otherwise, delete. bd2412 T 03:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Userfy Has no sourcing for any of the claims. If sources can be found, it counld be considered for inclusion as a section in Rutgers. Suggest usefying, then editor(s) can copy material, if sourced, into Rutgers. --SPhilbrickT 14:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No substantiation or reliable sources offered, nor even indication of widespread or popular speculation. Seems as non-notable as it is unverifiable. - Vianello (Talk) 04:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Has this turned up again? This was an article a couple of years ago, but was merged/deleted and became a redirect to the Rutgers page, from which all mention seems to have gone. The previous page had sources, and made it clear the existence of the society was questionable. I think there should be an article at this title, to air the discussion/rumour/controversy about it, but I think it would be far better to delete the current text and re-instate the previous one, which was better. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Velasquez
- Mark Velasquez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not enough sources to indicate notability CynofGavuf 09:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Search hits from reliable publications refer only to an unrelated sportsman of the same name. Note that I removed a substantial amount of material from the article, as it was unsourced, but commenters may like to review the original revision: [83]. Marasmusine (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Being selected for a Bravo reality show is the definition of non-notable.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2010 (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. Spartaz Humbug! 02:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kendall Berry
- Kendall Berry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I will admit to being torn on this issue myself, as I think the issue is a close one. This young man's tragic death did receive nationwide press, and I do believe that certain notorious deaths can cause an otherwise non-notable person to become notable. Still, I feel this case has the hallmarks of a transitory news story. I don't see the sort of lasting press coverage that I think distinguishes encyclopedic subjects from passing obituaries. Weak Delete under WP:NOTTHENEWS. Xoloz (talk) 04:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Into Florida International University or a different relevant article. Perhaps the creation of an article on the murder itself. If we can't determine the notability for temporal reasons effort should be made to retain the information.--Tmckeage (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and edit for content. A quick review of news shows that there are not only a significant number of articles on his murder, but on his playing career itself. I agree with the "not news" issue--it should be a part of the article, but not a major portion. Re-work the article to include other significant aspects of the subject's life (including his football career) and then let's take another look at it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Junior university football player, clearly not notable for a wikipedia biography apart from his sad death. I doubt if the murder itself is worthy of an article, murder is common place and not notable in itself. Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Junior university football player" sounds like "junior varsity" which is a lower level of play. According to this article he did manage to get some significant playing time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per various sections of WP:NOT, primarily NEWS and MEMORIAL. Also WP:ONEEVENT. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hylite
- Hylite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable hip hop group with a blank allmusic page (no reviews or chart presence). The one source does not even mention Hylite. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BAND. (GregJackP (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete i didn't find significant coverage on this group. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The assertion of notability made by User:DGG has not been disuputed. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stuart G. Bugg
- Stuart G. Bugg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable "lawyer, author and consultant" only claim to notability appears to be as co-author of two books Codf1977 (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant Delete - I added a citation to support the claim re World University Debating champion. Unfortunately, the reference appears to be a blog, so it isn't of the highest quality. I've been unsuccessful at finding an official page. Winning this event is worth something, not clear how much. One other winner John Wertheim and one other finalist Adam Spencer have WP entries, in each case, their claim to notability was based upon other criteria. That none of the other roughly 60 champions have a WP page is a suggestion (not proof) that this win does not confer notability.
- He is named as a founder of efms, an organization that does not get a lot of hits (again, not proof, but an organization founded in 1983 with almost no hits isn't scoring well on a notability scale. In addition, his name is listed at the end of the bylaws, which suggests he was involved in drafting the bylaws, but that doesn't necessarily make him a founder. Perhaps he is, but I don't see clear evidence.
- I see he is coauthor of two books, unfortunately I find little evidence these two books are notable. Perhaps my searching was incomplete, I'd be happy if more could be found which would tip my opinion to keep, but based upon what is presented, and what I could find, I'm not seeing notability.--SPhilbrickT 14:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep His German book is a German-english legal dictionary published by the leading German language dictionary publisher. The Karlsruhe Virtual Catalog shows it in over 48 German libraries, and their list is not complete. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:00, 25 April 2010 (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.
- ^ {www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n2002-36303]