< 2 February | 4 February > |
---|
- 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. This article relies too heavily on non-secondary sources, and will likely find itself up for deletion again if this is not fixed quickly. Much spamminess has been removed, but this still needs work. Non consensus to delete at this time (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umbraco
- Umbraco (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. I have been unable to find any coverage of this product, including 0 gnews hits. Was speedy-deleted two weeks ago. Haakon (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Non-notable" in the sense of lack of press releases, not in sense of downloads and popularity growth. More than 250k downloads in 2009, over 100% growth rate and the 2nd biggest Web CMS on the ASP.NET stack. Article updated with reliable 3rd party source (Microsoft Codeplex) --NHartvig (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Guthrie, Umbraco will be used for the new ASP.Net Website. That's notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.61.226 (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's hearsay; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and needs reliable sources. Haakon (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference: http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/01/24/about-technical-debates-both-in-general-and-regarding-asp-net-web-forms-and-asp-net-mvc-in-particular.aspx#7321918 --NHartvig (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not be comfortable with a blog as the reference for a statement that umbraco is used in the ASP.Net site as it is a self-published reference, *but* nobody says we should put this information in the Wikipedia entry for umbraco; in fact, I hope nobody goes ahead and does that as in our effort to prove what is obvious to people who have taken an interest in .NET CMS products to fellow Wikipedians with not such interests, we are risking making the article worse. If and when ASP.NET redesign their site using umbraco and state it officially maybe this will make it into the article, maybe not. But for now, the decision as reported in Guthrie's blog, carries some significance if anyone doubts that umbraco is the #2 .NET CMS. I believe that the CMS Market report in the article's references shows that. Miltiadis Kokkonidis (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference: http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/01/24/about-technical-debates-both-in-general-and-regarding-asp-net-web-forms-and-asp-net-mvc-in-particular.aspx#7321918 --NHartvig (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's hearsay; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and needs reliable sources. Haakon (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not affilliated with the company that develops this product in any way. This dispute started a few hours ago when the article I created was not even worthwhile a stub; thought it could do with additional work, it is significantly better now. The article is about a major player in the CMS market. 0 gnews hits proves nothing except that gnews hits is not an adequate criterion. Though I recognise its value as a factor in such decisions in the absense of specialist knowledge, in this case such knowledge exists. The independent survey mentioned in the references has a well-documented and credible methodology for selecting the 20 CMSs it considers noteworthy; it excludes a number of CMSs that have wikipedia articles, but recognises Umbraco as the second most important .NET CMS in terms of market share.
Miltiadis Kokkonidis (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The claim of being the 2nd in .net market checked out [1]; the full report, which not free, presumably has more coverage. There's also a long review there too. Pcap ping 13:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)(see below)[reply]- Delete, vacuous and unambiguous advertising: ... a simple and lightweight system that leverages the power of the technologies it is based on...
("Leverage" as a verb in this sense is one of those red-flag words that make you want to reach through the screen and smash somebody's keyboard before they offend again. Does it say anything that "use" doesn't? It does sound more peppy; as if, like Archimedes, you're ready to move the world. But if they wrote "uses the technologies it is based on", it'd be too obvious they were rabbiting on without saying anything. And they have to tell us that it's "powerful". At any rate, using "leverage" as a verb this way is blatant POV-pushing.)
At any rate, "CMSwire.com" sure sounds like a medium of "limited interest and circulation", not enough to sustain an article about a commercial product. I looked at the link, and my impression is that this product is second from the bottom in market share. The article is a general market survey, not specifically about this product. And tellingly, that website's poll asks: "Survey Question: "Which of these companies or projects have you heard of?""[2] - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I once heard David Crystal saying how bad WikiPedia as an encyclopedia is and basing that claim on the fact that according to the Wikipedia article about him, his kids still lived with him. I fixed this an hour later making my point about what Wikipedia has that old-fashioned encyclopedias do not.
Once an article is up, it can be fixed. I am not entirely happy with the article myself. But the main question is if an entry on umbraco has a place in wikipedia or not. Given that nobody here seems to be suggesting that articles about less noteworthy CMSs than Umbraco be deleted, I believe this question has a clear answer. The survey I am referencing in the article is free and it contains the top 20 CMSs in terms of market share. There are countless CMSs out there and WikiPedia has articles about CMSs that are not even in those top 20. So, as far as I am concerned, it is clear that, currently, WikiPedia considers noteworthy CMSs with a market share smaller than umbraco's. The fact that it is the #2 .NET CMS and follows a different approach to other CMSs carries some extra weight in my decision to write and defend this article. For me, there is no question of whether there should be a WikiPedia article on umbraco or not. My opinion would certainly have been different if there were no articles on a number of other CMSs, but there are -- and to be honest, I prefer it this way.
Having established, I believe, that there should be an article on umbraco, there is a second question to be considered: should the article, as it stands, be deleted, because it has content of no value, is badly written, or is part of some marketing campaign? As long as none of the above *clearly* applies and an umbraco entry has a place in Wikipedia, effort should be made to make the article better. One can change 'leverage' into 'use' if he/she is so inclined; there was something I wanted to convey with that word, but unfortunatelly it does look like it came out of an IT product marketing brochure. 'Simple', I will delete as it is so ambiguous that at the end it means nothing. `Lightweight', I am inclined to keep because the binary distribution downloaded impressively quickly, something much appreciated by someone who first programmed on a Spectrum with 16KB of RAM and has an aversion to bloatware. However, I am not entirely happy with this word either. But then again, I am not entirely happy with the article as a whole either; but I prefer a WikiPedia with it in it, than one without it. It is work in progress and hopefully myself and others will continue to improve it.
To propose that an article be deleted because one disagrees with the use of certain words is counter-productive. Given that I am using my real name and putting my personal reputation at stake here, I am more than willing to listen to criticisms for improving the article. But I believe they are a seperate issue best addressed in the article's talk page and that the article should stay. I hope this gets resolved quickly because I am spending too much time here and too little time improving the article itself.
Miltiadis Kokkonidis (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Certain terms irrevocably brand an "article" as advertising. The vile verb "leverage" is one already mentioned; my favorite software bete noire is "solution", but all fields fall victim to "up and coming"/"rapidly emerging"/"radical new" in various permutations. In general, anything non-neutral in tone which sounds like you're trying to sell us the product counts against retention. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With the help of an IP user, I've cleaned up the spammy language. I admit not having read it past the notability claim in the lead previously. Pcap ping 05:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that it has not been more than a couple of days that I wrote what I wrote I had not distanced myself enough to do exactly what you have done. Thanks! It looks much better now! Ain't Wikipedia, great? ;-) Miltiadis Kokkonidis (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With the help of an IP user, I've cleaned up the spammy language. I admit not having read it past the notability claim in the lead previously. Pcap ping 05:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the site with more content about the framework and hopefully some more verifiable references. --Mardenpb1 (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There is a Twitter campaign against this AfD: Time for the community to act?. Haakon (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While this is not definitive, the case that Umbraco is 2nd in the .net CMS market is demonstrated by being 2nd in downloads after DNN on both the Microsoft Web Platform Installer and Codeplex and above mojoPortal on Codeplex, both of which have their own articles. Whether a single tweet constitutes a campaign is questionable, and even if there is a campaign, whether it is relevant to this debate is also questionable. But there is a strong case that the 2nd most downloaded .Net based CMS is deserving of a Wikipedia article. This article requires work and the request to improve citations is valid. However the the AfD is grossly disproportionate. --Mardenpb1 (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is WP:OR, and those number change over time. We need a WP:SECONDARY source to record that such and such had that much marked share at some point. The CMSWire article seems to be one, but I see it has been disputed further below. Pcap ping 07:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The referred tweet is from Janus Boye - an independent CMS analyst (http://jboye.com). --NHartvig (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just searched for Umbraco on Google News and came up with one result, same as for mojoPortal. I searched for a number of other CMSs on the List of content management systems page and many came up with zero results. I also note that many of the other CMSs on this list have sections lifted straight from corporate websites. That said, I do not think Google News is a good indication of notability - downloads and portfolio are. A number of popular websites are built on Umbraco: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.217.60 (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this is a problem with so many articles on CMS systems. These systems are a dime a dozen, and their owners are often underhanded with their marketing techniques, including abusing Wikipedia. Please take a few minutes to correct the errors you've found, or at least point them out on their talk pages so someone can deal with them. Meanwhile, note that other stuff exists, which is no argument for keeping this article. Wikipedia is a work in progress and not consistent yet. Haakon (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note If you open up the Google News timeline to 2004-2010 Google News reports "about 74" references to the word Umbraco. Not all references relate to the CMS project, but certainly some of them do. If Google News is to be considered useful to this discussion (which is probably debatable) then let's at least be thorough in checking the data. --Bdunwood (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umbraco is a significant player in the area of .NET CMS. The two referernces to cmswire don't count for anything because of the way cmswire operate / post reviews. In my view cmswire references should be removed to improve the article. The figures quoted in the Popularity section are somewhat misleading. The figures shown are the total number of project downloads (including readme and documentation archive downloads, not just the WCMS source code). The article certainly needs work, but based on the significant marketshare it has I think it should stay. Sendalldavies (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If those references are no good, how do you propose we establish what you just wrote? Pcap ping 06:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding download stats: look at http://umbraco.codeplex.com/Release/ProjectReleases.aspx?ReleaseId=33743. There are 7 other downloads besides the main download file. These downloads are included in their stats.
- Regarding cmswire: I've looked through their website and see no web page regarding how they operate in terms of posting articles. To establish my claim one would have to ask for information about having your own CMS reviewed. cmswire email me every few months asking for permission to write a "review" in exchange for a reciprocal link. Such reviews are not independent or unbiased as product owners get the last edit prior to its publication. The site is basically a review farm making money from selling ad space (http://www.simplermedia.com/mediakit/v1-00/titles/cmswire/rates.php)
- Regarding "significant player in .NET CMS" and marketshare: my comment comes from professional experience in this field; people wanting help improving their website or wanting to migrate their website to a different server. Sendalldavies (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm the founder and publisher of CMSWire and would like to say that your characterization of the site as "basically a review farm making money from selling ad space" is way off the mark. We publish roughly 200 original articles per month with 90% of those written by regular, on-staff writers. If you look at our CMS reviews section (http://www.cmswire.com/cms/cms-reviews/) you can see that since the Umbraco review on May 28, 2009 there has been exactly one other review published, on December 9, 2009. If this is your definition of a review farm, then something is very wrong with this discussion. Further, regarding your assertion that someone at CMSWire emails you every few months for "permission to write a 'review' in exchange for a reciprocal link" I would assert that your statement is a) confusing -- what does "permission to write a review" mean exactly? b) an exaggeration -- was it me who emailed you? How many times exactly? And can you provide the precise dates that this happened?, and c) the interaction was misrepresented -- we recruit specialized outside contributors all the time as a way of bringing in valuable, current lessons from the field. Nearly all trade magazines do such things -- there's just no way that journalists can know as much as field consultants. This practice is a great way of sharing knowledge in a sector. Regarding the discussion of a "reciprocal link", guest writers on CMSWire are always entitled to a bio section in their article and this includes a link to their project or company, etc. I consider this respectful and friendly. Reciprocal links are typically considered "link exchanges" and that is not at all what we are doing. I fail to see how a link in the author's bio detracts from the content, which IMHO should be evaluated independently. In reference to the Umbraco review written by Barb Mosher, this review is -- at any rate -- free of any such alleged contamination. Barb is the managing editor of CMSWire and labored rather intensively on this review. It is generally credited with being the most thorough review of the Umbraco CMS. I'm happy address any further questions any of you have about our processes or publication. Though I must say that this being my first discussion as part of Wikipedia, I am disappointed by the assertions made -- especially those that I know personally to be exaggerated beyond reason. --Bdunwood (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from the question of publishing "reviews" in return for reciprocal favours, which means that CMSWire is not an independent source, there is also the question of how CMSWire sources its own articles. I have seen CMSWire articles which have actually stated that their only source is Twitter, which makes it an unreliable source. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note JamesBWatson, CMSWire does not "[publish] reviews in return for reciprocal favours". And it certainly does not publish reviews based on Twitter content. Reviews are published based on the merit of the content. The review in question was written by CMSWire's managing editor, based on her original research and testing (as I mentioned above). I don't understand this campaign to slander the review or the source in question without yourself providing evidence for your claims. CMSWire is not The New York Times. OK, I get that. But if there are any real questions about the quality or motivations for the Umbraco CMS review I have yet to hear them. --Bdunwood (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from the question of publishing "reviews" in return for reciprocal favours, which means that CMSWire is not an independent source, there is also the question of how CMSWire sources its own articles. I have seen CMSWire articles which have actually stated that their only source is Twitter, which makes it an unreliable source. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even google takes paid advertisements. I see no indication there that CMSWire takes money in exchange for reviews. What you are proposing as an alternative is original research, and not very useful because the download counter gets reset on every version. I'm changing my vote to delete. Pcap ping 13:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This one doesn't reset - 97.000 downloads in 10 months, 3rd most downloaded app on the Microsoft Web Stack. You have hundreds of articles on WikiPedia covering less notable than this: http://microsoft.com/web/gallery/Categories.aspx --NHartvig (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm the founder and publisher of CMSWire and would like to say that your characterization of the site as "basically a review farm making money from selling ad space" is way off the mark. We publish roughly 200 original articles per month with 90% of those written by regular, on-staff writers. If you look at our CMS reviews section (http://www.cmswire.com/cms/cms-reviews/) you can see that since the Umbraco review on May 28, 2009 there has been exactly one other review published, on December 9, 2009. If this is your definition of a review farm, then something is very wrong with this discussion. Further, regarding your assertion that someone at CMSWire emails you every few months for "permission to write a 'review' in exchange for a reciprocal link" I would assert that your statement is a) confusing -- what does "permission to write a review" mean exactly? b) an exaggeration -- was it me who emailed you? How many times exactly? And can you provide the precise dates that this happened?, and c) the interaction was misrepresented -- we recruit specialized outside contributors all the time as a way of bringing in valuable, current lessons from the field. Nearly all trade magazines do such things -- there's just no way that journalists can know as much as field consultants. This practice is a great way of sharing knowledge in a sector. Regarding the discussion of a "reciprocal link", guest writers on CMSWire are always entitled to a bio section in their article and this includes a link to their project or company, etc. I consider this respectful and friendly. Reciprocal links are typically considered "link exchanges" and that is not at all what we are doing. I fail to see how a link in the author's bio detracts from the content, which IMHO should be evaluated independently. In reference to the Umbraco review written by Barb Mosher, this review is -- at any rate -- free of any such alleged contamination. Barb is the managing editor of CMSWire and labored rather intensively on this review. It is generally credited with being the most thorough review of the Umbraco CMS. I'm happy address any further questions any of you have about our processes or publication. Though I must say that this being my first discussion as part of Wikipedia, I am disappointed by the assertions made -- especially those that I know personally to be exaggerated beyond reason. --Bdunwood (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If those references are no good, how do you propose we establish what you just wrote? Pcap ping 06:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Covered only in one source, of questionable reliability. Pcap ping 13:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As is stated above by Miltiadis Kokkonidis, I think (and I'm new here and want to learn how to be a good participant) that the questions of article content quality and whether or not to keep the article are different. First of all, the thing Umbraco exists -- it's real, and there is a body of people interested in it and using it. Secondly, Microsoft has decided to offer this thing as part of their Web Platform Installer catalog of products (http://www.microsoft.com/Web/gallery/umbraco.aspx). Thirdly, this thing happens to rank as one of the most popular products in Microsoft's catalog (http://www.microsoft.com/web/gallery/featured.aspx). Fourthly, if you look at Google Trends (http://www.google.com/trends?q=plone%2C+umbraco) you see Umbraco closing in on the activity level of Plone and Plone has a Wikipedia page. Fifthly, there has been some detailed research (mentioned above) that shows that Umbraco ranks in the top 20 open source CMS products in terms of market share and social media activity. Personally, I don't particularly care nor do I have any financial interest in the Umbraco page living of being deleted, but the whole discussion here irks me -- I just can't see any reasonable argument for deleting a page about a real thing referenced by multiple credible sources when there is active work going on to respond to the complaints about the page's content quality. --Bdunwood (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC) — Bdunwood (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Unfortunately most of the above does not relate to Wikipedia's inclusion criteria at all. For example we are told "it exists- yes, it really does" (or words to that effect. However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about anything that exists: we require subjects to satisfy our notability criteria. Likewise "Microsoft has decided to offer this thing as part of their Web Platform Installer catalog". The fact that a particular company (even a large and prominent one) markets a product does not constitute notability: there needs to be evidence that there has been significant attention form independent observers. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe my previous comments have been cherry picked to build an unfair case. I think that criteria of notability is met by both the evidence of popularity in Microsoft's Web Platform Installer catalog and by the data you find in Google Trends. Can you please tell me why data from two of the largest websites on the Internet are being discounted? Are not Microsoft and Google considered reliable sources? --Bdunwood (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm finding it very hard to find independent sources of information about Umbraco. I did find an extensive review by an "an ethical SEO agency based in London" as well as regular coverage at CMSReport.com (group blog). Like CMSWire, these would not be my choice of sources but they are somewhat credible. It also appears to have a wide user-base including a regular conference. There are a number of consultants who'd like to install it for you as well as companies offering hosting. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Umbraco developer community and it's owner needs to understand that popularity and downloads do not constitute a need or right to an entry on an Encyclopedia. The article is written with a bias towards figures proving worth, rather than fact or information providing insight - to the average user this is no use. Comparisons to other listings on Wikipedia is futile, the article in question is all that counts. As a suggestion - any "figures" should be removed, and be replaced with more contextual information about the product, it's architecture, what and how it solves a particular problem/need. On looking at other CMS pages on Wikipedia, perhaps reading the Drupal listing could offer some direction in where to proceed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drupal ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.173.240 (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the drupal article, I fail to see why the Umbraco acrticle has to go. How ever i do agree that part the section about Umbraco's top x position is kind of spammy and should be edited.
Woltersw (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that criticism on the chin -- not my greatest NPOV work. I've found an article that was written end of last year with more neutral ranking of the main CMS's on .net that I'll update the page with shortly. --Mardenpb1 (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that the issue of speedy deletion has a negative effect on the article. Those like myself that think the article belongs in Wikipedia have to 1) prove Umbraco is noteworthy and 2) ensure the language and the kind of information found in the article are appropriate for an article in an encyclopedia, not some marketing brochure. When trying to prove umbraco is noteworthy, we end up trying to give figures and facts showing that it is one of the important players in the .NET CMS market. I feel a bit uncomfortable with a significant part of the article being about figures aiming to show Umbraco is a noteworthy .NET CMS. It is. We need to move on from there and concentrate on improving the article. Unfortunately, it does not feel safe to leave out such figures; we still feel that we need to show umbraco is a notable enough CMS to have an article in Wikipedia about it. To be honest, the article would be better off without some of them, but at the same time those of us that are contributing to this article would be better off, if we did not have to worry about two things at the same time. We need to finish with this speedy deletion dispute and work on the article. Once we know the article is here to stay, we may have a cooler head about deciding what facts and figures to include and which to leave out.
Miltiadis Kokkonidis (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[Note: I transferred the above three comments here from the article's discussion page.] Miltiadis Kokkonidis (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three questions: 1. Should or should not Wikipedia have an article on the top 3 .NET CMSs in terms of market share, assuming the articles are of the required quality and have an encyclopedic value? 2. Is umbraco one of those top 3 .NET CMSs? 3. Is the umbraco entry and does it have an encyclopedic value? My answers are: 1) yes, 2) I believe the evidence showing it is currently the #2.NET CMS, and 3) yes. In fact, I am able to find information now in the umbraco entry that I could not easily find elsewhere. For instance, I saw elsewhere that umbraco is tied to Microsoft SQL Server and this made it to my original version of the article. This has now been corrected. I had also written that it comes under an MIT open source licence, but now the article makes a distinction between the back-end and the UI. This is the kind of accurate, referenced, up-to-date information I have grown to expect Wikipedia to provide at a glance. Miltiadis Kokkonidis (talk) 08:23, 9 February 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) 00:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 2nd Manifesto
- The 2nd Manifesto (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 "demo" means it must be totally non-notable Richhoncho (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, "Demo" fails WP:N per article content. Jeepday (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete: While in most cases "Demo" refers to a collection of low quality rough-mixes, in this particular case "Demo" is being used in the context uses its secondary meaning of being a small collection of songs released before their first full-length album and before they received mainstream attention. The term "EP" could also be easily applied. This album and the music presented on it is just as notable as that on any other APB release. I suggest then, that instead of deletion, we just change its classification to "EP". Lagozzino (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non notable
- 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) 00:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
World Jewelry Center
- World Jewelry Center (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 project has been halted before even being started, and there's no indication it will ever happen at all; it's hard to see a reason for an article about a proposed boondoggle building. jpgordon::==( o ) 23:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "This project is currently on hold." That settles it. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The project may never be built. If it is, we can see then it if is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 8 February 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 (WP:NACD) CTJF83 chat 21:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plaza del Lago
- Plaza del Lago (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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "It is a historic landmark, and is considered the 2nd oldest shopping center" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And unverified. One can claim anything is an historical landmark. That's what caused me to not speedy the article under A7. Now it has to actually produce the goods to substantiate its notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the bulk of the thing is sourced to a book which, though obscure, is written by the same guy who wrote Illuminatus!, of all things. While that isn't perfect, it's above average as Wikipedia standards of notability go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And unverified. One can claim anything is an historical landmark. That's what caused me to not speedy the article under A7. Now it has to actually produce the goods to substantiate its notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This book (found with this search) claims the plaza was the reason the area did not 'regain commercial success until the plaza's construction', admittedly not in depth coverage, but it is a claim to WP:N. If I can find that in 10min, I am sure there are more Cites out there. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 03:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Easy Keep: I've found a slew of sources about this.Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Shopping_Centers#Plaza_del_Lago The article needs work, but this center appears to have a valid claim to being one of the oldest shopping centers in the United States, and it has been the subject of much coverage.--Milowent (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I wonder if there is pizza in this plaza. JBsupreme (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of sources now, easily notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 05:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm not sure about the "historic landmark" qualification, since it isn't listed on the National Register of Historic Places or anything like that, but since a book was written about this specific shopping center and since there are other book references to this, this center looks notable enough. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Multiple book refs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:19, 9 February 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) 00:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia - A New Community of Practice?
- Wikipedia - A New Community of Practice? (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)
Procedural nomination. Article was prodded by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs) but M3tainfo (talk · contribs) objected to deletion on article talk page and on NawlinWiki's user talk, therefore making deletion not uncontroversial. Original deletion rationale was "no sources to indicate that this book is notable."
I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 23:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of initial response to the request for deletion below. I'm not trying to make a big deal out of this, and it's not like I put a lot of work into it or anything, but I obviously would prefer the article was not deleted, hence against — M3TA(info) @ 15:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "There are currently no external sources to indicate notability due to the fact that the book was published in September 2009. I have a copy in front of me, and it is an academic treatment of the Wikipedia community, particularly as a Community of Practice, and as such I thought it would be relevant to include in the category of 'books about wikipedia'. I was in the process of writing a bit more as a description of the book and have now filled out the article slightly, including a few references. Since it's an academic book, the Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Academic_books guidelines suggest that it need only be based on 'how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines' and this appears to be the only serious book on Wikipedia from a historical sociological perspective (rather than, for example, a computer science perspective). I would also point out that the author is speaking at an academic conference on wikipedia in March this year. The article is also marked as a 'stub' so that it can be expanded if and when it is cited or reviewed in future."
- Also, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Review_desk where a review of this book (incorrectly titled 'Wikipedia: From Print to Text to Participation', but still by Daniel O'Sullivan) is requested, and User:Thespian has responded. I would also be happy to write a proper review.
- Delete - non-notable; "keep" argument is the tired old WP:UPANDCOMING, a clear WP:CRYSTAL violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ironically, the rules of Wikipedia go against having an article about this book that is about Wikipedia. Absent some showing of notability or notice within the publishing world, it doesn't qualify for its own page. Somehow, at $79.95 a copy, I don't think it's going to be on anyone's bestseller list. Mandsford (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no significant coverage that i can find, and author doesnt appear to pass WP notability either. appears to be a nonnotable academic work with little or no influence outside of academia.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as well ;) Now I think understand the notability guidelines better, although I'm still learning about wikipedia policies... — M3TA(info) @ 22:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as of G11. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:19, 9 February 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. None of the "stop delete" !votes provide evidence of the notability of this individual - basically saying "I know he is notable" is not sufficient evidence. No reliable sources of information were found so the information in the article cannot be verified. The consensus here is clearly to delete. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amir Madaninejad
- Amir Madaninejad (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)
Son of a millionaire, sole claim to notability. I believe this is a clear fail of WP:BIO, prod removed without explanation by IP author. RayTalk 23:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability is not inherited. Sole Soul (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop Delete Amir Madaninejad is well known in iranians and also in united kingdom. His father is well known in Iran and united states this can be confirmed from many sources, Mohamad Madaninejad, Banafsheh Madaninejad were interviewd by Fox news in austin texas. The family is a close friend to reza Pahlavi the son of mohamad reza pahlavi(shah of Iran). Amir Madaninejad was one of the producers of Adulthood.
The article Amir Madaninejad is 100% accurate and that can be verified from various sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.36.171 (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC) — 78.144.36.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Stop Delete Note User:RayAYang regarding to the user comments about article Amir Madaninejad, this article is not a fail of WP:BIO, Amir Madaninejad is well known for his work and his father mohamad madaninejad is well known among Iranians and for his work as a former CEO IPCO in Abadan-Iran in 80s. Please do not vandalise or make false accusations regarding to Amir Madaninejad article as this article can be confirmed from many liable sources. This article should not be Deleted. BBCTalk — british-broadcast (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete unless sources can be found to establish notability. Currently there are none. Hairhorn (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop Delete Madaninejad is known in Iran and the article Amir Madaninejad can be verified. Mohamad Madaninejad is well known in Iran specially for his work at IPCO. As a iranian my self i can confirm this article is 100% accurate. This article should not be Deleted.[User:Shohreh_Aghdashloo]] (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.75.86.201 (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whether or not he passes WP:BIO is irrelevent if no sources are presented in the article. WP:Verifiability is policy, and is strictly enforced for biographies. I've just had to remove a bunch of external links that pointed to sites that did not mention Madaninejad at all. Those above who have mentioned "various sources" may wish to actually provide some full citations. Marasmusine (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Using google; zero News hits. Zero Scholar hits. Zero Image hits. Zero Book hits. Web search has a single page of hits, most of which are nonsense spam pages, the remainder are broken or contain no useful information. So it looks like any sources are going to be from Iran - I await citations from the above users. Marasmusine (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop Delete Amir Madaninejad is well known in Iran. Majority of iranian know his family so it is wrong to suggest the article is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by British-broadcast (talk • contribs) 20:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC) — British-broadcast (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You've already voted once before (at least). AFD is about generating consensus, not about vote stacking. If he's so notable, then please add the sources demonstrating notability. Simply asserting that he's notable won't save the entry from deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop Delete We Have added a source regarding to the article Madaninejad, Most of the sources are coming from Iran. We will Update more sources as soon as we have them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by British-broadcast (talk • contribs) 14:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC) — British-broadcast (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You didn't add any sources at all (see Wikipedia:Citing sources for help). All you did was add an external link to Madaninejad's own webpage, which has almost no content, none of it relevant ("here are picture of boats in my hometown") and hasn't been updated for more than 3 years. And please stop voting already. Hairhorn (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have found more sources regarding Madaninejad's family and they books from Texas https://txspace.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/5750 for future reference please search for Madaninejad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by British-broadcast (talk • contribs) 14:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC) — British-broadcast (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete Obviously non-notable. Of the six reference links provided, five are to the websites of organizations or companies which are mentioned in the writeup, but which say nothing about this young man himself. The sixth is to a personal website. He's still a student for heavens sake! His claims to fame are 1) he's the son of a millionaire, 2) he's a trainee junior architect, 3) he might have had something to do with the production of a movie and a TV series. Meanwhile, the wording of comments makes it clear that many of the votes in this thread are from sockpuppets. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No genuine claim to notability. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 05:34, 10 February 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) 00:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Project Zoo Limited
- The Project Zoo Limited (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 almost looks like an ad with no reliable sources. 1 hit in gnews [4]. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete as spam. Pcap ping 03:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no coverage = no article. Marasmusine (talk) 12:08, 7 February 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 keep. NW (Talk) 23:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spectrum Health
- Spectrum Health (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)
Written like an advertisement and half the references are the company webpage. The Frozen Snowman (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not as much an advert as some I tag. Could do with outside referencing, but looks reasonably balanced to me, Peridon (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 3 February 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 keep. NW (Talk) 23:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GermaniumWeb
- GermaniumWeb (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)
Seems to just be a blatant advertisement. The Frozen Snowman (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not blatant as I read it. There are bits like "GermaniumWeb-powered real estate management systems consolidate all informational flows into the digital 3D building model, providing building owners with an intuitive and holistic view of all information relating to every unit and any location in the building. This allows building owners to have better building and facilities management.". (Whatever the heck that means...) Some of these could do with making more encyclopaedic (and comprehensible...). I've not checked out the refs yet, but notice one is on FaceBook. Not a good idea. May come back to this tomorrow. Peridon (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep The article is notable as it has coverage from CNET & University and it is well written. --75.154.186.6 (talk) 11:14, 8 February 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 deletion. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I Can't Have You (Kelly Clarkson song)
- If I Can't Have You (Kelly Clarkson song) (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 notible, only charted on the Bubbling Under chart, was never a single and is not being considered for a single that anyne knows of. Has only been mentioned on twitter as a possible, making the article a crystal ball Alan - talk 22:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:NSONGS, the sourced reviews are trivial mentions of articles about the entire album, the song is not sourced as being the next single from Kelly Clarkson and it barely charted on the Bubbling Under Chart for one week when the album was released. Unless it is released as a single, the article will not have enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article and is unlikely ever to grow beyond a stub article. Aspects (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If it charted, it's notable. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, It didn't chart on a notable chart. The bubble under is an extension of a chart, and rather meaningless. Read what the Bubble Under chart actually is here: Bubbling_Under_Hot_100_Singles; " It comprises 25 positions that represent songs that are close to charting on the main singles chart, the Billboard Hot 100", hence, It never charted on a major chart Alan - talk 03:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As Alankc points out, the Bubbling Under chart is effectively a chart of uncharted singles. The demand for entry is low enough that established acts like Clarkson will occasionally get unreleased album tracks show up on it as a statistical anomaly. One hit on the Bubbling Under chart does not, in my view, constitute "charting".—Kww(talk) 20:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep: It has enough information to warrant its own page and is not considered a stub, thus it should stay.....and the bubbling under hot 100 singles chart is still a chart and is one of Billboard's most popular charts....---Allyoueverwanted (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Brexxfor details.[reply]
- Comment the song charted on a non-significant chart (bubbling under) for one week, the description of the Bubbling Under chart itself is that it is not a chart, but an extension of a chart for songs that have not charted. Unless the song becomes a notable single, there will never be enough to validate the article to meet quality guidelines (it will never be more than a stub). Further more, the article was only created because Clarkson hinted in a twitter tweet that the song may possibly become a single (which may or may not be true) a day after saying on twitter that they are aiming for September for the next single (which also may or may not happen, just as her supposed album at the end of 2010 may or may not happen). This article belongs more ona fan-site than on wikipedia and completely fails WP:NSONGSAlan - talk 22:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As noted, the Bubbling Under chart is not a major chart, and there is no evidence that this song meets WP:NSONGS otherwise. —C.Fred (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as doesn't seem to met WP:NSONGS criteria, Bubbling Under not a significant chart. Adambro (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another note, the creator of this article (Allyoueverwanted), claiming it's the next single, has also created another article for a different song (All I Ever Wanted (Kelly Clarkson song)), claiming that one is the next single (created after this article, and has since been redirected).. which can easily fall under Hoax, and possibly have the editor banned from Wikipedia Alan - talk 00:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another note article creator (Allyoueverwanted) is blocked as a Sock Puppet of Brexx Alan - talk 19:12, 7 February 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 Mallu Magalhães (2009 album). Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shine Yellow
- Shine Yellow (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 meet WP:NSONGS, no indication that the song has charted anywhere, covered by a number of notable artists or won any significant awards. No indication that sufficient material is available to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Article has been redirected to the album per convention but article creator has reverted this several times without comment, bringing to AFD for larger discussion. RadioFan (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mallu Magalhães (2009 album), agree with the nom that this song does not meet the threshold of WP:NSONGS to warrent its own article. In addition to not meeting the criteria there is not "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". J04n(talk page) 19:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Shine Yellow, The article meets all obligations and should not be deleted or redirected to Mallu Magalhães (2009 album), it also serves as a source of information for many people. Finally it is also a single true, as yours truly who is the singer of the same country (Brazil) and I know the article is correct supplement in all respects.*FranklinG* (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment notability guidelines for songs are significantly more strict. I'm not seeing anything in the article such as mentions of awards, chart position, etc. that would indicate that this song might meet those guidelines. Being a source of information is nice but that is something for the artist's website, not Wikipedia.--RadioFan (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect not notable enough for it's own article Alan - talk 23:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mallu Magalhães (2009 album). For now, this does not appear to meet WP:NSONGS. As a relatively new single, perhaps it will chart and/or receive significant coverage at some point (I can not find evidence of either scenario at this time). Until then, I believe this falls short of the criteria for having an independent article. Gongshow Talk 04:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mallu Magalhães (2009 album) for now. It doesn't meet WP:NSONGS yet. Wine Guy Talk 10:41, 6 February 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
- Despite relisting, only one delete !vote (plus the nomination itself) was made. The comments (and the lack of work on the article since the AfD was originally opened) do not offer evidence of notability for this company. With no keep !votes, and no dissention apparent in the comments, I feel that the consensus is to delete. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Data Parallel Systems
- Alpha Data Parallel Systems (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 nonnotable microelectronics business. The only claims for notability is that components it manufactured are used in some famous locations. Not a word why the products or company are notable by themselves. We don't write articles abut a company which manufacture elevators for Empire State Building. - Altenmann >t 16:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Actually we do have an article about the company that made the Empire State Building elevators. But they're a historically significant business with a brand that's familiar to the general public. This is not, and notability is not inherited. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I know a bit about this company from researching the applications of the Alpha 21064 microprocessor and its derivatives. From what I can remember, I think that the company's original product was an image processing computer that used Alpha 21066 microprocessors and Transputers for communication. I think it was this product that made the company known in certain fields. I think the computer got some coverage in publications in the fields of parallel processing, image processing, and Transputers, but I have no knowledge about the impact of the company's contributions to those fields. The article presently does not mention this. Perhaps further research should be done to determine notability instead of basing it on an incomplete article. Rilak (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 23:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The company is commonly called "Alpha Data", which makes the default searches come back with nothing. I did find this eetimes.eu story, and it seems like a couple of the sources in the article are reliable. Unfortunately, most only give passing mention, so it may not establish notability needed for an article. Joshua Scott (talk) 01:46, 7 February 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 (NAC). Swarm(Talk) 06:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Packers Plus Energy Services
- Packers Plus Energy Services (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)
Apparently non-notable company; article created by a SPA. No independent third-party sources, despite a sources cleanup tag in place since October 2009. Psychonaut (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ernst & Young "Entrepeneur of the Year award" shows some notability, and other third party references are there as well. "SPA" is not a specific reason for deletion of an article on a notable company. Collect (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Awards like "Entrepreneur of the Year" generally count little for notability. This particular article is full of puffery (These systems have opened up previously uneconomic oil and gas reservoirs....) and is therefore spam regardless of whether the underlying subject is notable. At places, the promotional tone turns the text into patent nonsense that can't be understood well enough to even try to fix by editing. (....started Packers Plus to focus on completion technology solutions.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepComment Ernst & Young "Entrepeneur of the Year award" as it is relevant for understanding the role of Packers Plus Energy Services in Canadian business. More specifically the recognition of Packers Plus by Ernst & Young demonstrates that Packers Plus is a notable company within the oil and gas industry. As the page’s primary editor I would suggest including more recent references on this subject. The Financial Post published a relevant article on the subject January 29, 2010. [1] Egjackson (talk)Egjackson (talk) 10:52, 01 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
contribs) 17:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC) — Egjackson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Ernst & Young may indeed be notable, but notability is not inherited. As for editing the article, I'm not really getting a clear picture about what completion technology solutions might be, other than a string of glittering generalities. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepComment completions technology solutions. The fact that Packers Plus produces completions technology is a key characteristic in understanding the company’s role in the industry. As the primary editor of this page I would suggest providing more objective information on this topic by linking to Completion (oil and gas). This will provide a more general understanding of what completions technology means, increase the validity of the page, and eliminate the advertising tone of the entry.Egjackson (talk)Egjackson (talk) 11:03, 01 February 2010 (UTC)— Egjackson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]- comment It should be noted that "solutions" is one of the spammiest words that could possibly be used in an article, and should be avoided at all costs. It sets off all sorts of alarms in the minds of an editor.--Orange Mike | Talk 16:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply knowing what industry the company operates in doesn't help us understand their notability in it. The article doesn't make any claim that the company is notable even within its industry. For example, is it the largest or highest earning oil and gas completion company in Canada? Did it make some novel contribution to the technology behind oil and gas completion? Was it involved in a famous contract or lawsuit? If any of these held, that might be some reason for keeping the article. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ernst & Young may indeed be notable, but notability is not inherited. As for editing the article, I'm not really getting a clear picture about what completion technology solutions might be, other than a string of glittering generalities. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepComment. The fact that Packers Plus won the Entrepreneur of the Year Award in Canada should demonstrate notability itself. So in order to expand on this I would like to edit the description of the company's innovative technology to give a better indication of what is so notable about Packers Plus. The StackFRAC technology that has been created has resulted in successful recovery in previously non-producing tight gas wells. I will find the specific information and source it to edit out the puffery.Egjackson (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Egjackson (talk) 08:10, 02 February 2010 (UTC)— Egjackson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]- Googling for "StackFRAC" does turn up some some sources, including several articles on the Oil & Gas Inquirer magazine. Some of the articles are simply press releases by Packers Plus, but others appear to be written by Inquirer staff. Does anyone know anything about this magazine? Specifically, is it considered a reliable source within the oil and gas industry, and does Packers Plus have any controlling interest in the publication? —Psychonaut (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's another article covering StackFRAC and Packers Plus, this one from the apparently reputable Oilweek. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am working to improve the page, considering all the suggestions listed. As is clear, I am quite new at this process. I attempted to add in some information about the StackFRAC technology, although there were some excellent edits from other users already. Just an FYI that I am attempting to fix the page. Egjackson (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Egjackson — Egjackson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What is EGJackson's connection to the company? Guyonthesubway (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on the basis of the sources. I did some reorganizing and improvement of a slight promotional tone. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As the primary editor of this page I appreciate the help and will continue to edit the page. I would like to add some additional information on Packers Plus technology, referencing SPE papers, as they are a very reliable source. Part of the issue with the page may be that, although Packers Plus is relevant in the industry, it is a private company. As was added recently, Packers Plus is partnered with Schlumberger, which likely adds some notability. Egjackson (talk) 21:28, 8 February 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 Selwyn House School. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sexual abuse scandal in Selwyn House School
- Sexual abuse scandal in Selwyn House School (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)
Although this article refers to a "scandal", it is about several incidents which the article fails to connect. There is no evidence that any of these incidents were referred to as a scandal. There is already an article about the school. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the title fits perfectly with the existing category about school sex abuse scandals. Many of these types of events involve a large number of people over an extended period of time, with multiple arrests, inquiries and trials, therefore it is more than appropriate to refer to it as an abuse scandal of sexual nature. Besides, there are very similar article titles like this that were written for Catholic sex abuse cases, such as the sexual abuse scandal in Boston archdiocese for example. ADM (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as no sources connects all these miniscandals, whose notability is questionable to begin with, this would fall under WP:NOR. This is different from the abuse scandals in the the Boston archdiocese, where newspaper were indeed discussing a pattern of abuse and were connecting the individiual cases. Pantherskin (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- change to no opinion
without a source connecting these various incidents, lumping them together as one "coverup"/"pattern of activity" would appear to be a violation of WP:OR / WP:SYN.The use of "scandal" in the title also seems problematic with WP:NPOV, although that is not reason to delete in and of itself. MM. 207.69.137.39 (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I found this source that I think supports the argument that they are connected andyzweb (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/05/12/jonathan-kay-on-his-alma-mater-selwyn-house-then-and-now.aspx#ixzz0dr4OhfEg The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.
- The article actually says the opposite: "casual news readers might be deceived into thinking that Friday’s bombshell is part of some sort of uninterrupted epidemic of abuse." The Four Deuces (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Selwyn House School. There isn't one sex abuse scandal, so much as a series of seemingly unrelated scandals, which is the point, it seems that the source Andyzweb was able to track down is trying to make. We'd need a source to group them together as a single, ongoing, scandal in order to warrant this article as it currently stands. In particular, Doucet's case is only connected to the school because he was a teacher there - the crimes in which he accused were unrelated to the institution. Given that, I think the content could be better treated as part of the school's article. - Bilby (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and move anything notable to the school to the school article as a single article it gives undo weight on unrelated incidents. MilborneOne (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Selwyn House School This content would be better placed in the school article. The scandal has not garnered enough coverage to be notable as a separate entity. Additionally, the topic does not pass the notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (events). Cunard (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Selwyn House School. I don't see any reason why this should exist as a stand-alone article when all the information here would fit perfectly well as 2 four sentence paragraphs in the Sexual abuse allegations section of the school's article. Wine Guy Talk 02:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Does not warrant or need a sep article. JBsupreme (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- merge Not defensible as a separate article. Looking in relevant categories, I really do not see any other equally badly focused and badly titled article. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think the '$5 million compensation' section gives reason to think these apparently separate scandals are all connected - the linked article refers to the teachers who are mentioned in the first two sections. I wouldn't object to a merge if the information is preserved, but I think there's enough here for a separate article without violating WP:SYN. Robofish (talk) 02:02, 9 February 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. not necessary to merge and no required for attribution and covered where visitors might reasonably expect to find it and nbot a useful search term for a redirect. So the only question is does the article meet inclusion criteria for standalone notability. the consensus is that it doesnt Spartaz Humbug! 07:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2010 Ohio Mitsubishi MU-2 crash
- 2010 Ohio Mitsubishi MU-2 crash (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 does not meet the notability standards for aviation accidents set out at WP:AIRCRASH. It might merit a sentence at the article about the airport, but nothing more than that. The article about the make of plane suggests that this event was not a significant accident for the type. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
Merge into Lorain County Regional Airport. Clearly fails WP:AIRCRASH, but I feel that it should be included in the airport's page per WP:AIRCRASH. mynameinc (t|c) 16:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)mynameinc (t|c) 21:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Merge into Mitsubishi MU-2, and NOT the airport article - the article of the plane has a section specifically addressing its safety concerns, so it would probably be better to merge it into the article of the plane rather than the airport. Blodance the Seeker 17:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment both the airport and the plane now have the standard accidents and incidents sections that airport and plane articles have, with the typical one-line to one-paragraph accident/incident overviews. As I did not use the article for a source of work (only the references to the article) there is no merge, no attribution history to be checked against and this article can be deleted. 76.66.195.93 (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: adequately covered under the airport article. Mjroots (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not-notable, not really notable for the aircraft article either. MilborneOne (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Lorain Airport and Mitsubishi MU-2 articles, it's a plane crash so even though it's not notable it deserves some reports and it is apparently the worst ever crash of a Mitsubishi MU-2 or in Lorain. Ggoere (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge add to the Mitsubishi MU-2#Safety_Concerns but that portion of the article really needs some attention andyzweb (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I strongly disagree with the above opinions, this is a plane accident that killed multiple people and is still relatively recent, meaning future discoveries on the plane crash might still come to light. I tend to be opposed to many of the criterion in WP:AIRCRASH which by the way is an essay, not Wikipedia guidelines or policy. Notability can be established using many of the hundreds of articles there are on this topic thus satisfying WP:RS. Here is just a taste of the many third party sources available; [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. What makes this less notable then other accidents where less people died? (And please don't go citing otherstuffexists on me) The fact remains that people lost there lives, in a place crash with unknown circumstances and we have references to expand and maintain this article. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get it. If you realize that others may cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on you, I thought you should provide an explaination with regards to why it does not apply, rather than saying "PLZ DUNT DO DAT, SRSLY". Anyway, the actual issue is irrelevant - general aviation incidents are different from scheduled commercial flights. Notability does not depend on number of fatalities. Are airliner incidents entirely lacking fatalities or with only a single fatality any less notable than a random Cessna plane crash where possibly 3 or 4 people perished? Probably not. This incident fails WP:NOTNEWS. Blodance the Seeker 03:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well in regards to otherstuffexists, I was almost 100% sure someone would cite it on me but I think my point about aviation fatalities is still valid. But thats starting to fork off into another discussion. The real issue is that we don't have any true aviation guidelines on Wikipedia, sure yes as it has already been noted WP:AIRCRASH is a project guidline that many have come to follow, but is not an official notability guideline. I don't like following essays when we have a general notability guideline. Plus there are plenty of sources and while one might say is just WP:NOTNEWS it actually can help to grow this article while we wait for the NTSB report. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you noted the previous AfDs about aviation incidents, you might have noted that people generally agree with this version of WP:AIRCRASH so far. i.e. As far as I can see, the community consensus is with it. This incident as of now does not appear to be notable, and we are not supposed to "wait till it (perhaps) becomes notable", as there are no strong/convincing evidence that the incident is notable. If it really turned out to be notable later, we can always undelete this one. Blodance the Seeker 17:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have commented in many air crash related afds before and never seen this consensus you are talking about, but perhaps times are changing. And im not saying to wait until this becomes more notable, but rather making a remark that it may become even more notable. The fact of the matter is that WP:AIRCRASH is still not an adopted guideline as distinguished by community consensus, until that time comes it is no more then an essay even if it does have support from people who take place in these afds. There are many reliable sources which satisfy WP:N and WP:RS, but they have been overlooked. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've checked the sources - they discuss the deceased people(especially Donald Brown) extensively, but when it comes to the plane crash itself... sorry, I really won't call that "significant coverage". Also, there is a reason why WikiProjects are encouraged to write essays on notability. Blodance the Seeker 02:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having reliable sources does not make something notable. I could find hundreds of reliable sources on each day's stock market movement, but we don't have an article over those, and (probably) never will. It's significant coverage within those reliable sources, which this topic fails to have. mynameinc (t|c) 03:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well of course they should write essays as "guidance", rather then guidelines (of less they are adopted as such) I have seen many different variations of WP:AIRCRASH from very weak regulations to the conservative ones used today. I have been a member of WP:AVIATION since its inception and we have never had any clear guideline for aircraft incidents. Even as recently as November/December this version has received some criticism; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability#challenge to the guideline. But if we are going to use WP:AIRCRASH perhaps we should look and see if this incident may meet the people criteria, it sound like Donald Brown may be an important person. As for the reliable sources aspect, I would say that the sources out there satisfy WP:GNG. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Brown invented the drop ceiling. That doesn't make him notable. Also, this is something that was covered once in the news. In fact, the article is written like a news article. mynameinc (t|c) 14:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read the definitions section at the top of WP:AIRCRASH it says "A notable person or group is one that has their own Wikipedia article.", the person killed in this crash does not have an article according to the Donald Brown dab page. Also, the People section says "If the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage should normally be on the article about the person or group" and the specific criteria that you are claiming notability under (P1) says "A standalone article will normally only be appropriate if more than just the notable person or group is significantly involved.".
- Regarding the "challenge to the guideline" you cite, nobody has initiated discussion on any specific aspect of the guideline that they feel could be improved in the nearly five months since they were implemented (21 September 2009), despite there being an explicit request for comments at the top of the guidelines. The discussion that ultimately resulted in the current guidelines gaining consensus lasted about 2.5 months (early July to late September). All this, and the numerous times they've been cited in deletion discussions since then, suggests to me that despite being just guidelines they do enjoy consensus. If you have specific comments about one or more of the criteria then please start a discussion at WT:AIRCRASH as requested. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well of course they should write essays as "guidance", rather then guidelines (of less they are adopted as such) I have seen many different variations of WP:AIRCRASH from very weak regulations to the conservative ones used today. I have been a member of WP:AVIATION since its inception and we have never had any clear guideline for aircraft incidents. Even as recently as November/December this version has received some criticism; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability#challenge to the guideline. But if we are going to use WP:AIRCRASH perhaps we should look and see if this incident may meet the people criteria, it sound like Donald Brown may be an important person. As for the reliable sources aspect, I would say that the sources out there satisfy WP:GNG. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having reliable sources does not make something notable. I could find hundreds of reliable sources on each day's stock market movement, but we don't have an article over those, and (probably) never will. It's significant coverage within those reliable sources, which this topic fails to have. mynameinc (t|c) 03:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well someone moved WP:AIRCRASH, and the discussion I was referring too sometime within the past 36 hours. But if it truly is the "consensus" then obviously we are taking a a very strong and conservative approach towards such accidents. -Marcusmax(speak) 18:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- erm, WP:AIRCRASH has not been moved. The discussion you referred to has been automatically moved to the talk page archive by a bot (irrc the settings are that all threads older than 60 days are so moved unless doing so would leave less than three threads on the page. I started two new threads yesterday, so that probably triggered the bot to move the old ones). Discussion has just started again about the guidelines, but so far nobody has commented about changing this particular criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've checked the sources - they discuss the deceased people(especially Donald Brown) extensively, but when it comes to the plane crash itself... sorry, I really won't call that "significant coverage". Also, there is a reason why WikiProjects are encouraged to write essays on notability. Blodance the Seeker 02:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have commented in many air crash related afds before and never seen this consensus you are talking about, but perhaps times are changing. And im not saying to wait until this becomes more notable, but rather making a remark that it may become even more notable. The fact of the matter is that WP:AIRCRASH is still not an adopted guideline as distinguished by community consensus, until that time comes it is no more then an essay even if it does have support from people who take place in these afds. There are many reliable sources which satisfy WP:N and WP:RS, but they have been overlooked. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you noted the previous AfDs about aviation incidents, you might have noted that people generally agree with this version of WP:AIRCRASH so far. i.e. As far as I can see, the community consensus is with it. This incident as of now does not appear to be notable, and we are not supposed to "wait till it (perhaps) becomes notable", as there are no strong/convincing evidence that the incident is notable. If it really turned out to be notable later, we can always undelete this one. Blodance the Seeker 17:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well in regards to otherstuffexists, I was almost 100% sure someone would cite it on me but I think my point about aviation fatalities is still valid. But thats starting to fork off into another discussion. The real issue is that we don't have any true aviation guidelines on Wikipedia, sure yes as it has already been noted WP:AIRCRASH is a project guidline that many have come to follow, but is not an official notability guideline. I don't like following essays when we have a general notability guideline. Plus there are plenty of sources and while one might say is just WP:NOTNEWS it actually can help to grow this article while we wait for the NTSB report. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:19, 4 February 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! 07:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Herbert Hudson Taylor IV
- Herbert Hudson Taylor IV (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 college athlete. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Time2evolve (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)See below comment — Time2evolve (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep: Hudson Taylor is currently the most historic wrestler in the University of Maryland's history. The institution has an important role in Division I collegiate athletics; and its athletic program is one of the largest and most successful in the United States. The wrestling team is ranked top-ten in the country and has a very famous head coach. Hudson holds records for career pins and wins at the University of Maryland. This is very significant. In 2008, Hudson became the second All-American in the sport in three decades at the University of Maryland; and, in 2009 Hudson became only the fourth repeat all-American in Maryland history. Additionally, Hudson is currently among the top-ten in all-time NCAA history (including Divisions I,II, and III)for career pinning. He is famous among the wrestling community for his pinning talent. As of January 2010, Hudson is en-route, with less than ten pins remaining, to become top-four all-time NCAA pinners. He is also top-three NCAA pinners in the last quarter century. These facts makes him a very noteworthy historical figure in collegiate wrestling, both at UMD and in the ACC and NCAA. As discussed in the article, the ACC has named Hudson Wrestler of the Week a record twelve times. This is a remarkable figure. Hudson’s notworthiness is also apparent, as several articles on Wikipedia reference him, including the University of Maryland's page as well as their head coach's page, Kerry McCoy. Please understand that Hudson is a distinctively significant figure in the collegiate wrestling community. His accomplishments will have a long lasting role in NCAA history. Also, Hudson will likely go on to coach in Division I collegiate athletics. Furthermore, in the past two years, he has won more community service, athletic and leadership awards from the University of Maryland than any other athlete at the school (this includes the University's tremendous basketball and football athletes). UMD produces some of the finest and most famous athletes in the world. Additionally, if you "google" Hudson Taylor Maryland wrestling almost 20,000 pages show up. Though, some likely include commentary on his great-great grandfather; who was a tremendously influential Christian missionary in China. Please also consider that Hudson has very famous ancestors, whose legacy bring significant public attention to Hudson's accomplishments. — Liawilde415 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
- — Note to closing admin: Liawilde415 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I suggest that you read WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. Does he meet those criteria? If so, how? What independent third-party verifiable reliable sources have written about him? That's what's needed here, not what nice guys he and his nth-great grandfathers were. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Thank you very much for the suggestions. I appreciate your help. There are thousands of third sources that mention him. Here are some specific ones that focus on his unique achievements in collegiate wrestling
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Maryland,_College_Park
- http://www.umterps.com/sports/m-wrestl/spec-rel/042209aaa.html
- http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-wrestl/spec-rel/120809aaa.html
- http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-wrestl/spec-rel/022608aaa.html
- http://dcsportsbox.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=763&Itemid=70
- http://www.marylandwrestlingnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85:marylands-hudson-taylor-named-acc-wreslter-of-the-week&catid=21:college-take-down
Liawilde415 (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Liawilde415 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Reply - The above sources are important; however the article itself provides excellent sources and documents nearly all stated assertions. Also, it ought to be noted that the University of Maryland page itself mentions Taylor as a notable athlete in the school's athletic history. UMD is one of the best athletic schools in the country. And Taylor is their all-time best. I'd like to highlight that the collegiate wrestling world is the highest level for American style wrestling. If we don't allow collegiate hall-of-famers at major Division I institutions to be considered "notable", particularly when they are NCAA and conference hall-of-famers, we risk ignoring a whole group of very notable athletes. These people have reached the highest level of achievement in their respective sport and they are famous in the American style wrestling world. Time2evolve (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Time2evolve (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Wikipedia is not a source, and the other five sources prove one thing; he was an amateur wrestler who did not compete at a high enough level to meet inclusion. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I was very happy to see this new article. Herbert Hudson Taylor IV (known as Hudson Taylor in the wrestling community) is not just a "big name" of the moment. He is a significant figure in the Maryland athletic community and will have a longstanding place in its history books. The article does not currently address this point, but he has had a major role in reviving UMD wrestling. This is particularly important, because UMD is a major athletic institution where several programs have fallen due to Title 9 and budgetary concerns. Wrestling has survived and largely because of the success Hudson Taylor has brought. He is very important to the University of Maryland's athletic narrative; and as an NCAA hall-of-famer, I can't imagine why he would not be included on Wikipedia. As someone not familiar with his significance, I can understand the concern. But, I strongly believe that this article should remain on the website. Time2evolve (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— Time2evolve (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Duplicate !vote: Time2evolve (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
- Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:ATHLETE although he had a good career as a college athlete. Did not compete as a professional, nor in the Olympics or a world championship. Edison (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Hudson's notability is not solely because of his success, in and of itself. Hudson is notable because of the impact of his achievements in their larger contexts (namely, the University of Maryland, the ACC and the NCAA). He is a hall-of-famer in all three venues. Further, there are several athletes on Wikipedia who do not have that hall-of-fame status (including: Joe Dubuque, Cole Konrad, and Dustin Schlatter). I am not advocating that their pages be deleted. Accessing information about these athletes is imperative to college recruitment and all-around wrestling knowledge. But, Hudson is more than deserving given his role in the NCAA. Liawilde415 (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: Liawilde415 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. — Liawilde415 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Reply - In addition to the links I gave above, I also recommend that you read WP:INHERIT (regarding his "very famous ancestors") and WP:Other stuff exists (regarding those other athletes). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I understand the concern about trying to limit Wikipedia articles to
people who have competed in the Olympic games; however this is a very burdening policy for famous amatuer wrestlers. The Olympic and international levels include form of wrestling that is NOT used in schools (from elementary to college). Accordingly, some of the best and most famous amatuer wrestlers do not go on to the international level, because it is a different type of wrestling. Similarly, professional wrestling (like the WWE) is very different from international wrestling and from scholastic wrestling in the United States. Accordingly, some of the country's most successful and famous wrestlers are collegiate wrestlers. This is why it makes perfect sense for people like Hudson Taylor and Joe Dubuque to have Wikipedia pages. They are not professionals or international wrestlers, but they are beyond elite and notable on the national level. Not to mention, Hudson Taylor is an NCAA hall-of-famer. This is about as notable as you can be as an American style wrestler. Time2evolve (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: Time2evolve (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. — Time2evolve (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Not sure there is justification for declining this article on the basis of the notability of the subject. According to the guidelines, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." College wrestler Hudson Taylor is particularly notable for helping to raise the profile of wrestling in the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC). Coming out of high school Hudson was one of the top recruits in the country - specifically recruited by Big Ten schools Wisconsin, Michigan and Penn State as well as by traditional wrestling power, Lehigh. His decision to attend the University of Maryland a school without a recent history of success in Division I wrestling was significant and was soon followed by other top recruits selecting Maryland. The other ACC programs also benefited from renewed interest in wrestling. In just a few short years, the ACC went from having no All Americans in 2007 to having two in 2008 and 8 in 2009. Hudson was Marylands first All American since 1997 and first 2x AA since 1993. In 2009 the University of Maryland had 3 wrestlers earn All American honors - the first time since 1987. The article identifies Hudson Taylor's notable style of wrestling - which has produced a record number of wins by fall. Winning by fall is the ultimate goal of american style scholastic wrestling and Hudson has long had a reputation as a pinner. It is noteworthy that Hudson already has more career pins then all but a few of the wrestlers in the 100+ year history of Division I competition.--Nigelfothergill (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Nigelfothergill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep: I’m new to Wikipedia and came across Hudson Taylor’s page while looking under the wrestlers. I decided to post here because, as someone familiar with American wrestling, I can attest to the fact that you can’t be much more notable than Hudson Taylor in folkstyle. It seems inappropriate, based on the nature of amateur wrestling to require that an amateur folkstyle wrestler be a “professional” WWE wrestler or an international wrestler, because the formal styles are totally different. Of course, the wrestler must be important and significant within the folkstyle world to garner a Wikipedia page. This is why Hudson’s record-breaking career is so relevant to his notability. Please keep in mind that all wrestlers who compete in affiliation with an academic institution wrestle folkstyle. Folkstyle is the national American style of wrestling. Thus, in that realm, a hall-of-fame athlete like Hudson Taylor (whose become notable in UMD, ACC and, most importantly NCAA history) is at the upper-echelon of notoriety. Rachelb2 (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — Rachelb2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete, not notable, despite all the noise in here. Hairhorn (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep : Came across Taylor's article while googling his name to
find out current wrestling info (search terms were “Hudson Taylor maryland”). Definitely keep this page. He’s a major figure in national wrestling and has a permanent place in the Maryland and NCAA books. I looked up the Wikirules on this and it seems to fit. It was also interesting to learn that he’s gotten 12 Athlete of the Week honors from the ACC. That’s got to be an ACC record for wrestling as well. He’s not just some good college athlete—he’s a prominent figure who has changed the face of the sport for Maryland and the ACC. The article provides legit sources too—it’s very informative. Chasec87 (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — Chasec87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Try again if/when he becomes a pro. Favonian (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and strikethrough all the SPA sockpuppets. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It does not failWP:ATHLETE--to require an American wrestler to become a "pro" would ignore that the style of sport are completely different. All of the above arguments to keep this article make perfect sense; and the votes to delete it are cursory. Also, the rules specifically say that new users are welcome to comment on these discussion boards. Further, admins normally don't delete pages unless there is a consensus. Gtobias57 (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — Gtobias57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Actually "Gtobias57", it is easily possible for an AfD to one single delete vote against one hundred keep votes and still delete an article, as this is about discussion and not voting, something that you and the rest of the SPA "Save Herbert Taylor Army" do not seem to understand. The discussion is to try and figure out if the article meets the bar for notability, a hundred keep votes will not save a page that fails to meet the bar for notability. This article fails to meet the bar, and registering twenty accounts to all vote keep does not change that. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Hi Darrenhusted; I appreciate your help clarifying Wikipolicy. All I was trying to say was that this article on Herbert Hudson Taylor IV is important; and that the merits of the arguments above (which suggest that Wikipedia keep the article) make a lot of sense. And, I saw from the guidelines that it's the merits of the arguments that matter. I'm new to Wikipedia and I didn't join an army. I decided to post when I saw that Taylor's page was tag. If you google his name and team the page comes up right away. Thanks again though--this system seems really organized and clear. I'm glad to learn more about it.Gtobias57 (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply New users are welcome to comment. And I can understand User:Liawilde415 wanting to keep, they created the article, but User:Time2evolve, User:Nigelfothergill, User:Rachelb2, User:Chasec87 and you have all registered solely to comment here. In addition Time2evolve and Chasec87 both add comments by returning before the end of a line, not to mention the syntax of the first five keepers is very similar. There are guidelines for inclusion, reached with much discussion by Wikipedia editors who have contributed more than the same keep !vote three times to one AfD. He fails WP:ATHLETE, no amount of bluster will change that, he never competed in the Olympics or any other international competition, so he will never meet the bar (unless he does something else like run for congress in 7 years time), until then registering five other accounts (could be one individual, could be five friends) and votestacking won't change that. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 01:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but allow recreation if the kid gains true prominence. Until then, this article (and the kid) fail WP:ATHLETE. For those not looking at Wikipedia's Athlete link, I have two questions: Has this athlete competed professionally? Has this athlete competed in the Olympics or some World Championship? No? Then the kid doesn't meet WP:Athlete. Nikki is right as well...the article fails to meet WP:GNG. Finally, "Professional Wrestling" (i.e. WWE) and competing in Greco-Roman wrestling at a Professional level are two different things. I am surprised someone at the college level would miss that distinction. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 04:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply If I understand the WP:ATHLETE argument put forward by Brian NO college athlete in any sport with a professional league is notable - because they have not reach the higher platitude. I found a number of current college football and basketball players with articles. It needs to be clearly understood that there is currently no professional version of American college wrestling. The WWxx is considered an athletic farce by serious wrestler/athletes. Some college wrestlers chose to enter the professional ranks of ultimate fighting (UFC) or MMA, however, this is not an extension of college wrestling but leverages the same skill set. Many American college wrestlers do chose to pursue an Olympic opportunity in either Grecco Roman or the more popular Freestyle version. If true athletic notability in wrestling is to be considered then only scholastic (also known as "Folkstyle" - including American collegiate) and Olympic styles are relevant to notability WP:ATHLETE. Obviously WWxx or other "professional" "wrestlers" can be notable for many reasons - however - not first and foremost for being "athletes" (as per WP:ATHLETE). --Nigelfothergill (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The guidelines for ATHLETE are simple, compete at the Olympics (or other international competition as an amateur) or as a professional. Or do something else, like publish some books or star in a film or release an album. UFC, MMA, WWE or TNA would be options for amateurs, but if the sum total of the person's achievement is wrestling at the collegiate level then they have not done enough to have an article. ATHLETE is a bright line standard, you either pass of fail, Taylor fails. You are right "NO college athlete in any sport... is notable", unless they compete at the highest level. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Whilst there may be issues with WP:ATHLETE, I don't see an issue with WP:BIO and there is definitely a case for a pass in both WP:N and WP:GNG. I think this would be a case of believing that a likely pass for WP:ATHLETE is coming - probably in London in 2012. I know that's crystal balling but as long as the other passes are there I think we could apply WP:IAR here in order to overcome WP:ATHLETE requirements. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 10:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then delete for now and recreate once he competes in the Olympics. We don't judge bios on future performance, that opens a can of worms for all BLPs. Should we then start allowing band bios because they will have an album out in two years time? Put bios for 12 year olds acting in nativity plays because in two years they will be in films? He's an amateur wrestler know for being an amateur wrestler and nothing else, there are hundreds of wrestler all of whom may compete in the Olympics, but at the same time he could tear a muscle next week and his career could be over, there's no reason to IAR on a BLP, without the wrestling he doesn't pass the GNG, with it he doesn't pass ATHLETE. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I am of the opinion that sometimes exceptions should be made to the general rule about athletes, especially when an amateur is, if true, one of the "top-ten pinners in all-time NCAA history." The sourcing must be appropriate as well, but the NCAA website is fine for me. Bearian (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In collegiate or freestyle wrestling, the NCAA is the highest level. WP:ATHLETE states that the highest level is usually considered to be the Olympics, not that it is required to be the Olympics. Both Sam Bradford and Colt McCoy have articles even though they have not competed at the professional level and there is no international competition for American football. Taylor should be evaluated on that standard, not that he is not a professional or an Olympian. (GregJackP (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Sam Bradford and Tebow (to address below) won the Heisman and Colt McCoy was runner-up, That's an achievement. But mostly it has little to do with Taylor. His career so far does not justify a bio, and without it he doesn't pass GNG. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete – First off, there are many situations where a college athlete is notable enough for an article, so I don't buy that line of reasoning (are we going to delete Tim Tebow now?) In cases like this, the GNG carries great weight for me, since we don't want pages on every college athlete ever. Unfortunately, I don't think any of the references provided can be considered substantial third-party coverage, which is needed for general notability. Most of the pages are either from his school or the team's conference, and none of the rest appear substantial. I looked on Google News for him and didn't find anything establishing notability in my mind, though I am open to see what others can find. Also, if this gets kept, I would recommend renaming to Hudson Taylor, which seems to be what he is commonly named. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He placed third in a national championship. If he had placed first, i would have said keep. I'm perfectly willing to have college athletes; if we want to extend the criteria for notability somewhat, I wouldn't oppose it, but we would need a general discussion, not one driven by a group of fans of a particular athlete. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, DGG's right. Abductive (reasoning) 03:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply There are 10 folkstyle wrestlers who place first every year in the NCAA national tournament--that is a huge pool of people. Hudson is top-ten, approaching on top-four, all-time for falls in NCAA history. That's a very limited, elite class of wrestlers. Liawilde415 (talk) 05:43, 11 February 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) 00:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gallery of Diamonds
- Gallery of Diamonds (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 local jeweler who runs a contest that has gotten a couple of mentions in small newspapers and trade journals. I don't think it satisfies WP:CORP or WP:N in general. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. Zero coverage on Google News for either the jeweler or his contest. Google hits are limited to the company's own website and local business directories. --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 8 February 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) 00:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Margaret Tor-Thompson
- Margaret Tor-Thompson (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 about a non-notable Liberian politician who was never elected to any office. This same stub of information is already included within Liberian general election, 2005 Onthegogo (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep An article about an influential activist who ran for President which has multiple independent sources is clearly notable. The information regarding her death from breast cancer in 2007 and her career as an activist and religious official is not and should not be included in election article.--TM 22:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Most of the other unsuccessful candidates from the Liberian presidential election, 2005 have proven to be notable for other reasons, such as humanitarian actions or other political activity. There is media coverage of her fight with cancer and her eventual death. The article refers to her as an "influential activist". - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per TM. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:36, 5 February 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 to delete. There is no consensus as to the notability of the organization in the discussion below. The feasibility and appropriateness of a merge/redirect can be discussed on the article's talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Americans for Peace and Tolerance
- Americans for Peace and Tolerance (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 is nothing to indicate why the subject is notable, and I cannot find anything to suggest that it meets any criteria for inclusion, specifically WP:ORG. All mentions I can see appear to be incidental and many are merely Jacbob's opinion pieces. wjematherbigissue 21:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Has clearly been the subject of significant coverage in multiple articles in verifiable, reliable, independent secondary sources (both within and outside the U.S.). As a sidenote, this is a bad faith nomination. The nom, with whom I cannot recall ever having had contact before, had just completed a testy exchange with me on a completely unrelated subject. Hours later, he made this nomination -- of an article I had just created.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, wp:org says (in part):
- A[n] organization ... is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources....
- If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources [which we have here] should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability....
- Evidence of attention by international [which we have in this case] or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.
- "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". This is all we have here. wjematherbigissue 16:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If there was any attention paid to the organization, you might have something here. There hasn't been. The group is mentioned solely in the context of "Soandso, deputy vice panjamon of Americans for Peace and Tolerance, says ..." RGTraynor 19:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ORG clarifies what is considered "trivial" or "incidental" for these purposes.
- "Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story." What that means is that if there is a quote to the effect that "Joe, the President of X Corp, happened to be walking down the street when the firefight broke out, and says the terrorist shot first" -- well then, that would not count towards notability of X Corp. Here, that is not the case. Every instance where there is a quote, the person quoted is being quoted in their position as, and speaking for, APT.
- Furthermore, WP:ORG goes on to clarify what is meant by trivial or incidental mentions: "Neither do the publication of routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, routine mergers or sales of part of the business, the addition or dropping of product lines, or facility openings or closings, unless these events themselves are the subject of sustained, independent interest." What we have here is much more than that -- we have multiple independent articles, with international coverage, of APT's people speaking about, typically, a main or the main issue of the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So then include those views in the articles related to the topic of the comments, you still dont have a single source that talks about the organization itself. nableezy - 21:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We have extensive coverage throughout by RSs both within and outside the US of issues that are the main focus of the article, by an organization whose role is to comment on issues. Including an RS printing an op ed. That's clearly more than what is meant by trivial and incidental (far more than mention of someone being hired by the company, or it closing an office, and the other examples in wp:org). As DGG says below, this sort of coverage is standard for what we rely on for organizations of this type.
- Put another way, when a newspaper covers a company, integral to its coverage is the company's product. Here, this company is in the business of taking positions on issues, and the article is replete with RS refs covering instances of the company's officers/directors/employee doing just that.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And these quotes are specifically covered by WP:ORG, which explicitly states "Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story." (emphasis mine) That a number of users are ignorant of the provisions of WP:ORG I don't deny, but their lack of understanding of the relevant guideline doesn't invalidate that guideline. RGTraynor 11:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @RGT: Already addressed above.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And these quotes are specifically covered by WP:ORG, which explicitly states "Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story." (emphasis mine) That a number of users are ignorant of the provisions of WP:ORG I don't deny, but their lack of understanding of the relevant guideline doesn't invalidate that guideline. RGTraynor 11:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So then include those views in the articles related to the topic of the comments, you still dont have a single source that talks about the organization itself. nableezy - 21:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Reserving judgment on the article until I get a chance to dig a little further and see other comments. I would however like to comment that I see no bad faith here. I see an editor going through the history of a single purpose editor who tenaciously edits with s strong POV. That aside I encourage people to not get side tracked and examine the article for themselves. It's here now let's not get bogged down in arguing why it's here. Ridernyc (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Going through the history" of an editor and AFD'ing things doesn't sound appropriate to me. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Charles Jacobs (political activist) nearly every references is simply quoting Jacobs and credits him as head of the organization. Only one references seems to actually have anything to do with the group. Ridernyc (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here, as with some similar comments below, I believe the point that is missed is that when Jacobs is referred to in the refs (including quotes, his Boston Globe op-ed article, etc), it is as the President or a founder or board member of APT. The comments are all therefore clearly attributable to him in his APT role.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect. A coatrack of opinions of the head of the organization with barely any information about the organization itself from 3rd-party sources. nableezy - 02:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluation of sources by Nableezy |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There are currently 13 sources cited. That may seem like a lot, but none of these sources are independent secondary sources that make anything more than a passing mention of the organization. The references are as follows:
In total, there are 0 (possibly one, though I doubt it) independent secondary reliable sources that provide any type of substantial coverage of the organization. The entirety of the coverage in all of the independent secondary sources is that Charles Jacobs is the president, the organization is "a group devoted to exposing Islamic extremism", and it was founded by Jacobs with Dennis Hale and Ahmed Mansour. There is no substantial coverage of the organization in any of the references I have been able to check, save the "About Us" page at the organization's website. nableezy - 08:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Keep Sourcing is well beyond adequate, and organization definitely seems notable in the Boston area per local and international press coverage. I'm also finding it difficult to assume good faith after seeing the earlier dispute between the nom and the author about a different AFD. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Superficially, this is a well sourced article, but if you actually read the sources provided, not a single one is about this organization, and only half of them even mention it by name; as such, it fails WP:V and WP:COATRACK. That being said, I see nothing wrong with reviewing another editor's work and AfDing articles that fail under relevant policies; I've done so myself. Rather than sling mud, Epeefleche's energies are better served finding valid sources which discuss the subject in significant detail; so far, the article doesn't even discuss Jacobs in such detail, as mere quotes don't qualify as being about the subject. RGTraynor 05:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which six or seven refs are you saying do not "even mention it by name"?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just now gone through all the references again. Contrary to RGT's above assertion, rather than finding that "only half of them even mention it by name," I found that every single reference without exception mentions it by name.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of the thirteen references are third-party sources about the organization, not just mentioning it? nableezy - 05:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't need to be entirely about the organisation: WP:GNG states: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." (my emboldening). I think several of the cited sources clearly go beyond "trivial mention". Contains Mild Peril (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. For reasons stated by other keepers above. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This has a significant amount of notability for a number of issues and incidents regarding radical islam. This is in the wake of deleting Lloyd R. Woodson which was another possible jihad base attacker which was deleted because it was "just another non-notable news story??" despite it was well sourced WP:ORG states An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. So why delete this?? this appears to be a bad faith nomination Bachcell (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see no logical reason for deletion apart from a personal vendetta. --Gilabrand (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I see nominator has edited the article after making this nomination. Contributors should only nominate articles for deletion when they believe there is zero chance of fixing the article. In my experience nominators who subsequently edit an article while it is still under under discussion, have done so either (1) the nominator is very inexperienced, and doesn't understand our deletion policies; or (2) the nomination is a bad faith nomination, and the nominators real motivation is to get their way, and see the article deleted -- even if it could be improved. Geo Swan (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you state a policy based reason for keeping rather then an unfounded claim against a minor edit made to the article.Ridernyc (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was actually quite a major edit as it fixed two issues in the prior version, which looked very much like a coatrack for the Roxbury Crossings mosque controversy and the statement about Jacobs' tape was completely out of context. wjematherbigissue 21:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are plenty of RS mentions. In addition there really should be an explicit policy against revenge AfD nominations, which are a form of harrassmentNBeale (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show us which sources cover the organization and not Jacobs. 08:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I lean towards delete since there isn't enough independent coverage to make more than a stub saying: "Americans for Peace and Tolerance is a group devoted to exposing Islamic extremism. People involved say: stuff". Press releases would add a little more body but that doesn't dictate notability. There are plenty of sources not related to Jacobs[17] but they are all equal about: "So and so w/ group says blah blah blah". Most of it is from Boston (boooo...) media, but there is also international coverage meaning that WP:ORG is not far off. It could meet the loosest of definitions for both GNG and ORG. Not sure if it is good enough coverage yet. I suspect it will be but we don't keep articles based on that. The group should certainly be mentioned at Dennis Hale and Charles Jacobs. It might be good to have a separate article since it will be duplicate info but that might need to wait until the organization gets a little more coverage. Igonoring politics, an inclusionist would certainly say yes while a opposite would say no way. I would definetley say keep if I missed a couple paragraph write up in the sources or if one shows up.Cptnono (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clicking the Google news link at the top of the AFD, I see 15 results. News Organizations believe this organization notable enough to quote from. The first news find has their name in the title even. http://www.redorbit.com/news/entertainment/1711695/americans_for_peace_and_tolerance_advise_governor_patrick_and_mayor/ The second news link has one spokesperson from the group quoted on an issue related to a radical Muslim. Dream Focus 13:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is an article about a non-profit organization that has been in the news. Clearly notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wow, if there were ever a case where I implore a closing admin to rule for policy over nose-counting, this is one. Most of the Keep proponents claim this group is "notable." Notability hinges on WP:N, which states:
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 that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.
Going on to WP:ORG, the specific guideline governing organizations, there is this quote:
Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story.
Not a single source discusses this group at all, and no Keep proponent has addressed this. I'm having a hard time understanding claims that this group is "notable" when the article fails to meet the very definitions of "notable" given in WP:N and WP:ORG. For those voting Keep solely on the premise that this is a revenge nomination of some kind (some AGF might be useful here), perhaps we can solve that issue, because if the AfD closes without a result of Delete, I'm going to renominate it myself fifteen minutes later; may we presume I lack any animus against the article's creator? RGTraynor 18:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nableezy and others above. Sorry, saying "It's notable" does not make it so. As already laid out above, the sources address the individuals, and compiling those together to make this article is WP:SYNTH. The organization itself is non-notable. Grsz11 19:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Grsz11. A shocking example of WP:PUFF. THF (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On further consideration, given Rjanag's comment, I agree that a merge/redirect to the notable Charles Jacobs (political activist) or Dennis Hale is appropriate. Cf. Center for Class Action Fairness, which does have significant news coverage of its activities meeting WP:ORG (esp. after the March 2010 issue of ABA Journal comes out), but is as yet only a redirect. THF (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak redirect Most of the references I looked at appear to be not primarily (or at all) about the organization, just passing mentions of it—i.e., stuff like "...Charles Jacobs, president of Americans for Peace and Tolerance, said...". Unfortunately I do think much of this is puff, and the creator of the article has puffed articles similarly in the past (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (5th nomination)). Keeping my vote "weak" because I haven't read the article carefully and haven't had a chance to really consider it own its own merits, but I think ref puffery is generally a bad sign. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The article is a coatrack because the organization is a coatrack. I can find nothing the organization has done that is not tied to name of one of the principals. Clearly the principals are notable but the organization appears to be primarily a platform to elevate, project and validate individual speech. If all sentences that mention one of the principals are removed a stub is left which I'd vote to keep but as it is, I cannot support it. Jojalozzo (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: It really hinges on how we interpret "significant coverage" for organizations like this. There are numerous reliable sources that refer to it, and while many of them do so only in passing, several of them highlight the fact that the founders are from diverse religious background. I haven't seen a source that is an in-depth expose of the organization, but this seems to be the norm with many articles about political activist groups (see Jews for Justice for Palestinians or Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment, for comparison. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail." Which of these sources discuss this organization at all? What religious backgrounds the founders have is not at all about the organization. It isn't so much that you haven't seen a source that's an in-depth expose of the organization; we've yet to see an independent source discuss the organization in any detail whatsoever. RGTraynor 22:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are overstating your case. A source that writes "the new organization criticizing the mosque, called Americans for Peace and Tolerance, is led by an Episcopal layman, a Muslim scholar, and a Jewish activist." - is addressing the subject directly, and in some detail. To say this source does not discuss this organization at all, as you are saying, is simply wrong. Ditto for a source which writes " founded an organization called Americans for Peace and Tolerance with two longtime allies, Boston College political science professor Dennis B. Hale and Virginia-based Islamic scholar Ahmed S. Mansour. The group plans to stage a protest at the opening today." - it addresses the subject directly, providing deatils about its founders and its planned actions. Now, this level of detail may not be extensive, and is certainly paltry in comparison with the amount of coverage that an activist group like A.N.S.W.E.R. gets, but it is certainly on par with the level of coverage that similar, lesser known groups get. I've provided a couple of examples above, but there are of course others. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I consider the coverage sufficiently specific, analogous to the way we typically do articles for such groups. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weakish keep -- Seems to be reasonably prominent in Boston politics with respect to the issues it chooses to pursue. Not really sure that a "profile" type article, focusing on the organization as an organization, is critically necessary if members of the organization, identified as such, appear in prominent media coverage of relevant political controversies etc... AnonMoos (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Isn't in the least degree "prominent" in Boston politics; the only issue upon which these folks were particularly visible was in trying to stop the Roxbury mosque from being built, a task at which they failed. RGTraynor 07:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is not accurate. As a former Bostonian, I can attest to their visibility, certainly during the Roxbury mosque affair. Single issue groups are not rare, and notability does not depend on a group's success at achieving its goal. Read Citizens for Rowling as just one example. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I could live with a redirect and merge to Jacobs. While what consitutes "significant coverage" is rightly subject to consensus, the organziation clearly exists and the only debate is over independent notability. The only proper outcomes are Keep or Merge, not Delete. It's expected that somebody will read about the organization in the newspaper and will look it up on WP; a redirect will preserve that functionality. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article needs clean-up including some pov-ish bits but that is not a reason for deletion. If we are to believe only the sources readily visible online are the sum total of available sources there would be justifiable cause for concern - we know that is almost never the case so encouraging those interested in doing the work to find more and better sourcing seems appropriate and reasonable. -- Banjeboi 03:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - if there's anything worth merging, merge, and then redirect on the off chance that someone looks at WP for information about the group. But with no significant coverage of the group, there's nothing we can use to write a stand-alone article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect to Charles Jacobs (political activist). All mentions in secondary sources are trivial. Abductive (reasoning) 08:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this article fails WP:SOAP. The coverage assoicated with this organisation is not balanced in anyway, and looks like self-promotion to me. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep organisation is clearly notable: Jacobs and others are quoted in the press as representatives of APT, not merely as individuals who happen to belong to that organisation. As far as I can see, the article seems a fair representation of coverage in reliable sources: if APT's activities or statements include completely uncontroversial stuff that doesn't get reported because it's uncontroversial (which might or might not be the case - I don't know) there's not much we can do about that other than briefly quoting the organisation's stated aims and including a link to its website, which has been done. This meets notability and verifiability standards. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep very well referenced article, which meets all wikipedia guidelines. Boston Globe and Jerusalem Post sources. Okip (formerly Ikip) 13:02, 11 February 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Beatles Complete On Ukulele
- The Beatles Complete On Ukulele (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. Some third-party references, but several of them are non-notable (e.g. Blogspot blogs.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this music project. Joe Chill (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: ,,If and when it is notable ..we can re-make the article then...Buzzzsherman (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Surely articles in such major publications as Metro and the New York Post, as listed in the article, qualify as the "significant coverage" needed.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Some of the sources are blogs, but others, such as the NY Post article, are significant and appropriate to demonstrate notability. Rlendog (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - article needs work, but the NY Post article qualifies as significant coverage. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:00, 10 February 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) 00:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AWS Heavyweight Championship
- AWS Heavyweight Championship (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 third party sources available to help establish notability for the company, let alone the title. Nikki♥311 21:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 21:33, 3 February 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) 00:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Angel Kozlev
- Angel Kozlev (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, Fails WP:BIO, unsourced BLP. BigDunc 21:19, 3 February 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 CTJF83 chat 21:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ronald Eckersley
- Ronald Eckersley (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)
Cricketer who played one game for Yorkshire against the RAF. No sources beyond cricket database info. It may be argued that that meets the terms of WP:ATHLETE, but I do not think that one game justifies it. Quantpole (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:CRIN and WP:ATHLETE. First-class appearance confers notability. Johnlp (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – WP:ATHLETE says "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport", not "People who have competed in X number of games at the fully professional level of a sport". Even one appearance for a pro side is sufficient for an article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:ATHLETE is a guideline to when someone is generally presumed notable. It does not mean we must have an article if someone passes. Apologies for using a bit of common sense. Quantpole (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A first class cricketer and therefore notable. 'Common sense' might be better employed in not pointlessly trying to overturn a long standing guideline on notability which everyone else accepts. Nick mallory (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not everyone accepts this policy: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], etc etc. If anything WP:ATHLETE is the most contested notability guideline. On the basis of policy following practice, I thought I would see whether this uneasiness with the guideline is reflected at AfD. From the same game that Ronald played in, you've also got Neville Shelmerdine]. He didn't bat or bowl, and that was his only game, but he has played first class cricket and so must be notable enough for an article? Quantpole (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the result of this AFD will give you some idea about the relative merits of our arguments. Thanks for your tip about Neville Shelmerdine, I'm doing an article on him right now.
- Comment. Not everyone accepts this policy: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], etc etc. If anything WP:ATHLETE is the most contested notability guideline. On the basis of policy following practice, I thought I would see whether this uneasiness with the guideline is reflected at AfD. From the same game that Ronald played in, you've also got Neville Shelmerdine]. He didn't bat or bowl, and that was his only game, but he has played first class cricket and so must be notable enough for an article? Quantpole (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:CRIN. Harrias (talk) 00:09, 9 February 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) 00:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contributions attributed to British colonials and British Raj in modern India
- Contributions attributed to British colonials and British Raj in modern India (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 clear example of original research via synthesis of unrelated news items, essays, opinions etc. The claims for or against the contributions are subjective personal opinions only. Ragib (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 21:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 21:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 21:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete an obvious WP:POVFORK, with an inappropriate title and no redeeming content. Did anyone even check the only cited source: a BBC report about a school exhibition in Britain, in which a history teacher at the school is paraphrased as saying that, "Colonial rule in both cases brought benefits, he argues. In India the positives included a unifying influence in the country, a functioning civil service and a basic infrastructure. ". This is turned into a "Unifying the country" bullet point in the article as one of the "several contributions attributed to the British that are recognized as having proved beneficial" without any context, or sense of irony. I'm surprised that the prod was declined, since it's hard to construct a better parody of what encyclopedic article should not be. Abecedare (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Original research with lots of POV problems on the horizon. The title itself is suspect with the passive "attributed to"... by whom. Shadowjams (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - POVFORK. The British Raj article does an excellent job of covering the subject. this is unnecessary and POV.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - improved the article today, had already placed a tag requesting future editors to expand it. Renamed the article to "Positive legacy of British Colonial Rule and Imperialism in India", a more appropriate and neutral title. mrigthrishna (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POVFORK ("Benefits" is supposed to be neutral?). Material is already appropriately and well covered with proper reliable sources in other articles (cf. British_Raj#Economic_and_political_changes). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Renamed - "Positive legacy of British Colonial Rule and Imperialism in India". mrigthrishna (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry ... Still synthesis and still Original research. :) --Ragib (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated comment I noticed that the article has been moved a few times since the start of this AFD:
- from Contributions attributed to British colonials and British Raj in modern India to
- Benefits of British Colonial Rule in India to
- Benefits of British Colonial Rule and Imperialism in India to
- Contributions of British Colonial Rule and Imperialism in India to
- Positive byproduct of British Colonial Rule and Imperialism in India.
- Clearly these moves have done nothing to make the subject more encyclopedic or less POV, and illustrate the problem with such POV forking from existing articles (Company rule in India and British Raj) that handle the subject well. I could critique the bloated content, improper synthesis, quote mining, inadequate attribution, and use of 19th century primary sources (Karl Marx !) - but even if those issues didn't exist the subject would remain irremediably POV and in need of being deleted. PS: If the consensus of this discussion is to delete, the numerous redirects that have been created recently will need to be deleted too. Abecedare (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE Blatant WP:POVFORK, any of this that is notable should be covered in British India or Colonial India. And that ignores the bad WP:OR and sourcing problems this article still has. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE Unless I'm missing something, it seems like an obvious POV fork. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Quest For Knowledge (talk • contribs) 19:16, 8 February 2010
- DELETE -- POV, factual inaccurate/misleading ... generally useless article. Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an irremediable POV fork from British Raj and Company rule in India. The various titles that the article has been moved to is testament to the fact that this is pure synthesis of opinions searching for a location. It can not be neutral, merging disjointed opinions anywhere is a bad idea. Clean articles exist at the two links above, and reliably sourced content belongs there. —SpacemanSpiff 20:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:POVFORK. no more writing required i guess. Arjun024 21:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:SNOW. Speedy or prod these types of articles next time. Obviously not what we need. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ...whatever the title might be right now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Obvious bias in the name. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POV fork. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to be a POV fork.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 9 February 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) 00:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
University of Miami School of Business Administration
- University of Miami School of Business Administration (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)
While University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was going through a GA review, Racepacket (talk · contribs) decided that based on the feedback he received, the UM Business School required its own article based on the fact that a chunk of the UM article focused on magazine rankings stating that the UM Business School was #X amongst other business schools. I redirected it back to the main UM a total of 3 times, but Racepacket continues to undo my redirect and say that "[I] should not delete the page, if [I] want it gone [I] should send it to AFD". So here I am.
Of the various references utilized for the article, 11 of them are published by the Business School (located on the Business School's website). Another four are "UM's Business School is #X according to this magazine" references. The other references are two non-trivial mentions in news papers and another is a reference at GradSchools.com to show that you are awarded an MBA by graduating from UM's Business School.
Compared to the other divisions of the University of Miami, I don't find this one any more notable than say the College of Arts & Sciences (the largest at UM), the School of Communication, or the Frost School of Music (which has an article that I have no opinion on, but should probably go too).
All in all, the Business School is just a building on the UM campus that only has a page on Wikipedia because Racepacket has it in his mind that the main University of Miami article must be promoted to GA through any means possible because there is no WikiProject for the University to organize such an endeavor. The forking of content is certainly not necessary, especially when the article reads like an advertisement (the "boosterism" that Racepacket has been saying he is trying to avoid).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 21:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 21:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. GA considerations aside, would the school merit mention in the main U of Miami article? I haven't looked at the references, but a high ranking among similar schools would indicate some moderate notability, particularly if that ranking is sustained over some years. I'm loathe to cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but it may be instructive to look at similar collegiate business schools at similar universities, to see if they have articles, and - if so - to see what sources they draw on for notability. There might be some low-hanging fruit we're missing. I concur, though, that the article seems to veer a bit toward promotion, and that we do need independent sources before keeping it. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only schools that have any sort of other mention in the main UMiami article are the Med School and RSMAS, both of which have their own campuses elsewhere in Miami-Dade. The only reason the Business School had any sort of extensive coverage in the main article was due to the magazine rankings. I've removed that section (and another that focused on the rest of the divisions) to leave just a section on the U as a whole.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the other units of University of Miami with separate articles are:1) law, 2) music school, 3) med school, and 4) RSMAS. There are also dozens of separate articles about the various University varsity sports teams and their individual seasons. See Category:University of Miami Racepacket (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- College sports and college divisions are apples and oranges. But, I did not forget the Law School and Music School. I stated that the only other divisions that are elaborated upon in the main University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article are RSMAS and the Med School because they have their own separate campuses. The Music School and the Law School do not, but they have their own articles. The Business School did not have an article until you interpreted the GA Reviewer's statement about the focus on the rankings concerning the Business School.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is true that the Campus section of the article has separate subsections for the Medical campus and the Virginia Key campus, but that is a description of the campuses not the academic programs. All academic units are listed in the Organization section of the main article (with links to the four separate articles covering individual academic units.) Racepacket (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- College sports and college divisions are apples and oranges. But, I did not forget the Law School and Music School. I stated that the only other divisions that are elaborated upon in the main University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article are RSMAS and the Med School because they have their own separate campuses. The Music School and the Law School do not, but they have their own articles. The Business School did not have an article until you interpreted the GA Reviewer's statement about the focus on the rankings concerning the Business School.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the other units of University of Miami with separate articles are:1) law, 2) music school, 3) med school, and 4) RSMAS. There are also dozens of separate articles about the various University varsity sports teams and their individual seasons. See Category:University of Miami Racepacket (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only schools that have any sort of other mention in the main UMiami article are the Med School and RSMAS, both of which have their own campuses elsewhere in Miami-Dade. The only reason the Business School had any sort of extensive coverage in the main article was due to the magazine rankings. I've removed that section (and another that focused on the rest of the divisions) to leave just a section on the U as a whole.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article offers a number of independent sources which establish notability. The article is well-sourced and far exceeds anything which preexisted in the University of Miami main article as of the start of this week. As it is, this article has 15,192 bytes and the main University of Miami article has 64,111 bytes so merging the two articles would create an excessively long article. WP:SIZERULE. Quite frankly, I don't understand Ryulong's basis for this AfD. 1) Many business schools have an article separate from the main university article. They are listed in List of United States graduate business school rankings and Category:Business schools in the United States. 2) I don't think that the article is Boosterism, it is a neutral description of the different degree program offered, but I accept input from other editors on this point. 3) Breaking apart the Business School from the main university article is not "forking" because the two articles do not have different POVs. But none of these grounds are relevant to the AfD -- the question here is whether the UM School of Business Administration is notable. The cited sources demonstrate that it is. Racepacket (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no size issue here. The fact is that the Business School is not notable on its own. The Med School, the Law School, and RSMAS are because they are effectively separate entities from UMiami and (until RSMAS took over the undergrad MSC dept.) all solely doctorate awarding schools. I honestly think that if you're going to make an article on the Business School, there should probably be articles on Arts & Sciences, Architecture, Communication, Nursing, etc. However, there aren't because it wasn't pointed out to you by the GA Reviewer, which is the only reason that there is now an article on the Business School.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Business School, the Law School, the Medical School, RSMAS and all of the others are separate, co-equal academic units within the University. It is incorrect to state that the Business School "is just a building." People make their careers teaching and researching there, and the school offers MBAs and Master Degrees in Accounting. It also has joint degree programs with the Med School and the Law School. Racepacket (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did you not bother with writing articles on any of the other co-equal academic units of the University of Miami? It's just because someone at the GA review said that the UMiami article focused a lot on the business school.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Motives and priority in writing articles are not relevant at AfD. I worked on the Law, Medical School, and RSMAS articles, but did not yet get to Frost or to the 7 missing school. This school is comparable in notability to any of the others listed in List of United States graduate business school rankings. Racepacket (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did you not bother with writing articles on any of the other co-equal academic units of the University of Miami? It's just because someone at the GA review said that the UMiami article focused a lot on the business school.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Business School, the Law School, the Medical School, RSMAS and all of the others are separate, co-equal academic units within the University. It is incorrect to state that the Business School "is just a building." People make their careers teaching and researching there, and the school offers MBAs and Master Degrees in Accounting. It also has joint degree programs with the Med School and the Law School. Racepacket (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no size issue here. The fact is that the Business School is not notable on its own. The Med School, the Law School, and RSMAS are because they are effectively separate entities from UMiami and (until RSMAS took over the undergrad MSC dept.) all solely doctorate awarding schools. I honestly think that if you're going to make an article on the Business School, there should probably be articles on Arts & Sciences, Architecture, Communication, Nursing, etc. However, there aren't because it wasn't pointed out to you by the GA Reviewer, which is the only reason that there is now an article on the Business School.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We can have articles on individual colleges of this sort, if they are sufficiently important within an important university. From the university website, the school has 2,000 among the 10,000 total undergraduates at the university, 500 among the 5,000 graduate students. That's sufficiently important. (that info should of course go in the article--I got it from the University Website [24] DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorporated enrollment data. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is about a notable school and the split makes perfect sense from a size standpoint. Alansohn (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (Notwithstanding issues that may exist with this particular article.) Business schools tend to have identities semi-independent of their universities, and most major U.S. business schools now are the subjects of articles separate from the university articles. I don't see anything about this particular school that justifies merging it into the university article when its peers are covered in separate articles. --Orlady (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notable b-school. Nominator's motives are suspect. Rklawton (talk) 07:09, 8 February 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) 00:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr resonate
- Mr resonate (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 - all "references" are under direct control of article subject; reasonable web searches did not locate appropriate sources Studerby (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of notability; fails WP:MUSICBIO. (note: I cleaned up the article so it's no longer a promotional mess) TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:22, 6 February 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 (WP:NACD) CTJF83 chat 21:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Omar Bliadze
- Omar Bliadze (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)
Lacks notability. The provided reference is dead. The only achievement this fellow ever seems to have had was a silver medal at the 1969 FILA Wrestling World Championships. — Cargoking talk 20:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. World championships, like the Olympics, are the top level of amateur sport. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The nominator makes a clear case in favour of notability. The link in the article is working for me. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. 2nd at world championship, and European champion (WP:AGF for the latter as there's no google translate from Georgian yet) meets WP:ATHLETE in my view. European newspapers from 40 years ago are not in google news archives, sadly. Pcap ping 14:45, 8 February 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 Dark_Sun#Playable_races. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pterran
- Pterran (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)
Overdetailed article on a relatively minor element of a Dungeons & Dragons game. I redirected to Dark_Sun#Playable_races, but the author reverted, so I'm looking for consensus to support the redirect. No sources cited other than a game guide book. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as suggested above. Extremely unlikely any non-primary sources exist which discuss this in any detail. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 5 February 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. As G11 entirely promotional and A7/ no indication of notability with respect to the relevant guidelines. I've salted several variants. I suggest attention to other edits of this contributor. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Kiki Twins
- The Kiki Twins (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 twice deleted previously on csd grounds, once by me and once by another admin as noted here. I explained to the creator that the article's deletion came about as the result of the article being in violation of too many policies to remain on the site, and gave two avenues for its potential recreation here. I made it very clear at the time that the article, if re-uploaded, would qualify for csd deletion again if the reloaded version was not vastly superior to the deleted version. My advice apparently fell on deaf ears, as the reloaded page here is an exact copy of the two previously deleted versions. I am therefore nominating this for deletion on grounds that it fails notability and reliable sourcing guidelines TomStar81 (Talk) 19:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - Usual issues: Unreferenced bio of living people; unsourced claims to notability of music entertainers; lack of sources; borderline promotional. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSIC, also appears to be a COI/Spam case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete obvious promotional text with agenda. Georgiamonet (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wholeheartedly agree with Andrew. Fails WP:MUSIC, and fails at being a real encyclopedia article. It's Spam, and it should be deleted outright (unless, of course, they manage to actually become notable). Angryapathy (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, "Life-long bosom buddies and pals, they make music together and raise hell together." See WP:SPAM. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: Asa three strike article, I would request that the page be salted to prevent a fourth attempt at recreation. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 3 February 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) 00:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning
- Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning (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)
Journal from World Scientific, started in 2006, but still in no significant index. The article listed Compendex, but I do not find it in their Journal list, [25] and neither does Ulrichs say it is indexed there. I'm checking indexing statements on articles about other journals from this publisher, with their articles added by the same apparent COI editor. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't find any secondary sources for the topic. Article contains no encyclopedic content, just directory information that appears to be partly false! Abductive (reasoning) 20:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no secondary coverage. CTJF83 chat 21:22, 9 February 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 g11, (not-very-well) disguised advertising for one artist's work. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oodle Art
- Oodle Art (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 neologism. This article reads like an essay concerning a vague new-age-ish theory of art that has not received any notable coverage and seems to be elaborated only by one Mark Broder. This is neither a notable movement nor a notable theory. Lithoderm 18:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Lithoderm 18:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Major neologism, non-notable term. Angryapathy (talk) 20:06, 3 February 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) 00:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NoVa Media Watch
- NoVa Media Watch (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 believe that this is not a notable blog. There are no reliable sources available for this blog. A speedy delete request was refused by an admin with the statement "Slight chance of notability - would prefer taking this to AFD". Request an AfD therefore for lack of even one reliable source supporting notability. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 18:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. Alan - talk 02:35, 6 February 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 Panos Institute. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Panos London
- Panos London (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-governmental organisation with no real notability. I don't see any significant coverage from reliable sources; all sources on the article are unreliable and/or related to the organisation, with the possible exception of the print source and the obvious exception of the BBC source. These, however, don't give significant coverage to Panos London. PROD removed without comment by someone other than the author. Nyttend (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep The sources are weak but the organization appears to be legit and international. If more outside sources can be cited, it could become a keep. Georgiamonet (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. Some more external sources that could make the article stronger? See below:
- Partnership with the Guardian newspaper for their 2009 Development journalist competition Guardian development competition about page
- Continued relationship with the Guardian newspaper, in particular, over many years Guardian search results for "Panos"
- Receives partnership funding from UK's Department for international development DFID PPA details
- Has nearly twenty years of running various oral testimony projects with testimonies published and collected both in original and international languages, working with 50 different partners in various countries Panos London oral testimony programme. I've used a link to the Panos London oral testimony page here only as short hand, I'm not sure it would be difficult to verify the facts through secondary sources (either of printed materials produced, or from external organisation's websites)
- Oral testimony + photography exhibition at the UN in May 2009 From Sahel to New York video. Again I've used a link to the video largely as shorthand. It's clear the event happened (it's a video from the event), but it should also be verifiable from UN sources external of Panos London.
- Archives of Ndesanjo Machaa, a journalist, who worked with Panos London at the 2005 G8, are online here. He makes mention of doing stuff with BBC Five Live, The Metro (London newspaper), and the Guardian again. (added by Eddb83 (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Sorry, I removed the PROD, but I suspect that was because I didn't adequately understand the function of it as new to Wikipedia. Apologies.
- Eddb83 (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Edd, the point of a PROD is to delete an article that nobody believes should be kept. Although I disagree with your removal, I'm happy to be the first to say that you didn't do anything wrongly. In the future, it will help if you explain in your edit summary why you removed it; but by removing it as you did, you did nothing improperly. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, okay, good to know. Thanks. Hopefully my points above explained why I removed the PROD, since I think the article meets the notability criteria on Wikipedia Eddb83 (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Panos Institute. Much of the information in the Panos London article actually applies to the worldwide organisation. Whatever the technical notability status may be of Panos London I think that we would serve our readers better by expanding the Panos Institute article with sections about the various branches. If the institute article ever gets too large we can split out the branches in summary style, but we are nowhere near that point yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- merge per Phil. Essentially a duplicate article. Our current standards for separate articles for local branches of an organization are rather restrictive, and I think it best to keep them that way, and merge articles unless unless there is clear reason to do otherwise DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 6 February 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) 00:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zeta Tau Omega
- Zeta Tau Omega (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 about a local sorority with no sources whatsoever. Organizations that are local in nature are not notable unless their activities are wide in nature or at least reported widely. Accordingly, this article fails the general notability guidelines and organization-specific guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nonnotable organization at only one college, no external sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no independent sources. Racepacket (talk) 15:46, 6 February 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) 00:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delta Pi
- Delta Pi (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)
Local sorority which fails to demonstrate its notability. There is no evidence of any significance outside the local region, and there is no significant coverage of the organization in secondary sources. Although there are three apparent secondary sources cited, one is a mere directory-style listing of their Sweetest Sin Party, one is the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation home page with no mention of the group, and one is the university policy barring sororities. Accordingly, there is no demonstration of either general notability or specific notability for organizations. —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nonnotable local organization at only one college. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete one chapter doesn't establish notability outside York University CTJF83 chat 21:24, 9 February 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 a7, no credible claim of notability, no sources cited that refer to Mr. Elia. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jason Elia
- Jason Elia (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 person. Claims of notability (features in Rolling Stone, Spin, Alternative Press and GQ) cannot be verified by searches of those magazines' websites. Probable hoax. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:39, 3 February 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.
Shon Brooks
The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MouseHunt
- MouseHunt (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 all Facebook games derserve an article? This game is small, insignificant, and does not meet the general Notability guidelines. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [26]. Fails WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A quick search turned up two pieces of television coverage. [27] [28] Methinks it's a tad bigger than you think. --Sonic Mew (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment
- Admins, be very careful of this page because they maybe an influx of editors/ips that will oppose the deletion. I know that the gamers may offer incentative (like in game currency) to sway the votes of the community. This has happened in game numerous times to sway the votes of other communities. See: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?xid=mousehunt_contests_2&app_id=10337532241&c_url=http%253A%252F%252Fapps.facebook.com%252Fmousehunt%252Fboards.php&r_url=http%253A%252F%252Fapps.facebook.com%252Fmousehunt%252Fboards.php&sig=ddc111322d657e9dbf13dde747f6b19b&topic=5942, which says
This is a pretty simple contest. I am trying to win a grant for a dog rescue and need votes for my dog, Oso. Read all about it here:
Anyway, to drum up more support for the voting, I am starting a contest. So for every 25 votes Oso receives, I will give away 25K in gold. All you have to do is vote, and say you voted on this thread. That's it.
How will I determine a winner? Well, if it is, say, 2 p.m. and he has 50 votes (he already has over 25), the person closest to posting a "I voted" comment will win the 25,000 gold. Simple? Ready? OK, vote here: http://mvp.bissell.com/mvp_PetDetail.aspx?id=8589956282
Thanks for playing and voting!
--Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't there a template for pointing out that AFD debates aren't a straw poll? If you really think it would be an issue, sticking it at the top of the page would be more beneficial than throwing attacks at the community. --Sonic Mew (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources located by Sonic Mew. LotLE×talk 20:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the content about the subject and redirect MouseHunt to MouseHunt (film).--TrustMeTHROW! 03:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]Delete Trust Me THROW's idea seems logical except I say the other way round. ie: We replace the content of MouseHunt with the content on MouseHunt (film) and then redirect MouseHunt (film) to MouseHunt.--Prodigy96 (talk) 07:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Delete. I don't see the independent coverage here. Pcap ping 19:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Stricken two blocked socks. Cirt (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of significant coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do all high-voltage power line towers deserve an article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_crossing_1 . The difference between the article I have provided and the article being lumped together for deletion is that the latter is both more well-known and with a few edits to preserve neutrality, will be as significant as the former.198.166.35.81 (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - the references found by Joe Chill and Sonic Mew seem (just about) enough to establish notability. Robofish (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with Robofish on those three references. Also, when I use Google news for "MouseHunt" AND "facebook" I get a number of promising results. [29] The Washing Post has an article on it about this and other games that won something, giving it enough coverage in the article, describing what it is. [30] Dream Focus 13:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - more than enough significant independent coverage to demonstrate notability. The Star article is dedicated to this one game which it covers in considerable detail, and the Washington Post article also includes significant coverage, in addition to the two TV items.
I would, however, question the author's decision to move the article about the 1997 film MouseHunt to MouseHunt (film) in order to make way for this article. I can see why it makes sense, since the more recent subject may be the one for which more readers search, and it avoids difficult decisions as to what to call the new article (e.g. MouseHunt (game) or MouseHunt (Facebook application) etc), but is the Facebook game more notable than the film, and does it matter whether it is or not? I'm probably being completely irrational here, but moving older articles like this strikes me as a bit like pushing into a queue in front of those who have been there longer. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:54, 10 February 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) 00:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Devann Yao
- Devann Yao (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:ATHLETE as it appears he has made no professional appearances The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played in the professional level. Angryapathy (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE, and I don't significant coverage in reliable sources of the player. Jujutacular T · C 16:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No proof of passing Wp:ATHLETE = no article. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yao has just signed for Ipswich Town (January 4th 2010), therefore should NOT be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.44.59 (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you mean 3 February? And no, this doesn't confer notability. He needs to play for the club professionally, per WP:ATHLETE. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 3 February 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) 00:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Breakin' Down Society EP
- Breakin' Down Society EP (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 is empty; has not been improved after edit tags nearly two years ago; reliable sources are scarce beyond various social networking and blog sites. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If we can't find any info on it, we should delete it. Non-notable. Angryapathy (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not appear to have notability. Maybe it would be best to redirect to Angerfist. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not notable Alan - talk 23:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can not find in-depth coverage for this EP; does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow Talk 05:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not finding significant coverage or any other evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 20:06, 9 February 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 (WP:NACD) CTJF83 chat 21:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blackout! (Ugly Betty)
- Blackout! (Ugly Betty) (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)
It's just a plot. It doesn't even summarise the plot. I tried to redirect to a list of episodes but I was reverted and there's nothing to suggest this is "too notable" to go in a list. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 15:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It is notable.[31] It needs a massive rewrite plus sourcing, but a WP:GA could be made out of it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clicking on the link Peregrine Fisher has provided, I see many news stories about this episode. Dream Focus 13:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Seems like there is lots of past hoopla when it comes to articles on individual episodes of shows on Wikipedia. While I personally can't fathom why we have separate articles on every episode of this series, we do. Wikipedia:Television episodes appears to be a relevant policy (and seems to favor season by season summaries), but a 2008 arbitration ( Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Findings_of_fact ) states that "The body of precedent and convention regarding the matter under dispute (referencing: existence of articles regarding individual episodes and characters from television series) is unclear, with the major current guideline being applied inconsistently, and old historical precedent tending towards a contradictory viewpoint" -- apparently meaning that we have a slew of individual episode articles. As every episode has its own article right now, I can't see why we'd delete just this one.--Milowent (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable episode of notable show per the numerous sources and reviews. No case for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Why would this even be discussed? If you delete this one there are nearly a hundred others just like it.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notable episode; nomination is a case to improve the article, not delete it. Rlendog (talk) 20:02, 9 February 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. harej 20:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Albanian pederasty
- Albanian pederasty (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)
Essay by banned user pushing a POV. None of these sources appear to be about "Albanian pederasty", which returns a grand total of one google books hits, which says "Albanians were themsevles convinced pederasts". I strongly doubt something like that that is a reliable source, or NPOV. Pcap ping 15:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 15:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, neutral. Banned user or not, the first AfD ended with an overwhelming number of keep votes less than a year ago. Any potential participants should at least take a closer look at it. — Rankiri (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keepper the sources used as inline references in the article, and per the Google Book search results cited in the previous AFD [32]. Writers in the 19th and early 20th century reported it was a part of the culture of the country. The fact that some "banned editor" touched the article at some point does not give the subject cooties preventing there being an encyclopedia article about it, when it satisfies notability. Edison (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge content into Pederasty#Albania. There is no need for a separate article. Pederasty as part of the muslim culture has been outspread in all muslim countries, but I would be very surprized to see an article named Turkish Pederasty, Bosnian Pederasty, Arabic Pederasty, Persian_Pederasty, Iraqi_Pederasty or Egyptian Pederasty (To note that the Greek_pederasty is covered in the Philosophy_of_Greek_pederasty). Furthermore, the argument is already covered in Pederasty#Albania: there is no need for a main article there either.sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 17:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Evidently notable per Edison and WP:NOTAGAIN. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In the first paragraph there are 5 references. Either it is not possible to see these references online, or there is nothing in them to show pederasty. Please show me ONE reference out of those five to convince me of the validity of these claims. In particular this reference [33] proves that Haiduc, the article writer, and an indefinitely banned user of Wikipedia, has nothing to reference. Out of the 13 references, only one [34] talks about gay sex in 1997 Albania, not pedearasty.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 18:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pov fork.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: There are several descriptions both from primary and secondary sources about this pattern of behaviort,y mbn. For example [[35]] p. 187-196 (Male homosexuality in Ottoman Albania), gives specific examples about this. Alexikoua (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentPlease note that the reference you are bringing is homosexuality, not pederasty. The article writer is a POV pushing with a unique obsession: pederasty, see [36]. Haiduc brings only ONE reference and it is for homosexuality. The whole pederasty thing is a hoax and unsubstantiated. This is a clear example of WP:OR WP:SYNTH WP:FORK and WP:Vsulmues (talk)--Sulmues 20:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I inform you that the specific book speaks about pederasty too:
- "Plomer reports that Ali's son Veli, vizier of Morea (sw Greece emulated his father's appetities for money and for boys... any beautiful girls or boys" p. 193& p. 189.
- A Geg [Albanian Muslim] marries at the age of 24...but not usually gives up 'boy' love (p.188).
So please, you should read the section before saying that this isn't about pederasty.Alexikoua (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article has two problems. First, it represents a complete synthesis of ideas, for example the cite above by Alexikoua refers to homosexuality and not pederasty. The user who created and maintained this article had the same problem across all of his work; he would bend and misrepresent sources to make claims of other sexual activity (such as homosexuality or pedophilia) as pederasty, and so we have the second problem... We cannot trust the sources provided since, in nearly every case, where we CAN check the sources, they do not support the claims in these articles. For sources we cannot readily check, we cannot trust. All of them should be deleted, and if it is determined that the topic needs to be covered by an article (and that's a big "if"), then they should be created by scratch by an editor who isn't misrepresenting sources to do so. --Jayron32 20:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:@Jayron32: If you read this part of the book (not only the title), like in p. 193 (Plomer reports that ali's son..." you will realize that it speaks about pederasty. Moreover, the source is wp:rs.Alexikoua (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so how is that pederasty and not pedophilia? Again, source says "so and so likes boys" but does not say that that is pederasty. To make the leap from the former statement to the latter claim that this represents pederasty requires a synthesis of ideas. Once you eliminate all cases where the source material does not explicitly use the term pederasty, or describe the practice thereof unambiguously, you have nothing. --Jayron32 20:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add that while there have been pederasts in albanian history and there are certainly some albanian pederasts today, there's nothing particularly Albanian about these creeps. They're much like British, or US, or whatever pederasts. This is not a topic like Pederasty in Ancient Greece and this article, as written and conceived, mashes together a whole host of homosexual behavior from the morally acceptable (between consenting adults) to the borderline (adult and a 17-year-old) to the clearly morally reprehensible (basically raping 13-year old kids).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Edison, evidently a part of the culture of the country and enough sourced. --Factuarius (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The online references are quite vague: no doubt a person with a particular interest in boys could find like-minded people in any country, and those people may very well claim that pederasty is "openly practiced". Given the origin of this article, and the tone of the lead, I do not trust the interpretation of the paper references. The lead tenderly reports that "the older lover is called ashik..."; if that detail has some encyclopedic importance it can be mentioned in an appropriate article. However, there is no reliable scholarly study showing that "Albanian pederasty" is notably different from "English pederasty" or "Thai pederasty" etc., and this article serves only to unduly glorify an outlook that has a proven record of of being promoted via the Internet in general, and Wikipedia in particular. My guess is that the article was created because a source was found which included text attributed to a Geg Albanian: "The lover's feeling for the boy is pure as sunshine...". When a scientific study reaches that conclusion it can go in Pederasty. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, just needs lots of editingMegistias (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, salt, etc., per my reasoning in the other substantially similar AFDs. UnitAnode 17:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Bali, and apply liberal amounts of WP:SALT. Metric tons. JBsupreme (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and re-write. High quality sources explicitly discussing this can be found [37]. Article should be re-written along these lines. Athenean (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not two trivial mentions, it is half a page, and it is described in detail. The source is high quality, and lots more can be found [38] [39] if you just do a simple search on Google books. Enough at any rate, to establish the subjects notability. Athenean (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's pretty trivial. There's only one mention of the phrase "Albanian pederasty" in the entire book, and it's within the context of "Greek pederasty." It's certainly enough to source it for the sub-section in the parent article, but not for a stand-alone. UnitAnode 18:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Worth mention that the most substantial source presented there is a book not about Albanian pederasty, but about Islamic homosexuality, which perhaps suggests that this topic could be mentioned there in addition to my proposed merge to pederasty. Moreschi (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not two trivial mentions, it is half a page, and it is described in detail. The source is high quality, and lots more can be found [38] [39] if you just do a simple search on Google books. Enough at any rate, to establish the subjects notability. Athenean (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - original research, undue weight, etc. Think of the children (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge without prejudice back to Pederasty. If we cut all the extensive and tedious quotations from poetry, we don't really have a viable article here that couldn't be dealt with in a couple of paragraphs in the main article. If someone later actually uses viable sources and writes a solid article of some length, then recreation would be fine by me, but as it is there's no justification for this. Moreschi (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: it is highly disappointing to see the usual Greek nationalist crowd turning up here to keep this, mostly to spite the Albanians, and partly because Pederasty in Ancient Greece is always going to be with us. Guys, come on, you know better (and Athenean, you really know better). WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND again, I'm afraid. Moreschi (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Apart from several western travelers that describe this practice, who are confirmed by modern research, Robert Elsie, a top expert on Albanian related topics [[40]] makes a detailed 4-page entry for A.p. [[41]] p. 202-205, simply saying that it was a a popular custom. It seems that there is enough information and notability about the topic.Alexikoua (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POV pushing original research was heavily behind this article. It should be restarted from scratch if someone really feels it's necessary and can find good sources. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete no legitimate sources. — goethean ॐ 05:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge. Poor quality sources, article still suffers from the initial author's naive over-reliance on primary sources - and the few modern secondary sources all seem to rely on the same very few and very unreliable remarks by a few 19th-century outside travellers. Not enough material here to make a solid case that pederasty in 19th-century Albania was any different in nature from that practiced elsewhere in Ottoman society, hence no need for a separate article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Self-trouting for a horribly-premature AFD close – sorry, folks. You won't hear from me or Juliancolton again during this AFD. –MuZemike 18:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge content into Pederasty#Albania per FPerf.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I note that this Google Scholar search, which gets 268 hits, has been quoted in support of keeping this. An equivalent search for English pederasty gets 6160 hits, and for American pederasty gets 6310. If we are to follow the logic of using that search as support for Albanian pederasty being a notable subject we have to conclude that English pederasty and American pederasty are more than 20 times as notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original research/synthesis; POV fork. Fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOR. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. And why Albania? (notable for pederasty?). Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 17:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vague sources. kedadial 17:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Pederasty#Albania. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is extensive evidence that the main contrbutor to this article is pushing original ideas which are heavily behind this article. He has been banned indefinitely for it.--Tonalone (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The creator of this article has a history of misrepresenting sources and all his work should be deleted on suspicion - otherwise somebody has to go through all his edits. Any volunteers? Delete! Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I lean toward delete or merge for the reasons stated by numerous editors above. However, I'm commenting to strongly suggest to the closing admin that if this article is kept it be renamed Pederasty in Albania. As a matter of English semantics, "Albanian pederasty" implies that there is some particular form of pederasty that is Albanian. That appears to be false, and in any event it is certainly not established by this article. People ski (apparently) in Lebanon, but that fact supports Skiing in Lebanon, not Lebanese skiing. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:11, 7 February 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 procedural keep. (NAC) Swarm(Talk) 06:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
W. John Walsh
- W. John Walsh (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)
Delete. Violates WP:ONEEVENT there were claims that he was notable as per WP:AUTHOR but nothing has been found to support this claims. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close as too soon after the last AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. John Walsh was closed at 00:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC). If you feel that the closer was wrong, use deletion review rather than starting a new AfD. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per Wp:NOTAGAIN (the previous discussion closed at 12.42am this morning). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was a new nominator this might make sense, but since the last discussion was also originated by this guy he seems just be his persistent desire to destroy this article to be violating the rules of having a neutral point of view.John Pack Lambert 17:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ok there was a discussion that resulted in no consensus. Notability was claimed but other then 2 sources and never proved notability on anything other then his comment on one event.. How would bringing it to Deletion review have any difference. The article will be debated there or here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Process keep. I supported the deletion just last week, but if people keep nominating articles for deletion so soon after consensus failed, then we will be inundated with XfDs at the time when we have to deal with 59,999 other proposed deletions of BLPs. Consensus doesn't change in one week. Bearian (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Especially not when there wasn't one to begin with....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Ideally this should have been re-listed rather than closed as "no consensus". Discuss the merits of the article, please. This one violates WP:ONEEVENT and thus should be removed. JBsupreme (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep this is an abuse of process. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- well, it would help to wait long enough that there is some chance of forming a clear consensus. I usually advise 2 or 3 weeks regardless of what I think of the article--and please don't assume I want to keep this one--the resulting discussion is better than if we proceeded immediately. That's the difference between a no-consensus and a relist. If an immediate followup would solve things by getting more participation, relist is the way to go. If it would be better to let opinion mature, give people a chance to reconsider, and then start the discussion from scratch, it needs some time to happen. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 6 February 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) 00:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pederastic couples in Japan
- Pederastic couples in Japan (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)
Synthesis by banned user pushing a POV. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical pederastic relationships (3rd nomination). Practically identical to that article in scope and structure, except limited to Japan. Pcap ping 14:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete personal essay that distorts sources and stretches the definition of "pedarastic couple" to include all sorts of things that don't belong, in an apparent effort to make pedophilia appear more acceptable.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the way I put it in the AFD for the other, very similar article was, "Delete, salt, lock, and throw away the key. Full of original research and is a blatant POV fork." The same applies here. UnitAnode 15:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Trim to include only well-sourced examples, then merge to the Historical pederastic relationships article. --Cyclopiatalk 15:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as with the parent article Historical pederastic relationships, however in this case I can't see where Japan deserves a special article all to itself. Should a new article be needed on any of these topics, I would feel better if a new, sanitized, neutral version were started from scratch rather than this complete and utter mess. However, this specific article is likely uneeded in any event, dealing with a specific country at this level of detail doesn't make much sense. --Jayron32 19:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - for the same reasons as Historical pederastic relationships. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- E.g.: It's interesting how "Tsunashige was loved by Ujiyasu" is translated into "they had a pederastic relationship", when Hōjō Tsunashige (北条 綱成) was the stepson of Hōjō Ujiyasu's (北条 氏康) brother Tamemasa (北条 為昌), and neither of their biographies mentions a pederastic relationship. There seems to be a fair bit of speculation here. Pcap ping 03:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is no reliable source showing that pederasty in Japan is notably different from similar sexual exploitation that occurs in every nation. The attempt to pad the article with lists of alleged pederastic couples is unwelcome WP:OR. Whether intended or not, the lists can be interpreted as an attempt to titillate susceptible readers, and may also serve to promote the idea that pederasty is a great idea due to its claimed noble history. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian pederasty (2nd nomination). Pcap ping 03:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as with Historical pederastic relationships. With the added benefit of original research! ViridaeTalk 04:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Supreme delete. Seriously now. JBsupreme (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - for reasons given in the Historical... AfD. I really hope there isn't a whole slew of Pederastic couples in... shit articles that we have to wade through now. Tarc (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, I am afraid not...Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - inaccurate, original research and so on. Think of the children (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and start over if someone wants to do so. I don't believe the banned editor's contributions can be trusted to be an accurate representation of sources. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agenda-based original research/synthesis, fails WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability, may be worth having a sentence or two at pederasty. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 17:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The creator of this article has a history of misrepresenting sources and he has used Wikipedia as a propaganda tool for too long. Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:49, 7 February 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marcello Guido
- Marcello Guido (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)
Unref'd bio created in July 07 by a contributor with no other edits. Article attempts to make claims of notability, but nothing of note comes up via Google. No incomming links and nothing to indicate this person is, infact, notable. Lugnuts (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence that the subject meets criteria at WP:BIO. There is no equivalent biography on the Italian Wikipedia either, for what that's worth. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - very basic biographical information at Wikipedia article taken from Archiplanet where there are plenty of links to architectural projects and publications - needs building up, but pointless deleting [42] Opbeith (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, in this case it wasn't an unreasonable proposal for deletion prima facie (added subsequently: - "and very scant content" - but after all, this was a stub inviting expansion Opbeith (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)), but some of these fire-fighting exercises are infuriating. I can't see that the existence of latent articles does any real harm - they're there ready for someone to follow up when they come looking - and responding to impending deletion often means putting other important things on hold. Marcello Guido's architecture is worth the article, though not really worth the distraction - architects will survive without attention and the information hadn't been adequately assembled. However other proposals for deletions that people end up battling to save such as articles about massacres with a significance in international criminal law supported with information but lacking adequate referencing are appalling. Opbeith (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sorry, but I'm not convinced by the discussion above or by the nominator's retraction. None of the many sources in the article appears to be reliable, and, although I can find plenty passing mentions of the subject in reliable sources,[43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] none of those sources has as much as a single whole sentence about him, so they can't be said to constitute significant coverage. The issue isn't whether "Marcello Guido's architecture is worth the article", but whether there is significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I said it wasn't an unreasonable proposal for deletion prima facie because there weren't any deccent references. So I provided some. The bloke's Regional President of the national architects' association - confirmed at the association's website; the Dedalo Minosse Special Prize he was awarded is featured at the Dedalo Minosse Prize website; the Wikipedia Dedalo Minosse Prize article describes how prizes are awarded "by a jury that includes internationally-renowned architects, writers, art historians, journalists, industry executives, and planning officials." Independent enough? reliable enough? OK, he's not Brunelleschi, so go on, then, delete. Every time I come back and have a look at AfD I end up wanting to roll over and die at the determination of some people to find reasons for deleting human knowledge from one place. I have other articles I want to spend my time on, but Guido warrants his rather than deletion. Right, I'll go back to a few more notable Dungeon and Dragon characters or Pikachu, pointless wasting time trying to reinforce serious articles when I know what Wikipedia rules prefer. Opbeith (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please believe me when I say that I far prefer articles about notable architects over Dungeons and Dragons characters, and the fact that I found a lot more reliable sources mentioning Guido than anyone else has done shows that I have approached this discussion in good faith, but I still don't see anything that makes me consider him to be notable by Wikipedia's standards. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the first one of your references I read - [2] - the InArch Lazio lecture by Alessandra Muntoni includes him along with the likes of Frank Gehry and Daniel Liebeskind. What am I missing? Opbeith (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not contagious - just being mentioned in the same sentence as someone who is undeniably notable doesn't in itself demonstrate notability. I'm perfectly willing to change my mind on this issue if you can produce any independent reliable sources that have a few paragraphs about Marcello Guido. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While you were adding that I was just looking at another of your references - [3] is all about Guido's Piazza Toscana project and refers to how Bruno Zevi was proposing to publish some pictures of the Piazza Toscana project in the journal he was in charge of even while it was still under construction, which the author of the article Cesare de Sessa of Univ. of Naples Faculty of Architecture described in the article as "Fatto del tutto eccezionale, nel circa mezzo secolo di vita della rivista." - something quite exceptional in the fifty years' existence of the journal. De Sessa then goes on to compare the architectural dynamism of Guido's project with the corkscrew lantern of the dome of Borromini's Sant'Ivo alla Sapienza. There's something in Wikipedia rules somewhere which I can't remember that says you don't have to dot the i's and cross the t's, a bit of brain can be assumed in the reader (I confess I added the last bit) - but there's no need to when it's already there. And for heaven's sake look at the work. I don't say instead of anything else, but look at the whole picture.Opbeith (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the first one of your references I read - [2] - the InArch Lazio lecture by Alessandra Muntoni includes him along with the likes of Frank Gehry and Daniel Liebeskind. What am I missing? Opbeith (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please believe me when I say that I far prefer articles about notable architects over Dungeons and Dragons characters, and the fact that I found a lot more reliable sources mentioning Guido than anyone else has done shows that I have approached this discussion in good faith, but I still don't see anything that makes me consider him to be notable by Wikipedia's standards. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the interview in the presSTletter newsletter at [56] Luigi Prestinenza Puglisi asks Franco Porto, President of the Sicily Regional Section of InArch, which living Italian architect would he choose to build his house - guess who he picks (for the way the contemporary language he uses allow both creativity and an awareness of history to express themselves)?[57] When asked which international architect he picks Richard Rogers, so whether you choose to respect or challenge his judgment he's not just flicking through the Yellow Pages. Why on earth are we semi-informed amateurs chewing over this? Why doesn't Wikipedia have a review system so that people with some expertise and familiarity with the subject area are the first point of referral when a deletion request is supported on grounds of lack of notability? Crazy. It would save so much time and effort.Opbeith (talk) 12:58, 6 February 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) 00:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Baines
- Chris Baines (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)
Notability concerns Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you could be abit more specific and say exactly why this person isn't notable? I see you have listed some other AfD's lately - it would help if you could link to policy/guidance for each case. Happy editing! Lugnuts (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rephrase: I do not believe that this person shows any evidence that they are notable enough to be on Wikipedia. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is an ill considered nomination reflecting failure to check references as called for by WP:BEFORE. See [58] which says he is "one of the first and best-known wildlife gardeners." Presenter on numerous national TV programs, and winner of numerous awards. See [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], and [68] which have significant coverage and allow examination of the text. There are a great many additional sources with only snippet view. His work has received favorable reviews and awards:"English dance and song - Page 22 Music - 1987 CM 042 - The Albion Band with Chris Baines "The Wild Side of Town" An excellent new album from the ... Featuring Chris Baines the Urban Conservationist. ..." Google News Archive has 77 hits for "Chris Baines" environment including [69], [70] [71] and [72] among many others about the article's subject. Please do not disrupt AFD with a slew of inappropriate nominations, without checking whether reliable and independent sources exist to show notability. Tagging an article as needing additional references is more appropriate. Edison (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Generally held to be an important figure in the field of Environmentalism - satisfies WP:AUTHOR. [73], [74], [75]. Jujutacular T · C 17:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've just got his early book "The Wild Side of Town" down off my bookshelf. It was published by the BBC and accompanied one of the first BBC-TV urban wildlife programmes series. He's probably the most prominent urban ecologist in the UK. But all that stuff's already there at the article. OK I don't see many references but there's just so much information there that it would have been rather more constructive to do a quick check and then leave well alone on the principle of what purpose is served by reducing the sum of human knowledge in one place per reported Wikipedia goal of J. Wales. This is one of the things about Wikipedia that makes people go bananas. Sorry Tbsdy, I wasn't stalking you, I was just looking at the list of Today's Articles for Deletion to see what further worthwhile article was due to go down the pan. Opbeith (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I never for even a moment thought that you were wikistalking :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If WP:SNOW was still accepted I would consider a non-admin close but a withdraw of nomination could save time. Polargeo (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – this is a frivolous afd - the article needs more references, which are easily found. Occuli (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notability seems apparent. Out of curiosity, Tbsdy, do you have something against people with the name Chris? :-) RFerreira (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I did then I would have to hate myself :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 05:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball keep'. Clearly notable; a particularly pointless nomination. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pigsonthewing? From Kuro5hin? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:30, 9 February 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) 08:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of office bearers of the National Union of Students of Australia
- List of office bearers of the National Union of Students of Australia (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 meet the general notability guideline. I have made a good faith search for sources, and can only find sources for the current OBs, and this is not from an independent source. A list of current OBs may be notable, but this is already in the article National Union of Students (Australia). -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator. See the talk page for a more detailed list of my concerns. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the NUSA are a very significant student advocacy group in Australia. I don't disagree that it should be sourced better, but I don't think that's sufficient to delete. I suspect that this will turn out to be a no consensus again though, just like the last three times it was submitted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/merge. This is a fundamentally useful list that I've long argued to keep, and it should stay online somewhere. However, our sourcing standards have changed over the years, and most of the material here is close to impossible to reliably source by current standards. I would merge whatever can be reliably sourced - the presidents, and probably the general secretaries, into National Union of Students of Australia; regrettably, I think the rest needs to go unless someone's willing to work out how to source the damn thing. Rebecca (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Rebecca. I think a summary of the current office holders would be appropriate on the National Union of Students of Australia page (provided of course a reliable source can be found) but otherwise this is just a massive list of non-notable people. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I am happy to be guided by Rebecca on such pages. I agree with her that adding a list of past-presidents to the main page is appropriate provided it can be sourced. I am not advocating a straight merge because it is bad practice to merge unsourced material. If these lists are significant enough to be online the best way forward would be for the Union to add it to their website. TerriersFan (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but merge the list of presidents (and possibly general secretaries). Would agree with TerriersFan that it would be a worthwhile consideration for the organisation to list this info themselves - I do a lot of stuff related to local government and it's frustrating the level of research one needs to do to simply determine past mayors of a city or town. Orderinchaos 14:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge sourceable content to National Union of Students (Australia). Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, and it is certainly not for Facebook-like listings of officers of organizations, especially student organizations. Abductive (reasoning) 03:38, 11 February 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. (NAC) Swarm(Talk) 06:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Asplen
- Chris Asplen (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'm not convinced he is notable enough for an article. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A little research before the nomination would have shown sources at Google News archive: National Public Radio, Philadelphia EWnquirer, which called him "an internationally known expert in DNA technology" and discussed hios legal career, Washington Post, Wired.com, CBS News, which called him a "DNA expert", CNN, which says he testified before Congress on DNA analyis, and many more news articles behind paywall. Google Book search shows [76]which says he "directed the training and education of prosecutors around the country in the use of DNA.." and that Atty General Reno appointed him as executive director of a national commission because of "his extraordinary knowledge of DNA testing and its unique legal issues." He got some coverage in [77]. Three more books have only snippet view, so the extent of coverage is undetermined. Google Scholar has 21 hits, but I do not have online access to most of the journals. See [78], [79], [80] Edison (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Asplen has held several significant posts and there are plenty of reliable sources from which the article can be expanded. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:43, 3 February 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) 00:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Arrowsmith
- Chris Arrowsmith (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)
British slalom canoer who finished 17th in the C-2 event during the 1992 Summer Olympics in Barcelona. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Criteria No2 on Wp:ATHLETE reads, "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships". DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Competing at the Olympics (no matter what sport or result) is notable. Lugnuts (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets WP:ATH as he has competed at the Olympic Games. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per statement of notability in the nomination. As an Olympic athlete he's clearly notable.--Michig (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Though I don't like to use it WP:PERABOVE. Olympic athlete, notable. Nothing more to be discussed. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - WP:ATHLETE Chris (talk) 13:22, 4 February 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. (NAC) Swarm(Talk) 06:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Armold
- Chris Armold (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)
Author of a number of somewhat obscure books. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment His book may be obscure, but it attracted the attention of US media, see an article in the Columbus Dispatch, another one in the Dayton Daily News. Check the result of Google News Archives search, please. An interesting article was published by Forbes. In my opinion Armold meets WP:AUTHOR, #3, as his work has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources noted by Vejvančický. Also he and his "obscure book" were covered by Newsweek in 2005 [81]. Edison (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per Edison. LotLE×talk 19:30, 7 February 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) 00:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Archer
- Chris Archer (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)
Executive of a subsidiary of Activision... is this notable enough? I would not have thought so. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a BLP without relevant third-party sources. The few sources I found were interviews about his projects, not about him specifically. Nifboy (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He seems to be a frequent and respected commentator in the video game industry and development, I found his comments in the Boston Globe, LA Times, Billboard or USA Today. --Vejvančický (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No coverage about him, except presumably on an obscure gaming site that's now 404'd. Pcap ping 03:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, does not appear to meet general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 05:04, 4 February 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) 00:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Appelgren
- Chris Appelgren (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)
While the record label he was head of is notable, I'm not certain we need an article about him. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Be bold and redirect to the record label as a plausable searchterm. Lugnuts (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added some references. Unambiguously notable, according to WP:MUSIC, as "a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources found by Eastmain. Edison (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep enough third party sources [82]. LibStar (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: enough reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:43, 7 February 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) 00:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basappa A. Uralegaddi
- B. A. Uralegaddi (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 doesnt have sufficient facts for notability DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Mathscinet lists 10 citations over a 30 year career, on the citation front. On the other fronts, did not locate significant coverage in secondary sources. Gscholar gives better citation numbers, but the h-index is still below 10. I conclude fails both WP:PROF and WP:GNG. RayTalk 00:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reasons above. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 19:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Citations look borderline, but I think fall just slightly below the threshold. A little expansion of article might push me the other way though. LotLE×talk 23:37, 3 February 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 keep. Nominator has changed their position to the subject being notable, no outstanding delete arguments —SpacemanSpiff 22:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Harish Gaonkar
- Harish Gaonkar (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)
Gaonkar is wiki notable. This I realized now after going through these discussions. Lots of things are confusing on wiki. It does not say that Butterfly expert is wiki notable like all politicians are wiki notable. Sorry for the inconvinience.
DoNotTellDoNotAsk (--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC) ) --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a case for improving the article, not deleting it. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. This butterfly scholar has slim CS cites but I don't suppose that general level of cites is as high in that subject as, for instance, in string theory. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. Appears to have made significant contributions to his particular discipline. The article is no longer an orphan, by the way. His name appeared in a couple of butterfly articles, but without links, and several more use his book as a reference. Favonian (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Although Gaonkar wrote a cited catalog of South Indian butterflies, references only mention him. No other biographical information is provided by sources. I am uncertain that there is enough here to fulfill the criteria of a biography of a living person. I note that he is not mentioned in online searches at the University of Copenhagen Zoological Museum nor the London Natural History Museum. — CactusWriter | needles 20:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep apparently an expert on South Indian butterflies, DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable academic positions and strong publications (in an esoteric area, not general readership). LotLE×talk 23:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Easy enough to find references. What is the point of proposing deletion of obviously sound and informative article when a quick check would find references, rather than either wasting other people's time or throwing useful information into the bin? "Global Butterfly Names" proposal to ECAT programme of GBIF by J. Mallet, Prof. of Biological Diversity, University College London (referring to "major collaboration" between developed and developing countries, backed by Natural History Museum, London to provide open, online, complete and up-to-date "database of all ~80,000 names applied to ~17,500 butterfly species" - Gaonkar is one of the NHM staff members, postdocs, and scientific associates "with leading skills in butterfly taxonomy" "representing a critical mass of professional expertise unmatched elsewhere".[83]; cited in acknowledgments as advisor on text of "Moths of Borneo" [84]; cited but not referenced article in Entomological Science [85]Opbeith (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Almost the only current expert who has done a proper survey on Indian butterflies. AshLin (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The nominator didn't provide any valid reason for deletion per deletion policy. I was going to say speedy keep but on looking up the speedy keep guideline I see that that isn't a valid reason. It should be. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I had given the valid reasons. It was in orphan status for a long time (Also I failed to understand why butterflies are so important). It was not clear from the article that he is the only expert on butterfly from South India --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 22:24, 5 February 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! 07:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Human Factors Lab
- Human Factors Lab (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/non-reputable sources and coverage BringThemDown (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)— BringThemDown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Note that this is about a band that fails the music group notability guideline. NME coverage found by Google News is in fact copied from Wikipedia itself. Other results are false positives. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This bands website has fallen under vandalism attacks by previous members of the band. This deletion request is a part of these attacks and should be treated as an attempt to vandalize the bands wikipedia article, as well as wikipedia itself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.152.6 (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been years since I worked on this article, I've no particular opinion on it. I did tend to think it was notable at the time I worked upon it, but whether it's truly notable, I'm not so sure. I'd be inclined to go with deletion for it if I was pushed, but it could easily go either way, I suspect. Nick (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- if anyone checks the history i think its obvious this is vandalism. Comments like " small weiner" and other childish things being added to it make this clear. I cant imagine the Human Factors Lab wiki page not being notable, perhaps there is information missing that could help? im not sure.. it seems fairly complete. perhaps there is a way to help the page, instead of lettering Wikipeda fall victim to vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 23:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This band is in no way valid by the terms set by Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 01:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How could anyone say this band should be deleted? That makes no sense at all. What requirements are they not meeting? This is obviously just an attack. Is wiki just deleting bands now? I saw deadstar assembly got deleted. Another awesome band. Wiki must be circling the drain if they keep this up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.133.62.18 (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Total 3rd party here. I don't think it should be taken down. They have national noteriaty. They have played w big name big lable bands. I say keep it! Loogie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.234.186 (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You vandalized articles in two of your three edits [86] [87]. What brings you here? Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment BringThemDown, 32.133.62.18, 75.119.152.6, HFLSev3n, and Elblots are all single purpose accounts. Strictly speaking, Elblots was created to argue the deletion of Deadstar Assembly, but since the two bands play together [88] I think it's fair to include the Deadstar Assembly supporter(s) as interested parties. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another 3rd party here it is not the band responsible for the page vandalism it is it's past members who think that since they are not in the band anymore they feel like they should cause controversy within the band.. and as someone metioned the removal of DSA one question. Why? Both great bands with great followings.. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.51.16.4 (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IN regards to the Notability as set forth by wikipedia,
- 1.Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.,The band has had articles and interview in many national and regional publications including looker magazine, rag magazine, City Link,new times, ect.[89]
- 4.Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.-They have toured the U.S. 7 times, their 2 most recent tours with Mushroomhead received extensive amounts of press, a quick google search can show some for the pages such as MTV[90], and Blabbermouth[91] that covered the tours.
- 5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).Toxic Shock records[92] is a notable indie label. HFLs label mates include psychotica, and Team Cybergiest featuring Angel from Dope
- 6.Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.-The band is led only by one person and features rotating live members Seven has also worked closely with other bands such as Crossbreed, and 16VOLT. They also release a remix album with remixes by Crossbreed, 16VOLT,KMFDM, BILE, Team cybergiest, as well as many other national " notable" bands.
- 11.Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.-Human Factors Lab has regular radio play national, as well as varies podcasts such as razorblade dance floor,
- I think it is safe to that that although Human Factors Lab does not meet ALL 12 of the criteria, (to be notable they only have to meet one,)they do in fact meet 5 right off the bat). Statements made by Elblots and Smerdis of Tlön are indeed false by saying the band does not meet the notability guidlines, Perhaps more research before makeing such statements would have helped —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 18:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject of the MTV and Blabbermouth articles is Mushroomhead, not Human Factors Lab. Human Factors Lab is named but not discussed; this is only incidental coverage. Toxic Shock Records may be a notable label, but there's no evidence that it is. The question of its WP:notability is moot because it has no WP article. However, the only other of its bands to have a WP article doesn't seem notable, either. The Rag interview does help establish notability, even though members are as noncommittal as an NSA spokesman when talking about the band. As to the rest, you must produce reliable sources that support what you say. Certainly no one else is going to Google "seven" hoping to confirm what you've said. I think too it's fair to ask, is User:HFLSev3n this "seven" of Human Factors Lab? Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Subject of the MTV and Blabbermouth articles are in response to the #4 of the 12 guidelines set forth by wikipedia.the band " Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country"
- Mushroomhead was in the fact the headliner of these tours, Human Factors Lab(toxic Shock Records) and Autumn Offering(Victory records) were also apart of the same tour.In addition to Toxic Shock, Human Factors Lab also works with Viabrent Management[93] yes HFLSEV3N is seven from Human Factors Lab, and has been signed on every post made. I think i have just as much right to defend my position in this debate as any one else, And i am trying to do so in a way that is not only fair to Human Factors Lab, but fair to Wiki as well. i DONT use wiki veyr much, until recently i have not been involved in the cration of upkeep of the bands wiki site so perhaps there is information that could be added to help end this debate. as you can see i am not the only one voting for Keeping the page, and also not the only one wanting to delete it. I do feel that the decision should be a fair one. The nomination itself seems like it is not fair, since it was done as an act of vandalism in an attempt to " bringthemdown" them refering to Human Factors Lab" I dont feel that this debate was started with the best interest of Wiki in mind, but instead with malicious intentions. please understand my involvement in this debate is simple to point that out, as well as make sure it remains a fair debate. I truly believe that Human Factors Lab meets the notalibity guidlines for wiki, maybe they are not as well represented as they could be. I am trying to show that the evidence is there that they do meet them. even if its only meeting one of the 12, or 5 of the 12. I guess that is for us all to figure out —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 20:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Trivial coverage is i.e. "they're touring with Mushroomhead" or "they're playing tonight at Goths-R-Us", even if it's in Rolling Stone. This band was not discussed at all in the MTV or Blabbermouth articles, but only mentioned incidentally as a detail of Mushroomhead's tour. That's trivial coverage, and you won't get much traction trying to argue otherwise. If the author had nothing substantive to say about the band itself, its music, or its members, then the coverage is trivial.
- The subject of the MTV and Blabbermouth articles is Mushroomhead, not Human Factors Lab. Human Factors Lab is named but not discussed; this is only incidental coverage. Toxic Shock Records may be a notable label, but there's no evidence that it is. The question of its WP:notability is moot because it has no WP article. However, the only other of its bands to have a WP article doesn't seem notable, either. The Rag interview does help establish notability, even though members are as noncommittal as an NSA spokesman when talking about the band. As to the rest, you must produce reliable sources that support what you say. Certainly no one else is going to Google "seven" hoping to confirm what you've said. I think too it's fair to ask, is User:HFLSev3n this "seven" of Human Factors Lab? Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether the nomination was "fair" is irrelevant. All that matters is, are there reliable sources that demonstrate that this band is notable as WP defines that term. Nor does it matter how many say 'yea' and how many 'nay'. This is not a vote. An unseen wiki-immortal will decide the matter wiki-wisely based on the substance of our arguments. Unsubstantiated rhetoric isn't helpful; without reliable sources to back it up, it's just so much hot air. Given that, you're well-advised to focus your effort on producing some of those "hundreds of printed reviews and articles" instead of arguing with your friends. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- i understand what you;re saying, I wasnt clear on exacly what was mean by " trivial". Thank you for clearing that up. I guess i don't fully agree with the defenition, i understand that the guideline these 12 guidelines in place to determine wheather a band is Notable. The facts are that Human Factors Lab has toured the U.S. 7 times, performed with varies other national acts. our music is nationally distributed and avilable on iTunes/Amazon ect. these are things that your average "local band" has not and cannot do. The fact that the MTV and blabbermouth as well as a bout 50 other articles in the google search have us listed as part of the mushroomhead tour should be cause to not delte the page on its own in my opinion. we have performed in every state but 3, multi times,to crowds ranging between 500 and 8,000 people. We are on national radio, have national distro, and have received press as well. again things your average " local band" has not done. Im not here to say " oh we are so kool" just because its my band. I am simply saying it seems strange that the page would be deleted. I think the fact that the page was nominated as a result of vandalism should be taken into consideration as well. because its not like anyone in this debate thought to delete HFL because it didnt meet the guidelines. it was a purley a malicious attack. As far as arguing with " friends" that is not my intention.. i dont even know anyone else involved in this debate, it seems half of them are posting just using their IP address anyways. I am trying to simply state a case for not delting the page, based off of the facts involved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.152.6 (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether the nomination was "fair" is irrelevant. All that matters is, are there reliable sources that demonstrate that this band is notable as WP defines that term. Nor does it matter how many say 'yea' and how many 'nay'. This is not a vote. An unseen wiki-immortal will decide the matter wiki-wisely based on the substance of our arguments. Unsubstantiated rhetoric isn't helpful; without reliable sources to back it up, it's just so much hot air. Given that, you're well-advised to focus your effort on producing some of those "hundreds of printed reviews and articles" instead of arguing with your friends. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The terms set forth by wikipedia clearly state that a band must provide NOTABLE REFERENCES. Not word of mouth, not local papers that no ones heard of, no internet radio play. The band claims to have national radio airplay, but no evidence of such was presented and a search provides no support on this. The "label" has only 9 bands "signed" to it, all of which as small or smaller than the band in question and thus not notable, which in no way qualifies them as a big independent outfit. The only mention of the band member working with any notable acts are in the form of remixes (which incidentally does not quality the members as being a part of the musical outfit), most of which are not mentioned by the bands the remix were for. Mention on blabbermouth is valid, however it is a web-blog and thus not a notable reference. The article has no citations, no valid links to support anything, and as such meets none of the wikipedia guidelines that are clearly pointed out on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also like to add that there is no notable print reviews (local outfits and blogs are far from a reputable source) on this group. The only mention a google search brings up for them are on sites/blogs/social sites that are run by the band themselves. It would appear that the group is using wikipedia as a self promotion tool (which is against the terms of the site), as well as a way to seem credible to outfits that see that they aren't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.42.91 (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles that the band appears in are a mixture of Regional( or as stated "local") articles as well as national. The Looker Magazine article linked earlier is in fact a globally distributed release. The band has had a lot of regional press, but has done so on a national level. there have been printed articles and interview in college magazine or local music magazines, but these have been done on a national level. not just to the local area in which the band resides. in regards to the label, yes it is small in the sense of only haviing 9 bands. But the 2 bands listed above, Psychotica, and Team Cybergiest on their own are very notable. Psychotica was a part of the lalapolooza tours ,as well as a few tour with Tool, and have a number of national and global released and distributed albums . So your claim about the labels and the bands is simply an assumption you made having little or no knowledge of the subject, and not researching the topic before making the statement.. its completly false.
- bands members working with notable acts, as stated Seven has worked with both 16VOLT, and CROSSBREED. these bands ALSO did remixes but his work with theses bands was independant of Human Factors Lab
- The mentions on blabbermouth and MTV were simply examples. if internet sources are not valid there are just as many if not more print sources available,what citations ad valid links are needed? perhaps they could be added. You say no notable print reviews, as stated the band has had hundreds of printed reviews and articles, what to you is " notable" ? the looker magazine article didnt seem to be notable enough for you, and that has global distro. . The band is NOT using Wiki for self promotion, the band was not involved in the creation of the wiki site ,ad has had very little to do with it at all until the past 6 months, these edit over the past 6 months were only to update and have more acurate information, as well as to undo the many vandalism attacks that have taken place by EX members —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the future, please sign your edits with four tildes (~~~~), HFLSev3n, so that it's clear who is saying what. If the "Fetish Chic Cheat Sheet" is the Looker magazine content that you're speaking of, then I don't understand how it's relevant to this band. Perhaps you can explain. If there are "hundreds of printed reviews and articles," then cite a few. In any case, please stop fighting with your mates and address yourself to the issues instead. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The point still stands that the label is by far not major, nor notable in any way. Working on a remix for a band does NOT make them a member of the groups, and thus the original statement stands.
- There are no links to support any of the claims being made. One un-cited publication does not make you valid by any means. College and local papers are also not notable.
- This debate is being held by the band singer himself as is observed by the username, which is a conflict of interest, and has been the main updater of it for a while now, so the statement about how he has had little involvement is also false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not say that the label is not notable. What I said was, the notability of the label is undecided because there has never been reason to consider the question. Please don't misrepresent what I've said. The identity of HFLSev3n is only relevant to evaluating what s/he said about Sev3n's role in this band and his/her relationship to other notable bands, and then just barely relevant because what s/he said must still be supported with reliable sources to carry weight in this discussion. But then, so do yours. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I have been a major part of this debate, but im not sure how that is a conflict of interest, please explain? Are you saying to do not have a place in this debate? i feel that i have offered fair and factual evidence and examples of why the page should not be deleted.
- I stated before that i did not crate the wiki page, and up until the last 6 months, i have not been involved in the editing, this fact can be seen by viewing the dit history. Most of my edits have been a combination of undoing vandalism, as well as updating the page to current and correct information. As far as my involvement with 16VOLT and CROSSBREED i stated that i worked with both bands OUTSIDE of Human Factors Lab in addition to their remix work they did for HFL. I was part of the 16VOLT Denial HWY tour 2008 filling a number of roles, including live guitars, live keyboards, [[94]] Also worked in the studio with crossbreed on their New Slave Nation EP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Touring as a fill in member of a band isn't exactly notable. As for the involvement in/with other groups, even if those were in fact valid, there is no proof/citations on the matter. 65.2.198.190 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Nature of 16volt, as well as many bands in the industrial rock or Industrial metal genres is that they are often led by one main person, and in a touring situation there are varies live touring members. examples of this would be NIN, KMFDM, Ministry, ect. Eric Powel is the driving force behind 16volt and the people he chose to fill the live positions were chosen because each of them held a degree of notability among the fans of Industrial Music. Steve white(KMFDM), MIke Peoples(daniel Ash band) , Jason baznet(CHEMLAB) and Seven(Human Factors Lab) Im not sure why you would say " even if those were in fact valid" i included a link to the 16volt site. but you can also check ANY press release made in regards to the 16VOLT denial HWY tour and you will find the same information i am providing you with here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 20:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Touring as a fill in member of a band isn't exactly notable. As for the involvement in/with other groups, even if those were in fact valid, there is no proof/citations on the matter. 65.2.198.190 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no indication that this band meets any of the criteria at WP:BAND. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP There is indication that this band meets the criteria at WP:BAND —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.152.6 (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific than that (please see WP:ATA). Exactly which criterion do they meet and how? TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, I personally think this is asinine - It's an article of information about a band that IS NOTABLE - It's notable by the fact that an argument is even occurring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.93.33 (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also - As KMFDM is inarguably a "notable" artist, Wiki's own page for KMFDM's discography references the band... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KMFDM_discography - This "bringthemdown" stuff is obvious for what it is. No, I am not a member of this band, and a quick internet search provided the KMFDM discography page - I believe that alone is enough to satisfy wiki's notability guidelines. Whoever is putting so much effort into removing this band's page would probably be better served focusing their efforts elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.93.33 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Who here even implied that KMFDM isn't notable?! And what could that possibly have to do with whether or not Human Factors Lab is notable? They got paid to do a remix; that doesn't make the other band notable, it just shows they (or their label) have the money to pay KMFDM to do a remix. TheJazzDalek (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- by implying that Human Factors Lab is not notable you are also implying that KMFDM, as well as just about every band on wiki is not " notable" you are also implying that KMFDM will do a remix for any band out there with money,making them musical whores.. this is also VERY far from the truth. the reason KMFDM did the remix for Human Factors Lab is because they share a lot of the same fans. Also note that Human Factors Lab and KMFDM also work with Viabrent Management, Also Steve white from KMFDM plays guitar for 16VOLT, Sev3n from Human Factors Lab also worked with 16VOLT.. This shows that they are in the same musical circles, playing a lot of the same venues, sharing a lot of the same fans. KMFDM is OBVIOUSLY a MUCH bigger band, but this doesnt mean that Human Factors Lab is NOT Notable.. This entire descussion was started as a personal ATTACK against the band and holds no merrit at all. actions like this WILL AND ARE destroying wikipedia. No one will donate to this site, or even want to come to this site.. the site itself will start be known as a joke and not a reliable source of information if vandalism like this is so easliy accepted and allowed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.152.6 (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Who here even implied that KMFDM isn't notable?! And what could that possibly have to do with whether or not Human Factors Lab is notable? They got paid to do a remix; that doesn't make the other band notable, it just shows they (or their label) have the money to pay KMFDM to do a remix. TheJazzDalek (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also - As KMFDM is inarguably a "notable" artist, Wiki's own page for KMFDM's discography references the band... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KMFDM_discography - This "bringthemdown" stuff is obvious for what it is. No, I am not a member of this band, and a quick internet search provided the KMFDM discography page - I believe that alone is enough to satisfy wiki's notability guidelines. Whoever is putting so much effort into removing this band's page would probably be better served focusing their efforts elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.93.33 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I modeled their merch, & they let me keep it. So not only do they have good music, but they give out free stuff. Might as well keep 'em around :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.177.66.51 (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- HFL is an ever growing band and has many fans. This page should not be deleted because it has a large fan base and people rely on HFL wiki to get the information they need about this awesome band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.157.36 (talk) 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- The Human Factors Lab wiki should'nt be deleted.They are an awesome band and this is just an attack from a previous band member(s) that has a major chip on the shoulder and needs to get over it cause 1. Its not worth it. 2. Its childish. and 3. These things happen.I know,I'm a vocalist for my own band and I've been cut from other bands as well.Its not the best thing in the world to happen but it does and I know who it is and ya need ta stop before ya mess up a relationship even further than ya aready have.You're just hurting yourself in the long run. Pinky(to the people that are trying to delete the hfl site you know me cause you gave this nickname to me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.8.40 (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All this talk about what this band has done, and yet not one single link to prove validity has been posted. If they are as big as they claim to be, there would be many EASILY obtainable sources, but the band member himself is unable to provide a single one.
- As for the statement about how the bands large fan base relies on wikipedia for news and updates, that is NOT the purpose if wikipedia. Things such as that are left for a bands personal web site..which.. incidentally, this band has none (dead link).
- personal vendetta or not, the point is still that this group is unable to provide an ounce of credible truth that they are in fact notable for the site.
- resorting to attacking wikipedia with threats of "No one will donate if this continues" only shows an unprofessional approach on the matter. The mods have been simply asking for reference points, and the group has none to show. All they seem to have are words, and not facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC) — 65.2.198.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This band has it's own we site. A who is search shows they have had it since 2000. The website has also fallen under attack,that's why it's a dead link. People have provided links to show the notabllity of the band. Saying "havnt provided one link" is true. More than one have been given. I think the comments about no I e coming to wiki are true. It's not a threat. It's an observation on how actions like this in recent months is making people unhappy with wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.128.216.12 (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, after spending a day away and coming back to this page, it is quite obvious that there are two distinct camps in this argument...Those who are arguing for the page to be maintained by providing insightful discussion and links showing their credibility side-by-side with the notability guidelines set forth by wikipedia, and those that are simply yelling "Nah nah nah! I can't hear you! those don't count because of blah blah blah" - In the hopes that, for whatever their reasoning, the page will be taken down. They are expending alot of time and effort into making sure this page DOES NOT stay up. Why? What vested interest do these people have, if not simply to sabotage the page as HFLSeven is stating. They are no better than forum trolls, hoping that, even though they are few, the loudness of their complaining will sway the argument to their side, so they, as a minority, can have things their way. I don't think that's right, and I think it's childish. Leave well enough alone and go back to your life, it will be the same whether or not HFL's wikipedia page stays up or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.93.33 (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks more to me like there are three distinct camps. Two of those camps appear to be newcomers to Wikipedia: fans and/or members of the band who want the article kept, and the "enemies" of the band who want the article deleted. The third camp is actual Wikipedians (I make that to be Ihcoyc, Nick, Yappy2bhere, and me) who are judging the article's notability on its own merits (including its references, or lack thereof), not how much we like (or dislike) the band. Being new to Wikipedia, to be sure, does not invalidate the newcomers' opinions; and if even one of them gets interested in Wikipedia from their experience here (good or bad) and comes on board to edit articles and help improve the project this mess will all be worth it. However, I strongly recommend that anyone new to Wikipedia and the AFD process first read this and then carefully read this to better understand what we're talking about when we say things about "notability" and the like, and to better keep their arguments focused in a productive direction. TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to bring up again that it is not a personal vendetta or anything of the sort. The fact that I present over and over again is the inability for this group to give notable references. Every "link" they have posted (of which you have to do some digging in this article here to find) do not contain any third party main coverage of the group. Simply mentioning them as far as I have read does not qualify them. In the end, you claim that they should stay here because its a malicious attack. That may be what started it, but the point was brought up and is true, this band does not meet the criteria to be on the page. If an exception is made in this case, it would be used in arguments other bands have in order to keep their pages on here too (ie: Well that Human Factors Lab group were able to stay on without providing valid notable references, so we should too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The MTV and blabberbouth mention hold merrit in the argument to keep the page. While it is true it is in the context of a tour headlined by mushroomhead, the fact that human factors lab was a part of the tour adds to thier notablity. They have done 2 seperate tours with mushroom as well as performed on tours with many other "notable" bands. Your average "local" band does not and can not do this. I would think the criteria needing to be net to be on several major national tours is probably much more severe that the critera set forth by wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.128.250.131 (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was already pointed out that the subject of the MTV and Blabbermouth (which, is a blog supported by user supported data, and thus not a true valid third party source of information) were about mushroomhead and NOT Human Factors Lab. They are simply named and not discussed, and thus incidental and does not fit the requirement. Buying on to a tour does not make a band notable, the same as paying a band to do a remix for you..regardless of a shared genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There were opionions about the MTV and blabbermouth articles and counter opnions given as well. I belive they DO hold merrit. As far as buying onto tours and paying for remixes you are assuming that the only reason hfl was on these tours is because they paid. That is a false assumption. They were chosen because they were notable for the tour. Wheather they paid a buy on fee(which all bands do,including mushroom when they bought onto ozfest and mayhem fest),is irrelivant. It's part how the music industry works. Not EVERY band can have KMFDM and other bands do remixes. And not EVER band can tour with mushroomhead and be mentioned on MTV or blabbermouth. HFL did these things because they ARE notable. NOT because they have money. The state of the music industry these days I'd be shocked if they even had money —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.128.146.49 (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was already pointed out that the subject of the MTV and Blabbermouth (which, is a blog supported by user supported data, and thus not a true valid third party source of information) were about mushroomhead and NOT Human Factors Lab. They are simply named and not discussed, and thus incidental and does not fit the requirement. Buying on to a tour does not make a band notable, the same as paying a band to do a remix for you..regardless of a shared genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both the MTV and Blabbermouth articles only mention Human Factors Lab name ONCE, and each time just listing them as being on the tours. Not a single sentence is written that talks about them in any other way. Seeing how they were also a buy-on opening band and not a co-headliner also shows they are under qualified to meet the notability for this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.42.91 (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They were NOT a buy on opening band for the tours,and there was no co-Headliner. Mushroomhead was the only headliner and autumn offer and human factors lab were both part of the tour package with different opening bands every night. According to the wiki guidlines human factors lab was on a tour that received national press. This meets the notability guidlines set by wiki. As do many other examples given in this debate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.128.250.70 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As the tour was not advertised as Mushroomhead and Human Factors lab (it was simply a Mushroomhead tour), the band was in fact just an opener. Side note: Web logs (such as blabbermouth and the MTV article which is a blog) are typically not viable sources of information. The band remains highly non qualified and incredibly unreferenced. To reinstate would give many other groups ground to re-add themselves as well using this article as an example. From what I understand, the guidelines are tight for a reason. The wikipedia moderators themselves have asked for SPECIFIC references and answers directly, and they are typically dodged as no support for the claims can be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.42.91 (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The order of their listing has NOTHING to do with how notable they are.They order they performed also changed every night as well. Some nights they were the first band on.. somenight they went on right before the headliner. all the support bands were of upcoming equal national standing, with mushroomhead being the bigger, headlining band That statement just like EVERY statement you have made on here is simply to say " im not listing to you" as someone else pointed out. even though i disagree with some statements made by the logged in users as least can respect the fact that they give valid reasons for disagreeing and present it in a constructive manner. Its obvious you just have personal reasons for wanting the bands page taken down that have nothing to do with if they are notable or not. no matter what anyone says you either ignore it, or just say "no it isnt" human factors lab was NOT just a buy on band. There are ALWAYS expenses associated with tours as someone pointed out, its not like any band can walk in with bundle of cash and suddenly except to get on a national tour. it doesnt work that way. Bands are considered for tour the same way they are considered for Wiki. Who ever is putting the tour together looks at a list of criteria to see if the band should be on the tour. Examples=does the band have a simular fan base as the headliner, do they have a large enough fan base to contribute to overall ticket sales by being on the tour, do they have national radio/video play, do they have nation distro. This is why the press from the tour, and the tour itself is important in this conversation,and show that Human Factors Lab is in fact a notable band. if you had some local garage band, and a stack of cash you would NOT just be able to get on a tour like this? make sense? also here are some link to back up what i am saying about how the order of the names doesnt mean anything its just however the person writing the article felt like putting them. these thinks show Human Factors Lab in multiple cities being listed in all different spots. [95],[96], [97], [98] —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 06:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice try. 3 of those articles simply list the bands in alphabetical order, and the 4th one simply mentions the band as an opener. The blabbermouth and MTV articles went out of the way to list Human Factors Lab last. Also, buying on to tour is a very common practice. Buying on to a smaller tour (say as in Mushroomhead in comparison to a band like nine inch nails for example) really is only about money. If the buy-in had any merit, it would be called "Mushroomhead - With special guests (or featuring) Human factors lab". Your band was barely even a footnote in every single article. As stated several times, provide some actual notability, its been over 3 days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.42.91 (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Human Factors Lab is a good up and comming band that has been touring the past few years. The person who started this band is a good guy who truly cares about his music and his fans. He has giving his heart and soul into his songs and shows his heart to all of his fans. His band also to cares about the art they are doing and are very commited to it and are in it for the love of it not the money. So I, a human factor lab fan is asking you to keep this page up for this hard working band —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.247.10 (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Too promotional in the absence of independent secondary sources. Interested contributors should best register, find some third party coverage, request userfication, and start again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The nominator is a single purpose account and this is clearly a bad faith nomination. Why is any weight being given to this nomination? Swarm(Talk) 06:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad Faith or not, they are being shown to be invalid for the site. The original nomination may have in fact been done maliciously, but should the band get a "Free pass" that allows them to remain on here even tho they do not meet the criteria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple people have shown multiple examples of how the band is notable by wiki standards. You can chose to ignore that or say deny it but the evidence is there and I'm sure someone with a nurtal position with weigh the actually examples and ignore those who are simply here to have the page deleted without showing any real cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.128.250.14 (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Only a few people have tried to say they are valid, but the MODERATORS keep confirming that they aren't. Read the history above, all I see are the mods continuing to say the band has not provided valid sources of notability. The main defensive posters here all share the same bad spelling, and one is from a mobile phone IP address. Also as said above, If you wish to defend yourself with any merit, it would be wise to REGISTER an account and post as yourself instead of one person on various IPs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have heard of the band Human Factors Lab. Living in Florida I have seen the band a handful of times. I noticed that 16VOLT was brought up in this discussion. I saw 16VOLT on the Denial Highway Tour in Atlanta, GA at The Masquerade and Sev3n was not onstage with the band. I ended up meeting Eric Powell at that show and asked why Sev3n was not there. To my surprise I was told he was unable to play the guitar or keyboard parts, so he never played with them onstage. He was then moved over to the position of sound man and couldn't do that job either and eventually he went home. Being from Florida I can also tell you that they draw maybe 50 people at the most locally. If you did deeper into the history of this band you will see that the majority of tours the band has done have been regional tours with other little known acts. The only tours the band has done that brought them any attention were the two buy ons with Mushroomhead. You can't buy any of their albums in a record store or Hot Topic. I've looked for them in both and they are nowhere to be found. The band in my opinion falls short of the requirements seeing as how I would only consider them to be a regional band that has had minimal press. Most of the press I have seen from them has been through a few local magazines here in Florida and a small internet buzz. They were lucky enough to have an opportunity to open for a national band on two different occasions but anybody with a band and enough money to throw around can do the same.65.3.68.21 (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC) HB[reply]
- Delete. I would prefer to have seen a speedy keep closure with NPSAR early on due to the obvious bad faith nomination, followed by a renomination by an editor acting in good faith. It is as important (if not more) to discredit bad faith nominations as it is to discredit the opinions of single purpose accounts participating in the discussion. Since this is obviously not the case, I have to say delete due to the fact that they aren't notable. Swarm(Talk) 20:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBAND. I found only two sources that discuss the band at all [99] [100], neither covering the band in any depth. The Rag interview represents the only serious editorial interest in this band. Of course, if user:HFLSev3n can cite some of those "hundreds of printed reviews and articles" I'll reconsider my !vote. I'm frankly puzzled by user:Swarm's concern with the nominator's motive. Isn't a "bad faith" nomination a nomination of an article that is prima facie notable? What does that have to do with motive? Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews of HFL albums Pap3r and PLASTIK, and an intervew with HFL. Yappy2bhere (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would like to point out that both articles are hosted on the same site. The site itself is sketchy. Hosted on a free server (doesn't even have its own domain) as listed on its main page, and run by a single user. A pretty far stretch for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By that logic we should entirely disregard your statements here ("doesn't even have its own [user account]"). Fabryka may well the work of a single user, but it does have a ten year history reporting on its chosen genre [101]. It's up to each editor to decide how these two references contribute to notability, but to characterize Fabryka as "sketchy" is unfounded. Tell us, which genre-specific publications could establish the notability of this band? You've said that Fabryka isn't relevant, but what then is industrial rock's Rolling Stone? Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't you say yesterday that "[i]f you wish to defend yourself with any merit, it would be wise to REGISTER an account and post as yourself instead of one person on various IPs." [102] Have you changed your opinion, or do your own views as an IP lack merit? Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern with the nomination is that anonymous users usually don't make their first and only contributions to Wikipedia by listing an AfD. Bad faith nominations (any nomination made with malicious intent) can (and should, in my opinion) be speedily closed. However, this is an exceptional circumstance since the bad faith deletion attempt is validated by deletion policy. I'm not saying it's a bad nomination in itself. I don't think it would make sense to close the discussion at all, now. However, I don't like to see blatantly bad faith actions supported on Wikipedia. Not really a big deal, that was just a side opinion I threw in, and I still cast my opinion in the discussion in favor of deletion. Swarm(Talk) 00:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Print and web - http://www.zillo.de/index_original.html , http://www.musicmaniac.de/tin/magazines.html , http://www.regenmag.com/ , http://www.side-line.com/ , http://www.movinghands.net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Several things to be pointed out: A regional publication, even from someplace that you may not be from, is still a REGIONAL publication. Is it national? No? Then it's regional. Sorry. Two: Just because you've heard of the band does not mean, in the grand scheme of things, that a band is notable. Ask people outside of the scene, and if they've heard of them, we can consider the notability. Three: Where are these 'hundreds' of articles and interviews? I'm pretty sure that if I had something of such acclaim, I'd keep it. In fact, I do- and I did. I know exactly which edition of Gothic Beauty, or Side Line, or whatever...so what were you in, hmm? Give us a little proof, please! That is the point here, you know, so if you want to save your band's Wiki....show us! That's all you have to do, Sev3n! Give us one article in a NATIONAL publication, and all of this is moot. It all goes away! All arguments of band ethics, of the buy-ons, all of it will just stop. Also...what did you do to draw the ire of so many people? If so many are 'vandalizing' this page, I'd be pretty concerned with my own behaviour. Just a thought. But honestly...give us ONE article to prove us wrong. Something tells me you just can't, though. GraceEgg (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)— GraceEgg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Is there some reason a regional publication can't be a reliable source? The R.A.G. interview[103], which you've overlooked or ignored, is a good step toward notability, but in my opinion one such is not enough. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, they can be, but lots are kindof fly-by-night publlications, and (living in the general area) Rag is one of those types. There just isn't enough journalistic integrity to lend credence to that being a major mention. However, that being said...if he has 'hundreds', why is that all we get? Surely in those masses there must be something that many of us have heard of. Maybe even something that's a little less regional- ie, something statewide as opposed to just one small area. Really, that's what I'm looking for. Some kind of recognition. And if you don't have it, that's fine- but can he please be honest about it? GraceEgg (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there some reason a regional publication can't be a reliable source? The R.A.G. interview[103], which you've overlooked or ignored, is a good step toward notability, but in my opinion one such is not enough. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If this band was as big as they say they are, with such a huge following, than their failed attempt at rallying their fans to come here and assist would have had a bigger showing. http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=2364111&blogId=528345635 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Yappy2bhere (talk · contribs). Passing mentions do not establish notability. The topic fails WP:BAND. Cunard (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There will not be any mentions on the bands MySpace or anywhere else because their "huge fanbase" is nothing more than small handfuls of people sprinkled across the east coast and midwest. By small I'd say somewhere between 5-10 per state and that's being generous. The band can barely draw in their own home state. If Deadstar Assembly had their page removed so should Human Factors Lab. At least Deadstar has had ads in real magazines like Guitar World and can actually draw a crowd. 65.3.128.41 (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC) HB[reply]
- I would like to say that although its appreciated (As I am a representative of Deadstar Assembly), this is not a debate over that group or band. Please allow this page to be about Human Factors Lab, as its already a huge debate and I'd rather keep it easier for them to state their claims without too much clutter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I'm just stating that by comparison Deadstar has more credibility. I'm all for the deletion of the HFL page. 65.3.128.41 (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC) HB[reply]
- Please don't toss in facts and figures without citing sources to support what you say. Paid advertisement doesn't contribute to notability. Popularity can be a factor, but in this case I think its the difference between a few fans vs a few more. Each article is judged on its own merits; it's irrelevant to this discussion that there is no Deadstar Assembly article. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is getting ridiculous...at this point, the band could post a full page article from Rolling Stone and you'd all STILL find a way to downplay that... Every SINGLE link that's been posted, when really only one is necesarry, gets attacked for its "notability"...I lived in South Florida for most of my life, and while I was there, Rag magazine was THE music magazine to go to for any information about artists, shows, and everything music industry in South Florida- Just because you disagree doesn't make it any less true. So it's Regional - So are newspapers, radio stations, etc. You've gone from disputing the band's notability to attacking the notability on each individual article or piece of evidence. You're asking for proof, people are providing it, and you reply with "that's not good enough, and this is why" every single time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.93.33 (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the links were in fact notable and unquestionable, there would be no room for debate. The moderators themselves have pointed out many times now what they are looking for. If there were in fact HUNDREDS of articles written about the band, one with more notability shouldn't be so hard to find. Only posting one source shows that the group in fact has little coverage and as such, do not belong on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, if this band can come up with something that meets the Wiki requirements, I'll be first in line to change my vote. But I think we all understand that being mentioned once in passing does not qualify as 'notable', especially when the main defender and lead singer of the band can't even correctly spell the name of someone who he's supposedly friends with and is the lead singer of the 'notable' band he's been in (which has already been proven to be untrue by a previous poster). And (to keep this a short rebuttal), Rag used to be locally pertinent. Not so much anymore. We're just saying that if there is question about its notability (which there is), give us something better! If I'm shown bigger proof about this band's qualifications to be here, then I'll gladly change my tune. But even people like me, completely outside the situation, can't find anything reputable online about this band! Maybe you can find something for us that will keep them here? Please, show me something concrete! And the mods are the ones who ultimately decide, so maybe instead of attacking people on here, you should spend some time digging up evidence for the mods so this band can stay here. Our comments don't mean much, but their opinion rules the day. GraceEgg (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I'm just stating that by comparison Deadstar has more credibility. I'm all for the deletion of the HFL page. 65.3.128.41 (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC) HB[reply]
- I would like to say that although its appreciated (As I am a representative of Deadstar Assembly), this is not a debate over that group or band. Please allow this page to be about Human Factors Lab, as its already a huge debate and I'd rather keep it easier for them to state their claims without too much clutter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact remains that the HUNDREDS of articles written about the band don't exist except for probably in their own minds. Also anybody with enough money to throw around can tour with "notable" bands. If this band were as big as they claim they wouldn't have to name drop as much as they do. They would be able to stand on their own accomplishments. Not ride on the coat tails of bands that actually do something. 65.3.128.41 (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC) HB[reply]
- I don't understand why a debate on notability has turned into personal attacks. If you have a opnion to keep or delete. That's fine. But the personal attacks on the members of the band and the singer just take away from what ever point was. As far as the "hundreds of articles". That is probably an exageration. With a little research there are several articles on the Internet about the band,most of them as a result of the mushroomhead tours. Ranging from a simple mention of the name,brief paragraph,and full page write ups. I am guessing these would be likley to exist in just about every city they played during their last 2 tours. Some examples have already been posted. I am guessing this is what "hundreds of articles" is refering to. And if so. Then it's true. If they were saying they have hundreds of articles in rolling stone(which they never claimed). Then it would be false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.134.114.147 (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets notability requirements (WP:BAND) specifically #5, being signed to an established independent label that has a roster of performers (e.g. Angel Bartolotta of "Team Cybergeist", and Psychotica), with whom they've released two albums. In assessing media coverage, this is analogous to other orgs I suppose; they've some coverage in regional media, and further research in the specialist press would likely yield more in depth material to develop the article. I added a few refs. –Whitehorse1 13:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the references you added, [1], [3], [4], [6], [7], and [8] appear to be trivial coverage of performance dates, and [5] is the Broward/Palm Beach New Times article I listed above, but what please is said in reference [2]? (And of course, please correct me if I've misrepresented the other references.) I don't agree that element 5 of WP:BAND is satisfied, though, because I think the label needs more than a two notable performers before it can be "one of the more important indie labels." Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Six and eight were already part of the article; eight is the label by the way. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune [2] is incidental; it's just a citation on the award nominee point. The refs I added addressed {{fact}} tags placed in the article, e.g. [1] sourced their first live performance being at South Florida's "Culture Room" club. –Whitehorse1 22:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Here's a recap of sources posted here—not used in article:
- Fabryka - Industrial Rock Magazine: Particularly in non 'commercial' areas, smaller scale press can gain solid repute over time. Established ten years; although online, I've not seen any reason to dismiss out of hand. The link is to an in depth interview of the band. The other link was a review of their album.
- "Dane101.com": Likely not especially reliable, but would in no way be used to support notability. Alongside reliable sources, the piece could source a simple claim x played with y.
- Blabbermouth.net (this one's in): Contrary to suggestion above, this is a reliable source. Significant consultation by the established press (see here) mean even if they present information in blog format, it's validity is unaffected.
- RAG - newspaper: Three page interview (interesting enough snippet on pg.2 sees the interviewer note they'd signed a deal with Toxic Shock Records, and asking how that came about. The impression is the interviewer considers the label to be one of some renown). A further three chunky paragraph album review. That they're regional doesn't exclude them.
- MTV: Likewise, part of a large media organization. It matters not a jot if it's in blog format. Contentious claims about people ('John Smith eats babies') would be a different matter, but that not the case here.
- Additionally there are the six regional newspapers already added to the article citing existing small points. Last, primary sourcing from the label; plus, a linked page of band founding member Seven on Dean Guitars website, who apparently thought him sufficiently notable to spotlight.
- Depth of coverage:
- The RAG newspaper interview is clearly in depth. Likewise, the album review.
- The Fabryka 'zine again is in depth coverage. They cover industrial rock and industrial metal music. On the question of their significance, although not on par with Rolling Stone, it remains a publication established for a decade. They've, whatever else, interviewed significant parts of the industrial rock and industrial metal music scene; example:
16Volt, Autraumaton, Bit Riot Records newsitem, Brand X.'s Do They Hurt? album, Cannibal Corpse album Worm Infested, Charles Levi, Chemlab, Cyanotic, Die Warzau, DreDDup, Hate Dept., Left Spine Down album Voltage 2.3: Remixed and Revisited, Jim Marcus, Marc Jameson, Mark Gemini Thwaite, Michael J. Carrasquillo, Mick Cripps, Mike Riggs, Mick Ronson album Play Don't Worry, Murder Metal, My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult, N17 (band), Nick Beggs, Revolting Cocks, Sean Beavan, Skrew, Society Burning, Stiff Valentine album, The Rabid Whole (and album Autraumaton), Tommy Victor, Tony Campos, U.S.S.A..
That's in the region of 30 interviews with often particularly prominent artists or groups. For me, that goes to establish significance.
I'd say they meet WP:BAND criterion 1 "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.". Even if we only count each of those sources (that've published multiple non-trivial works on them) just once, it'd still be two; more, if you factor in the reviews and (albeit smaller) New Times Broward-Palm Beach piece. –Whitehorse1 22:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The majority of sources they are mentioned in are incidental. The Rag and Fabryka being the only exceptions. R.A.G. magazine, however has no valid reference link. Yes theres a magazine scan, but I was under the impression that in order for a link to be notable it needed to be referenced by a third party and not the band itself. The linked images are on the bands own myspace, and thus not a secondary source in my opinion. Photoshop is a wonderful thing, afterall. (not saying this is the case here, but putting it as an example).
- Dean guitars lists every artist they endorse, regardless of their significance, on a spotlighted page. http://www.deanguitars.com/home.php Does this automatically mean that if a group is endorsed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.229.112 (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple exceptions in other words. No, there's no need to provide online links to newspaper or other secondary sources according to the Verifiability policy. Thank you for the clarification about Dean guitars; their endorsement criteria in no way affect validity of the remainder of my points. –Whitehorse1 23:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the heads-up w/the periods in RAG. A search on that brought their site up. Their issue archive lets anyone verify the interview in the (June '08) issue. –Whitehorse1 00:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dean guitars lists every artist they endorse, regardless of their significance, on a spotlighted page. http://www.deanguitars.com/home.php Does this automatically mean that if a group is endorsed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.229.112 (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Their releases are not on "one of the more important indie labels", and no other criteria are fulfilled. Yilloslime TC 18:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that Toxic Shock is an important indie label. Their roster is small but in addition to Human Factors Lab they do have notable label mates. Also given the state of the music industry these days most bands are chosing to stay completely indie, or work with Indie labels. Toxic Shock has become a very important figure in this industrial music scene, as well as the music scene in general. in addition to to the bands they have on their roster, they also work on varies other projects with other bands. Is there a guidline, or a way to see if Toxic shock is " one of the more important indie labels" by wiki standards? I have stated my opinion of what i believe to be true, but i am sure one of the many unregistered IPs that have been chiming in and stopped to personally attacking will say " no it isnt" to just about anything i say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 23:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- a notable independent label has a far larger roster of artists (toxic shock has a whole...9). For example, metropolis records. Independent, lots more signed artists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.229.112 (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. The WP:BAND criterion reads: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." I'm not sure how many performers are on the roster matters beyond a certain point; if they'd a couple've bands period, that'd be different. Of theirs, it's pretty much accepted two are Notable (22%); three if you count Mikee Plastik (evaluating pre-Internet 'underground performance artists' can be hard); or four, when you count this one. –Whitehorse1 22:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that Toxic Shock is an important indie label. Their roster is small but in addition to Human Factors Lab they do have notable label mates. Also given the state of the music industry these days most bands are chosing to stay completely indie, or work with Indie labels. Toxic Shock has become a very important figure in this industrial music scene, as well as the music scene in general. in addition to to the bands they have on their roster, they also work on varies other projects with other bands. Is there a guidline, or a way to see if Toxic shock is " one of the more important indie labels" by wiki standards? I have stated my opinion of what i believe to be true, but i am sure one of the many unregistered IPs that have been chiming in and stopped to personally attacking will say " no it isnt" to just about anything i say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 23:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have also spoken, in passing, to several other artists on the Toxic Shock label, and they have mentioned that the owner is considering dropping HFL over 'undisclosed legal issues'. So it may be that the label thing is moot regardless. Just wanted to add that in. GraceEgg (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, though it's basically hearsay, so we wouldn't be able to factor it into any decision. –Whitehorse1 22:17, 11 February 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. Guidelines are just that and local wikiprojects do not get to overrule project consensus. Destinations pages are for convienience when the main article is getting too big but the consensus here is that this hasnt reached thzt point yet. No convincing case for keeping this as a standalone has been made that overpowers arguments based on gng and WP:NOT. Therefore this falls for deletion as there is no need to mege material back. Note that recreation is specifically permitted when the main article expands beyond acdetpable length (we have a MOS on that) or where the number of destinations expands to the point that they overpower the article Spartaz Humbug! 07:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Porter Airlines destinations
- Porter Airlines destinations (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 page is a simple content fork of Porter Airlines. I propose merging the content back into the Porter Airlines article. This was the case before and it was done because a complete duplication of the information of the destinations of this airline was in both articles. ʘ alaney2k • talkʘ 03:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This information is now a section at the Porter Airlines article (thanks to whoever created it), so a separate page is no longer necessary. Mandsford (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - A suggestion on WP:AIRLINES states that if there are 10+ destinations there isn't any reason not to have a seperate article. As with many other airline destination pages, Porter is the same, why should they not have the same article type for their destinations? Zaps93 (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - WP:Airlines suggests that greater than 10 destinations be moved to a separate article. And Porter is a fast growing airline adding destinations on a regular basis now as they increase the size of their operations. A separate article for these destinations keeps from cluttering the main article. Canterbury Tail talk 16:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The table is collapsible. I made it into a redirect because duplicate info was on both pages. So, if we dont have duplication, then there will be no destination information on the Porter page. That seems a bit 'wacked.' ʘ alaney2k • talkʘ 16:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - but no different to other sizable airlines. Canterbury Tail talk 17:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - no other article than the Porter article links to Porter Airlines destinations. This really is a simple content fork. It properly should just be a list at the end of the article, after the prose section. The Wikipedia MOS should take precedence. After all the airlines project is merely a suggestion. Besides, Porter only list another five or so destinations. They will run out of fleet. I would rather revisit having a second article list article a year or so in the future. ʘ alaney2k • talkʘ 17:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - but no different to other sizable airlines. Canterbury Tail talk 17:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The table is collapsible. I made it into a redirect because duplicate info was on both pages. So, if we dont have duplication, then there will be no destination information on the Porter page. That seems a bit 'wacked.' ʘ alaney2k • talkʘ 16:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree with retaining the separate destinations article, as is consistent with most other airlines that have > 10 destinations. Though a separate article is not required per project guidelines (it's not even required of an airline like Air France, with hundreds of destinations) it is the practice almost across the board. The destinations list in the main article can simply be removed, with a link to the dedicated article. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep meets the more than ten destination guideline, link only required in related article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. The WP:AIRLINES advice that greater than 10 destinations be moved to a separate article is a guideline and cannot trump the WP:NOTDIRECTORY policy, and this article is nothing more than a directory entry. (This same argument was recently had at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montenegro Airlines destinations which closed in favour of merging the destination list back into the parent article, but this was swiftly undone regardless.) I42 (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - So you're for deleting this. Are you also for or against the original proposal of merging the information back into the main article? Canterbury Tail talk 13:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Being pedantic, but there were four "Keep" and three "Delete" for the Montenegro deletion nomination. Hardly conclusive in either direction. Jasepl (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not (or should not be) a mere count of votes. My assertion is that keep rationales based purely on WP:AIRLINES should be discounted because that policy cannot trump WP:NOTADIRECTORY. The AfD was closed as merge, so this was presumably the closing admin's view too. I42 (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is not a directory in any sense, it's just like any other airline destinations! Zaps93 (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it's a directory. It's a listing of places I may go to with that airline. And it doubly fails inclusion criteria as a travel guide. This is an encyclopedia: information about an airline's history and importance is encyclopedic; notable events leading to a route being included is encyclopdic; a mere directory of served destinations is not. I42 (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While that may be a valid point, it is a much larger discussion. I don't think the AfD of a fledgling, insignificant (in the grand scheme of things) little airline is the place to be discussing this. Jasepl (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the WP:AIRLINES guideline should be discussed - see eg Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Layout_(Airlines)#Destination articles for a start - but here we are talking specifically of this article. You now appear to accept that it is an unencyclopedic directory entry, and are further suggesting that the airline is non-notable. Does your Keep recommendation stand? I42 (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It seems pretty clear that there is not going to be consensus this time to delete, either. Maybe I should ask the question why people -want- to put the destinations in another article. And just because a WP:Airlines guideline says "could" is not applicable. I'm looking for common sense here, people. ʘ alaney2k • talkʘ 17:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Porter unlikely to get much beyond 10 destinations. For article continuity I think that keeping the destinations in the main Porter article suits this situation best. Atrian (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't see why this airline's destinations article is singled out for deletion from others. The standard is established at WP:AIRLINES and this fits within that standard.--Oakshade (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This, like all the keep rationales, is based entirely on the WP:AIRLINES guideline. But that is only a guideline, not a policy - and WP:NOTADIRECTORY (which is policy) must take precedence. Other articles have no bearing on this discussion. I42 (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've only occasionally seen the WP:ONLYGUIDELINE argument used to delete articles. Wikipedia is also not a system of laws (which by the way is a policy). Guidelines are established by WP:CONSENSUS (another policy) and heavy community input as to how to treat certain subjects and situations. I'd prefer to avoid Wikilawyering, having meta discussions on guidelines-vs-policies and not have to conjure up contradicting policies and guidelines in an AfD debate.--Oakshade (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I absolutely agree. This AfD is indeed helping form consensus. Depending on the outcome I think we should review either WP:AIRLINES or WP:NOTADIRECTORY to fit. I42 (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've only occasionally seen the WP:ONLYGUIDELINE argument used to delete articles. Wikipedia is also not a system of laws (which by the way is a policy). Guidelines are established by WP:CONSENSUS (another policy) and heavy community input as to how to treat certain subjects and situations. I'd prefer to avoid Wikilawyering, having meta discussions on guidelines-vs-policies and not have to conjure up contradicting policies and guidelines in an AfD debate.--Oakshade (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This, like all the keep rationales, is based entirely on the WP:AIRLINES guideline. But that is only a guideline, not a policy - and WP:NOTADIRECTORY (which is policy) must take precedence. Other articles have no bearing on this discussion. I42 (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a 13-row table in an article is fully acceptable. The WP:Airlines standard is just a minimum, and an AfD is in full power to overrule if people feel the list is too short. The project should probably reconsider its guidelines, but this list is still too short to stand on its own. If Porter hit 30 or so destinations in the future, then I would be willing to reconsider the list. Arsenikk (talk) 08:49, 10 February 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) 08:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IEEE JMI
- IEEE JMI (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)
While the IEEE is certainly notable, individual branches are not. No other article on an individual branch of the IEEE exists, and no sources can be found to indicate that this particular branch is in any way more notable than any other branch. All references in the article are from the group's own website. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Following comment transcluded from talk page:[reply]
- I respect your opinions and i do agree that IEEE is notable. But i do not agree that the individual branches are not notable. It is these Branches that together make up the IEEE. There are more than 80,000 student members all over the world.
- No where in the article is it written that IEEE JMI is more notable than the other branches and if other branches do not have a page on Wikipedia then it does not imply that those branches are less notable then the one in question. Each and every Society of IEEE makes it to Wikipedia, then why not the individual Branches??
- Another thing, there are hundreds of Branches of IEEE. IEEE cant have individual information of each and every branch on its site. At max what you can find is the name of the Branch and a link to its homepage! If you are looking for some additional information then please specify and i'll try my best to get those to you. Here are some more additional links which may help you, if you want to take a look at them.
- Yours Sincerely
- fzhaque
end transclusion
- Comment While each of the individual societies of the IEEE are likely notable because of the significant contributions those societies make in their individual fields, the individual branches are likely not notable because, as a branch, they do not make significant contributions in their field. I.e. there is no unique and notable contribution of the JMI student branch of the IEEE (or any other individual branch) that separates it from being "just another IEEE branch". Your argument that the IEEE can't have individual information on each and every branch on its site actually applies even more so to Wikipedia. IEEE could, if it chose to do so, have information on every registered branch. If IEEE chooses not to do so, that is their choice. Wikipedia should not be called on to provide web space for the purpose. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Mr. WikiDan61, I ask you, Are you a member of IEEE? Do you know what the IEEE Student Branches are doing?? Especially what the JMI branch is doing in Delhi Region and at the Asia-Pacific Level? Often many things are not available on the internet and you just cant ridicule these things because of lack of information in the virtual world. I guess you will have to come to New Delhi and see for yourself what all work is going on here......
IEEE does not provide the information on its site because it directly gives you the link of the official website of the Student Branch. And IEEE knows that the information available there is 100% correct. And if you want to know about the Notable Contributions which IEEE JMI has made and which makes it a little different from the rest of the Branches in Delhi or for that matter in India, I suggest you take time out of your busy schedule to take a look at the various reports and news items on the Official Website!! fzhaque --Fzhaque (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply No, I'm not a member of the IEEE. But as an engineer and former engineering student, I am aware of the work being done by various IEEE student brances. When I say that these organizations are not individually notable, this is not ridicule. I believe the work of the IEEE and its student branches serves a valuable role in the education of future engineers. And I'm sure the JMI branch is doing wonderful work there, as I'm sure the RPI, MIT, CalTech, University of Manchester, etc, branches are doing as well. However, none of these activities has been the subject of significant independent coverage, which is the litmus test of notability here at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Dan! My name is Imran Ali and I am currently serving as the Branch Chairperson of IEEE JMI. Besides this I am also serving on the R10 SAC Committee which is directly responsible for most of the IEEE awards. I agree with you that you probably need more citation for the facts we have mentioned. I guess the IEEE MGA Vice Chair, Professor Mini Thomas mailing you the details of the awards won should be substantial enough for you? As an IEEE worker in a way I know the technical problems associated with the maintenance of IEEE award and competition stats and I won't be ashamed in stating that we do not do a good job at it. The society is approaching 400.000 members and is run by just 1000 employees. Maintenance of stats on the website as such is not the most high priority job that they are taking up atm. Maybe in due time they will. The underlying fact remains that IEEE JMI is a role model branch definitely in the R10 if not the entire world because of their impressive innovations. If I may go on to say, a lot of branches emulate what we do. I can get you quite a few testimonials to back this claim for highly reputed IEEE volunteers! Cheers! P.S: FYI please do not compare R10 SB activities to R1-R7 as IEEE themselves are amazed why these regions do not contribute to the IEEE's progress. Technical projects aside these branches are of no good to IEEE as per their internal findings. IEEE invests in student branches to promote leaders and find those individuals who will run the society tomorrow. Proud to say that R10 is one of the region and we have a huge say in it!
--Imran Ali —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC). — RadoPOD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete I don't see significant coverage that is independent of the subject for this individual branch of IEEE. As an officer of another student branch of IEEE, I consider myself fairly familiar with the subject. Jujutacular T · C 20:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete student branches are usually not notable. At best Merge into IEEE student branches of Region 10. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changes As demanded by Jujutacular i have added some more links which are independent of IEEE JMI Official Website. They are proof of the awards won by the website. Please have a look at those. This improves the notability i hope --Fzhaque (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The new links, which indicate that IEEE JMI has won awards within the IEEE student activities groups for its website design, do not indicate notability at large. I.e. no coverage of this award occurred outside the IEEE organization. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @70.29.210.242 What are you really trying to suggest? Merge it with "IEEE student branches of Region 10". Are you a moderator on Wikipedia? I do not think so, because no such page exists on Wikipedia that you have mentioned. Please check the correct name and let me know.--Fzhaque (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to 70.29.210.242 Merge it with an article which doesn't even exists on Wikipedia!! What an Idea!! What authority do you have to give your ideas which you are trying to support with wrong facts??? I may be a user who has only a couple of days of existence but if you want to remain as a user on Wikipedia, i advice you to check your facts before jumping into something. Take my advice. You wont regret!! Bye! Hopefully you will have a long career here!!!! --Fzhaque (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @WkiDan61 According to you, Wikipedia is not ready to accept any information from the any kind of IEEE Websites. Independent source! I think since these websites are not controlled by IEEE JMI, shoudn't they qualify as Secondary sources? And Wikipedia does approve of Secondary Sources! What you suggest is a little bit difficult but i am also sure that very soon I will be able to show you IEEE JMI on a newspaper clipping or on a Tertiary Source.--Fzhaque (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Student chapter of international organization at one university. Abductive (reasoning) 03:36, 11 February 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) 00:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Adams (General)
- Chris Adams (General) (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'm just not certain of notability. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: is there any way the contents of this article can be merged into others, such as "war heroes or something?--60.240.117.215 (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What articles did you have in mind? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. WP:BIO doesn't say that generals are automatically notable, but it probably should. I added some references, but his name is quite common. Most or all of his books are self-published. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.
- Keep While I don't believe simply being a general officer is grounds for notability according to Wikipedia standards (it is in my book, but that's just one opinion), being a published author with books that can be referenced most certainly is. Writing the article from that point of view, and mentioning his military career, would be appropriate. Rapier1 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Being a Major General, and Chief of Staff of the Strategic Air Command, serving in several prominent roles after military service, and with at least a few newspaper articles covering his activities, suggests notability. The commonness of his name makes the typical Google news archive and Google book searches difficult, and most possible sources are behind paywall, so it is difficult to be sure the extent of coverage (or even if it is the same Chris Adams in some cases). Some sources are likely when he had a lesser rank than the retirement one. [106] suggests that a major newspaper paper reviewed his book. Possible other sources: "Called to appear before the House committee are Air Force Secretary Hans Mark: ... Gen Chris Adams, the Strategic Air Command's deputy chief of operations. .." and "PARKING ARRANGEMENTS FOR VIGIL, MOVING WALL NOV. 9-12" Pay-Per-View - US Fed News - Factiva, from Dow Jones - Nov 3, 2006:"Retired Air Force Major General Chris Adams, a 1952 graduate of A&M-Commerce who has been honored as a Distinguished Alumnus, will speak. ..." (broken link). A Google Book result about him appears to be [107] page 43: "stand down the alert until 21 November when a B-52H of the 379th Bomb Wing returned to its home base at Wurtsmith AFB, Michigan. Chris Adams reflected in...". If notability is determined from independent sources, then his autobiographical information from one of his books can be used to expand the article: [108]. He had various assignments in the Strategic Air Command, then became a Brigadier General in charge of the 12th Air Division in 1975, including 2 B-52 wings, U2s, and Titan II ICBMs. He became Chief of Staff of the SAC in 1982. Edison (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the general notability guideline. It's good that general/flag officers aren't guaranteed notability, because many of them in many countries aren't going to have sufficient coverage; however, this specific general does have sufficient coverage. Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In which countries would generals not receive coverage? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per Edison. Joe Chill (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree that any general/flag officer would not qualify, but to be a published author as well would indicate to me that he has met the notability guideline. C. Williams (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This nominator seems to be on a spree of deletion nomination by guesswork, without even taking the few seconds necessary to make cursory checks before nomination. Am I the only one who feels that such disruptive, time-wasting behaviour is unbecoming of an administrator? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per Edison. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Edison says it best. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I think that the combination of the subject's military career and career as a writer is sufficient to establish notability per WP:N. Of course, as it stands the article does not exactly make the subject's notability explicit. Perhaps the lead could be tweaked to add a stronger statement of notability? Also more details could be added to the military career section, for example dates of enlistment/appointment and discharge, etc. Just a couple of suggestions if anyone has sources/feels inclined. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:57, 7 February 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) 00:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing Mendezies
- Amazing Mendezies (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 no references, so I'm suspicious of notability. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Did not find anything at Google News archive, only three snippets, apparently two directory listings and a brief mention that they had entertained somewhere, at Google Book search.Does not appear to satisfy notability. Edison (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to suggest notability. Boleyn (talk) 19:38, 3 February 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) 00:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Coppola
- Chris Coppola (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)
Notability concerns Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lots of minor roles yes, but no major roles to satisfy WP:ENT. I could not find significant coverage to meet the general notability guidelines. Note that there is a 'Dr Chris Coppola' who appears slightly more widely known. Quantpole (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Poorly written, even for a stub (but has no stub tags). --60.240.117.215 (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Chris Allen, Chris Adams, Chris Coppola... I see a pattern here. Mandsford (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. Going through everyone whose first name is "Chris". - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you doing some checking before nominating? At least checking Google Books and Google News archive for sources which might support notability? I just see your very vague comment "notability concerns." I have WP:BEFORE concerns about such a nomination spree. Edison (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, though I might need to be a bit more thorough. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you doing some checking before nominating? At least checking Google Books and Google News archive for sources which might support notability? I just see your very vague comment "notability concerns." I have WP:BEFORE concerns about such a nomination spree. Edison (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. Going through everyone whose first name is "Chris". - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:51, 3 February 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. There is consensus below that the proffered sources are sufficient for notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Albert Casuga
- Albert Casuga (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 notable enough to deserve an article. User234 (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep winning the Philippine Parnaso Poetry Contest, although now defunct, is a clear sign of notability. Poor referencing is another issue, but the article should be kept. sulmues--Sulmues 14:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not unless we can find some sourced indication that the award itself was ever considered notable; googling Parnaso Poetry Contest, even without quotes, doesn't bring up a single Google hit that isn't this article on either Wikipedia or a Wikipedia mirror. Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no sources demonstrating notability; if some turn up I'd be happy to reconsider my vote. He has a long string of books published, but no sign any of them are notable, they're mostly from small academic publishers in the Philippines. Several are credited to a Canadian publisher called "Infocom", but I can't find any evidence that there is any such company; various Google searches turn up only this wiki page and the author's blog. The same thing happens when searching for various combinations of the words "Parnaso Poetry Contest". Winning an award doesn't make you notable without some sort of sign that the award itself is notable. Hairhorn (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'll try to find more sources. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if good sources can be found by close; delete if they can't. Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, look at the Google Books results! He's got dozens of sources there that analyse him and his work. Abductive (reasoning) 04:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Keep if the awards are notable, which I cannot judge. I'd feel much more confident about this with some citations to published reviews. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, you're trying to get me to improve the article. But I'm hampered by Google's snippet view. Nevertheless, even the snippet view produces Bloom and memory: essays on literature, culture, and society by Jose Wendell P. Capili which calls him a "luminary", another source listing him as one of the more important poets from his cohort, the Tamkang Review says, "Other writers whom we may cite at this point as possessing this historical sense... are Maidan Flores, Albert Casuga, and Benjamin ..." These are secondary sources that analyse the subject, and so it should be kept. Abductive (reasoning) 04:45, 11 February 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, without prejudice against the future creation of a policy-compliant article of similar scope. Skomorokh 01:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Historical pederastic relationships
- Historical pederastic relationships (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)
Okay, this page is an example of Original Research about a highly contentious topic whose primary editor (with 809 edits) has just been banned. My reasoning is thus - pederasty and pedophilia are considered synonymous in standard dictionaries and psychological texts. Some historians have differentiated the two but this is by no means universal. We now have a logic jump where a term which is used in some contexts (particualrly classical greece) is now splashed about willy nilly and attached to a whole heap of relationships across continents and times. I contend this violates WP:OR and WP:SOAP - hence is misinformation and the very article needs to be removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/question. Okay, assuming they are synonymous, should we not have an article on significant relationships of this kind throughout history? I've not even bothered reading the lead, but I assume there are sources for something like this. Does it duplicate any other article on this wiki? (By the way, I've read two short articles written by this banned user: Kenneth McLaren and Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell, both of which have been AfD. I did not see any overt POV pushing. The info in those articles is generally in line with what one can find in google books.) Pcap ping 11:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way: Pederasty is defined in its Wikipedia article as: "relationship between an older man and an adolescent boy". I'm not an expert on these issues, but I was told in an ANI thread regarding Roman Polanski that pedophillia refers only to the pre-pubescent, while hebephilia or possibly ephebophilia refer to the pubescent. So, I'm not sure that equating this article with the history of pedophilia is entirely correct either. Pcap ping 11:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is where we get into problems - the OR is in describing these relationships be a word (i.e pederasty) not used in the sources - the word itself is used in an attempt to distance and legitimise some pedophilic relationships (as well as some technically non-pedophilic but actually containing some of the same power differential and abuse characteristics) from pedophilia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Pederasty' is also the preferred term used by pedophiles for themselves. The mere use of the term suggests an agenda. See e.g. here (caution, NAMBLA website) Think of the children (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The fact that there is some disagreement among the sources about the definition of a concept is not at all unusual and does not mean that we should delete an article about the concept on WP:OR grounds. E.g. there is even more disagreement among sources about the definition of terrorism, yet (I hope) nobody would seriously argue in favor of deleting the terrorism article. The issues of variations of the meaning of the term can be discussed within the article itself and its scope can be specified in the lead. In this case the lead seems to fairly unambiguously specify the scope of the article. The topic itself appears notable, the information is sourced (or at least sourceable) and the material appears to be neutrally presented. No compelling reason to delete here. Nsk92 (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, but I guess I would see the analogy as if there were some militant group espousing terroorism who gave a particular form a different name and tried to promote it as not-terrorism. If you look harde enough you can find all sorts of odd definitions of things....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I do not trust any of the information that the banned user has put into any articles, and this article was essentially their 'baby'. A quick look through finds very one sided opinions regarding the historical relations. Many of them use sources which are difficult to check (and there are concerns over misrepresentation of those sources) and seemingly ignore other sources which would cast the relationship in a different light. I don't necessarily have a problem with there being an article on this general subject, but it should be a clean start. Quantpole (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article has several problems: first, it should be renamed "Historical alleged pederastic relationships": while it seems that all entries are sourced (and some of them are well known, like Pasolini and Davoli), they are rarely proven as such, and in most cases all what can we say is that there is one or more RS discussing their possibility. Also, it is worth noting the controversy on the definition of pederasty, and the article suffers of POV/bias for sure. That said, these seem to me all problems readily solved with editing, not deletion, and the subject, even if quite creepy perhaps, is a notable and encyclopedic one.--Cyclopiatalk 12:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete its a content fork created, maintained and distorted by a pro-pedophilia account. None of his work is to be trusted; scratch the surface on any of it and it's rife with distortions. Whatever notable historical pederastic couples there were, will be mentioned in tne appropriate article (on whichever of the two was notable, or in the articles of both). These forks are often used to push an agenda (since they hive off information into areas that are less likely to get broader editor scrutiny). This is always a problem, but when it's to push a pro-pedophile agenda, a line in the sand should be drawn.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I picked an entry at random, on a famous 20th century american illustrator. It described him as a "pederast." Well, he was certainly gay, and spent his life with a man he met when the younger man was 17 (not 15, as haiduc claimed). However, no one knows when the two became lovers. The source does not support that.[109]. This article is far worse than a pov-fork and a case of original research. It's distorted and false.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You just demonstrated that problems with the article (that exist, see my !vote above) can be solved by editing instead of deletion. --Cyclopiatalk 13:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would have to be reduced down to about 5 entires, all of which are already covered with their own articles. And this garbage -- this false, misleading and deceitful garbage, created to make pedophilia seem more acceptable, will remain in the history.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, first of all pederasty is not exactly pedophilia (even if there are blurred boundaries), second, regardless of the state of the article POV now, there's nothing that makes pedophilia or pederastia more acceptable in listing notable historical cases of it, and last it would be nice if we stay calm and don't let our personal feelings obfuscate our judgement. Now, if about 5 entries it can be, let's trim it to these 5 entries and if they are already covered in their articles, it becomes a reasonable list, as a navigational help. The value of an encyclopedia is not only in collecting information, but also in making it structured in a useful way. --Cyclopiatalk 15:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This has nothing to do with my judgment or personal feelings. Almost none of these claimed things are relationships and this original research stretches from allegations that so-and-so slept with a 13-year old child prostitute, to such-and-such starting a lifelong committed gay relationship with an 18 year old. It's all self-definied, by someone who ran with the NAMBLA crowd. Truly notable pederastic relationships will involve notable people and will be examined (if verified by multiple reliable high quality sources and so forth) on the articles on those people. This is SYNTH, OR, and a POV-fork created by someone with a pro "have sex with adolescent children" (since you oppose calling that pedophilia, I'll spell it out) agenda. Encyclopedia's, real ones, never treat marginal information in this WP:INDISCRIMINATE and scatter-shot fashion. They don't allow non-historian activists to be the principal authors for their historical articles, and they summarize the relevant, consensus view information, in the one, right, place, avoiding endless forking, repetition (and, of course, disagreement). Really, don't talk to me about what the value of an encyclopedia is. You have no idea at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When I asked to avoid personal feelings about touchy subjects like this one coming in, it's this kind of rants I wanted to avoid. Now, your last comment is difficult to answer because it actually makes no real point. I try. The first part is a claim of OR being scattered in the article, which I agree can be for many entries (I don't know actually because I don't know the subject and I don't have access to the books in the references). But you too say "almost" none, and in the comment you said 5 entries could be legitimate. So we have, in your point of view, an article to trim heavily, but not to delete. Second, yes, the guy who did the article had a really, really troubling agenda (even if confusing sentences you used like "adolescent children" mud the waters, either someone is an adolescent or a child, and sex with young adolescents, even if I don't really endorse it at all, is a wholly different beast from sex with children). Yet the motivations behind doing articles have nothing to do with the suitability of the article itself. The last part is more of a rant against the whole Wikipedia model of editing (and a kinda personal attack on me, but let's forget it): given your point of view on who should write articles, you probably would find yourself better in Citizendium. But this is not a reason to delete, again. --Cyclopiatalk 16:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This has nothing to do with my judgment or personal feelings. Almost none of these claimed things are relationships and this original research stretches from allegations that so-and-so slept with a 13-year old child prostitute, to such-and-such starting a lifelong committed gay relationship with an 18 year old. It's all self-definied, by someone who ran with the NAMBLA crowd. Truly notable pederastic relationships will involve notable people and will be examined (if verified by multiple reliable high quality sources and so forth) on the articles on those people. This is SYNTH, OR, and a POV-fork created by someone with a pro "have sex with adolescent children" (since you oppose calling that pedophilia, I'll spell it out) agenda. Encyclopedia's, real ones, never treat marginal information in this WP:INDISCRIMINATE and scatter-shot fashion. They don't allow non-historian activists to be the principal authors for their historical articles, and they summarize the relevant, consensus view information, in the one, right, place, avoiding endless forking, repetition (and, of course, disagreement). Really, don't talk to me about what the value of an encyclopedia is. You have no idea at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, first of all pederasty is not exactly pedophilia (even if there are blurred boundaries), second, regardless of the state of the article POV now, there's nothing that makes pedophilia or pederastia more acceptable in listing notable historical cases of it, and last it would be nice if we stay calm and don't let our personal feelings obfuscate our judgement. Now, if about 5 entries it can be, let's trim it to these 5 entries and if they are already covered in their articles, it becomes a reasonable list, as a navigational help. The value of an encyclopedia is not only in collecting information, but also in making it structured in a useful way. --Cyclopiatalk 15:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would have to be reduced down to about 5 entires, all of which are already covered with their own articles. And this garbage -- this false, misleading and deceitful garbage, created to make pedophilia seem more acceptable, will remain in the history.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You just demonstrated that problems with the article (that exist, see my !vote above) can be solved by editing instead of deletion. --Cyclopiatalk 13:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I picked an entry at random, on a famous 20th century american illustrator. It described him as a "pederast." Well, he was certainly gay, and spent his life with a man he met when the younger man was 17 (not 15, as haiduc claimed). However, no one knows when the two became lovers. The source does not support that.[109]. This article is far worse than a pov-fork and a case of original research. It's distorted and false.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, let's see what the community's views are on SYNTH, OR plagued articles written by activists pressing for the normalization of sex with children. This one doesn't stand up to even 5 minutes scrutiny.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll see what the community says, for sure, but it would help both of us (and the community) if you can argument rationally your points instead of using what looks like moral panic. The editor has been banned, and we agree that there are POV concerns. But you yourself said that there could be legitimate entries: why can't we use them? What's objectively wrong with having a list of such relationships (or such allegations), if properly sourced and unbiased? --Cyclopiatalk 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Try reading WP:OR WP:SYNTH WP:FORK and WP:V for starters. And stop calling me irrational and putting words in my mouth. You've been consistently arguing for the unkeepable; this is no exception.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know these links, thanks. They again don't make a case for deletion, since you yourself said that the list can be reduced to five genuine cases. And no, I didn't call you irrational: I asked you to argue rationally here, which is a different thing. To my knowledge I didn't put words in your mouth; if I did so, I apologize. As per "arguing for the unkeepable", well, that's your personal opinion. Maybe the community will agree, but apart from that it's hardly a compelling argument against my points. --Cyclopiatalk 17:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Try reading WP:OR WP:SYNTH WP:FORK and WP:V for starters. And stop calling me irrational and putting words in my mouth. You've been consistently arguing for the unkeepable; this is no exception.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll see what the community says, for sure, but it would help both of us (and the community) if you can argument rationally your points instead of using what looks like moral panic. The editor has been banned, and we agree that there are POV concerns. But you yourself said that there could be legitimate entries: why can't we use them? What's objectively wrong with having a list of such relationships (or such allegations), if properly sourced and unbiased? --Cyclopiatalk 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, salt, lock, and throw away the key. Full of original research and is a blatant POV fork. UnitAnode 14:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article is downright awful, cobbling together whatever sources it can to advocate a point of view (see WP:SYN). There's nothing to salvage or fix here. Fran Rogers (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've AfD'd Pederastic couples in Japan because it's identical in structure with this article, which covers all countries, except Japan. Unless you think the Japanese are more pederast than the rest of the world, please cast your votes there as well. Pcap ping 15:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. —mattisse (Talk) 19:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Under most circumstances, I may be concede that the topic is likely notable, and the list can be pruned to fit standard Wikipedia criteria. However, the current article is basically a clusterfuck, and represents a unique sort of situation that requires a unique solution. In this case, it would be entirely more appropriate, should it be determined that the article is needed and notable and relevent, to just start over using properly cited reliable sources and with neutral editors who aren't push a particular point of view on Pederasty. --Jayron32 19:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I had never seen a wikipedia article that is so full of original research. No rs, but lots of pov. Typical fork. Totally agree with nominator. The creator of the article got away with this rubbish for a lot of time, probably because very few people would be interested in these kind of articles, but now he is banned per ARBCOM and his work got noticed. It was time someone saw this scam. sulmues--Sulmues 20:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fixComment. Casliber's findings of OR and SOAP problems in the article appear on to be on the mark, but deletion would be a stronger response than is required. The topic is one that has been written about extensively by scholarly sources, and it deserves its own WP article. I don't see that it's necessarily a fork, either. Since the current article does have over 200 incline citations (many of which need to be expanded or reformatted) and lists a dozen other sources, I'd strongly suggest fixing rather than simply discarding it. It might be a good candidate for the Article Incubator, which would get it out of article space. Or, if it remains where it is, it could be stripped down to its bare essentials and rebuilt. Yes, the topic is difficult for many of us, and yes, the editor primarily responsible for the article has made bad edits. Let's try very hard not to overreact, though; there's wheat amid the chaff. Rivertorch (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC) (Reconsidered and struck vote per my comment below.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually take largely your position above, however I think that the "delete and recreate" route is actually better in this one case than the "keep and let someone fix it eventually" route. Normally, in 99% of the cases, cleanup is preferential to deleting. However, this article has such huge problems, and we literally can trust NONE of the sources given the fact that the creator and maintainer of the article is known to have widely misrepresented sources, there's really no content to fix here. A complete reboot seems like a better solution than simply letting this lie around waiting for someone to get interested in fixing its miriad problems. --Jayron32 20:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You might be right. I have had few interactions with Haiduc in my time here, and I think our edits have only intersected on one or two articles, so it's certainly possible that I'm unaware of the scope of the problem. My impression has been that he's often too willing to go beyond what given sources actually say, resulting in novel syntheses and the like. For instance, rather than starting with a source and using it to write a paragraph, he'll write a paragraph and then find sources that, when combined, might sort of back up what he wrote. That's unacceptable, of course, but I've also been aware of some perfectly good edits, including satisfactory sourcing, on his part. So I'm leery about any kind of a purge happening. It would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. Rivertorch (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or cutting out the cancer to save the body... --Jayron32 21:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. Yes, that metaphor might be just as apt. I'm wavering enough to strike my "keep and fix" recommendation; I still think it would be the ideal way to proceed, but since I have neither the time nor the inclination to contribute to a fix and no one else has offered, it would likely just get stubbed and ignored. That wouldn't do. Rivertorch (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Separating the wheat from the chaff would require a specialist library on pederasty (with a special focus on historical scholarship in this area), countless hours of researching and reading, cross-referencing with index cards, and then a full re-write from top to bottom. We'd be left with a well-written and less skewed piece of original research if I did it, but still original research. Oh yeah, since really almost everything useable on this topic is about pederasty in various historical periods and not pederastic relationships per se, there'd be a healthy dose of synthesis to go with it. Were i to take this task on -- a dull and distasteful task, i might add -- i'd nuke the whole article and start from scratch. Of course, i'm not going to take that task on (not least because it will still would require a healthy dosage of synth and it's still a fork from Pederasty and the article where the real scholarship exists Pederasty in ancient Greece.) This is all a long-winded way of saying there is no wheat here and what is here, masquerading as balanced and generally accurate to the uninitiated, does far more harm than good.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or cutting out the cancer to save the body... --Jayron32 21:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You might be right. I have had few interactions with Haiduc in my time here, and I think our edits have only intersected on one or two articles, so it's certainly possible that I'm unaware of the scope of the problem. My impression has been that he's often too willing to go beyond what given sources actually say, resulting in novel syntheses and the like. For instance, rather than starting with a source and using it to write a paragraph, he'll write a paragraph and then find sources that, when combined, might sort of back up what he wrote. That's unacceptable, of course, but I've also been aware of some perfectly good edits, including satisfactory sourcing, on his part. So I'm leery about any kind of a purge happening. It would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. Rivertorch (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually take largely your position above, however I think that the "delete and recreate" route is actually better in this one case than the "keep and let someone fix it eventually" route. Normally, in 99% of the cases, cleanup is preferential to deleting. However, this article has such huge problems, and we literally can trust NONE of the sources given the fact that the creator and maintainer of the article is known to have widely misrepresented sources, there's really no content to fix here. A complete reboot seems like a better solution than simply letting this lie around waiting for someone to get interested in fixing its miriad problems. --Jayron32 20:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, people come for information. It is a very well referenced list that does not hurt the laws of our project. Actually the best advice was given by Cyclopia:"The article has several problems: first, it should be renamed "Historical alleged pederastic relationships": while it seems that all entries are sourced (and some of them are well known, like Pasolini and Davoli), they are rarely proven as such, and in most cases all what can we say is that there is one or more RS discussing their possibility. Also, it is worth noting the controversy on the definition of pederasty, and the article suffers of POV/bias for sure. That said, these seem to me all problems readily solved with editing, not deletion, and the subject, even if quite creepy perhaps, is a notable and encyclopedic one." Bruno Ishiai (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- strong delete article created and maintained (800+ edits!) by now banned user who was pushing a "pedantry is perfectly natural" POV. Has been known to twist and misrepresent sources, so this article cannot be trusted. No recreation either. Once the misrepresented stuff has been removed, little remains but a list of individuals unrelated in any way except their sexual preference. better served by categories, or better yet - nothing. ViridaeTalk 02:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Pedantry", huh? Pedantry can be tiresome, but it's hardly unusual at WP. ;-) Rivertorch (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete mostly as OR with some notability concerns tossed in as well. Unlike most people here I don't hold an IDONTLIKEIT POV with regards to this article, and I think that one dealing with this material can be built up, if given the sources that say that the "history of pederastic relationships" is a single topic and that it is notable. Our personal biases don't need to influence our editing. That being said, I really don't see the underlying scholarship needed to create a timeline about this subject. The similarity between these examples doesn't constitute an encyclopedic topic unless it is a. sourced according to a neutral working definition of pedarasty and b. commented upon by reliable, neutral, third-party sources. ThemFromSpace 02:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Synthesis by banned user. Pcap ping 02:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article consists of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH which serve only to promote the idea that pederasty is a normal part of life. With six billion people and thousands of years of recorded history, there are bound to be many "interesting" events of sexual excess, and there is no evidence that the list is more than an indiscriminate collection. As an aside, I have to mention that the October 2007 article really gives the game away: the first sentence includes "love affairs between adult men and adolescent boys", and it goes downhill from there. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I stumbled on this article from...I'm not really sure where at the time, but it was long ago, and I remember having quite extensive discussions with Haiduc about the quality of the sources he was using, and that supposed "couples" shouldn't be included in the list unless their relationship was discussed to some extent in the article of the noteworthy party. But, really, this article has always, always been a coatrack. It's not a fork, because there is no root article to which it would logically attach. It's just a pastiche of stuck-together information. (I won't call them facts, as there is quite a bit there that is synthesis and OR.) This needs to go. Risker (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that some of the sourcing is very flimsy. For instance, the info about Radu cel Frumos is sourced from two books:
- a paperback published by Back Bay Books "Dracula, Prince of Many Faces: His Life and His Times", which only has 16 citations in google scholar, most of them from movie-related publications, rather than other history works [110]. Does not seem incredibly academic. This book is not available online, but a similar one from the same authors is (guess what, vampire-related books sell well). And this is what we can read there [111]: "Gossip accused him, largely because of his good looks, of being one of the minions in the male harem of Mehmed, heir to the Ottoman throne, thus requiring him to be constantly at his master's disposal." pp. 19-20
- the other source is D. Browne, A General history of the several nations of the world: from the flood, to the present times, 1751. Almost the entire story in the wiki article is taken from there, uncritically.
- So, it smells a little funny, even if I cannot exclude that the info may be true, and also found in more respectable source. I for one, wasn't able to find any online, except this book about Islam by and Indian journalist (pretty YMMV as a source for anything). Interesting enough someone copied the info, with the first book reference, to the Romanian Wikipedia. Pcap ping 07:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that some of the sourcing is very flimsy. For instance, the info about Radu cel Frumos is sourced from two books:
- Delete. Lots of synth, someone call Dr. Moog. JBsupreme (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Way too much synthesis and original research. Shadowjams (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kill it with Fire. The possibility exists that this may be an encyclopedic topic. But the reality is that this article is so riddled with Original Research, synthesis, and shenanigans as to make it unsuitable. If we are to cover the topic, it would be best done from a blank article and a clean start. Thus, we should delete this. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:COATRACK, synthesis, OR, obvious adgenda need we more reasons.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - agenda-driven original research and synthesis of disparate sources. Tarc (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - agenda-driven original research and synthesis of disparate sources (thank you Tarc). Think of the children (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Waste of space - I strongly suspect most of the sources for this have either been partially selected or highly twisted. Time to clean up the crap that's proliferated here. Moreschi (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The primary editor has been known to use synthesis and OR to twist sources to his viewpoint. Better to start over if someone later decides to build the topic again. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a WP:COATRACK fork. RFerreira (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (With some regret) Keep -- This is an unpleasant subject, and I would love to hear no more of it, but unfortunately, some of it (at least) is dealing with historical fact; at least there is a strong presumption of fact. Since it was all illicit, historical sources can not say that it happened, but strong indications exist. Most of the pairings listed have a source, many of which are (I presume) WP:RS. Since the relationships are illegal, an article that referred to any living person would be potentially libellous, but the representatives of those who have died cannot sue, so that no danger exists there. The article may well need a good deal of pruning, but in so far as the relationships are verifiable, the article appears to be legitimate. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agenda-based original research/synthesis. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and treat subject at pederasty. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 17:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A lot of this is unsupported. The main contributor of this article has been banned indefinitely from Wikipedia for contributions such as this article. [112] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonalone (talk • contribs) 18:24, 6 February 2010
- Delete Out out vile spot! The creator of this article has long been a propagandist for pederasty. Nice to see action at last! Amphitryoniades (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are two issues here, which a lot of people here seem to be mistaking. (a) Regardless of who or what the author might be, pederasty is not the same as pedophilia (nor even paedophilia) - pederasty is old man + young man (that's post-pubescent man, not underage boy). Not only is pederasty 100% legal in most places (there is even a 'sugar daddy' subculture among both heterosexuals and homosexuals), but its also historically one of the main forms of homosexual expression (and in ancient Greek homosexual relations, pederasty was the norm). Now maybe he was trying to use it for some slippery-slope type argument, but that's a content/NPOV dispute, not an article-existence dispute. (b) AfD is about subject, not content. The question you should be asking is "is it possible for an article under this title to ever become a reasonable article?" - even if that necessitates replacing 100% of the content - instead of asking "do you want this article as it is right now this second". Newman Luke (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- additional comment. Don't let the latin in the title mislead you. What you are discussing here under AfD is Historical list of men with sugar-daddies. (In fact, moving the article to that title would probably remove half the problems it has, although it has the downside of not being a very professional looking title) Newman Luke (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What you're actually talking about is the more general concept, age–structured homosexuality (do a google books search). Pederasty is almost universally defined as involving a boy, even if pubescent; 12–17 years old according to this source. Often enough the contents here overflows the narrower concept of pederasty. Quite a few of Haiduc's articles should be renamed that way (i.e. from "X pederasty" or "pederasty in X" to "age–structured homosexuality in X"). Pcap ping 00:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per explanations above Avi (talk) 00:14, 11 February 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) 00:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greenie
- Greenie (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 purports to be a Disambiguation page, but it doesn't disambiguate anything. There is not a single blue-linked entry to an article called Greenie. Four terms are not even linked. Most of the rest are dubious slang/nicknames. The wording at the bottom of every disambig page is: This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. This one fails, given that there is only one article with Greenie in the title and thus no need to disambiguate. Emeraude (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The purpose of this page is to provide links to likely intended targets when someone searches for 'Greenie'. Although we don't have an article specifically title 'Greenie', it still serves a purpose. Sone of the entries could perhaps be taken out, but I don't see a reason to delete it.--Michig (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think this needed a big clean-up (which I've now given it) but is a useful dab. Boleyn2 (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Boleyn2 and their significant clean-up. This is exactly the sort of thing we have disambiguation pages for, so no reason to delete. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, having the "La Salle Greenies" and the "Greenie Bus" is sufficient, and the current version is definitely useful. WP:USEFUL isn't really applicable to disambiguation pages. Nyttend (talk) 18:32, 3 February 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 as a machine translation, without prejudice against the creation of a new version in proper English. Skomorokh 01:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mykola Mazepa
- Mykola Mazepa (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)
Machine-translated autobiography. Most sources are citing Mykola Mazepa himself, dubious notability. DonaldDuck (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 500 persons of authority. Laureates. 1991 - 2002// Mazepa Mykola Mykolajovich. East Ukrainian biographical Institute, 2002. - P. 81., 500 persons of authority. Ukraine: 10 years of independence.//Mazepa Mikola Mikolajovich. East Ukrainian biographical Institute, 2001. - P. 196. 91.124.216.104 (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Images: Mykola Mazepa, Press-portraits: Mykola Mazepa-, articles: Mykola Mazepa, books:Colonel-General URC Nikolai Mazeppa - author of the Cossack era in Ukraine. 91.124.216.104 (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I haven't yet checked for notability (and don't have the inclination to do so today) but would agree with the nominator that this seems to be a machine translation of the Ukranian Wikipedia article, so we wouldn't be losing much by deleting this and waiting for a more comprehensible human translation. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear colleagues! It is machine translation of my article into English language. Request to finish off it in accordance with the English spelling. Thank you. Иван Московит (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now, we do not need machine translated articles of non-notable subjects. JBsupreme (talk) 08:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure. I don't know, but here are my comments. The main question here is notability, probably best evaluated using WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, but possibly on the basis of high police rank and various decorations. The issue of machine translation doesn’t matter. If the person is notable, then style issues can be resolved later. I don’t understand the significance of the International Personnel Academy in the context of a high-ranking police officer who ended up running one or more prisons. I searched on Google Scholar and didn't find him, but don't read Ukrainian. I don’t know how notable the decorations he received are. He had an audience with Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow which suggests some notability (not that the meeting itself conferred notability, but that the Russian Orthodox Church considered that his achievements were significant enough to be recognized by an audience with the Patriarch). The listings in various biographical directories don’t indicate notability, but reading them might lead to a better understanding of his accomplishments, since I find the current version of the article rather confusing. And I added “This article incorporates information from the equivalent article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia.” at the end of the article. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions.
- 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) 00:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ed Prutschi
- Ed Prutschi (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)
According to the talk page, he is " becoming popular as an author about travel and criminal law". Taking to AFD for discussion. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As a lawyer, nothing special. "Becoming popular" doesn't satify notability criteria. When he is demonstrably popular, maybe; until then, no. Emeraude (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete More of a resume or a Holiday Letter to friends and family than an encyclopedia article about a subject with significant coverage in enough reliable and independent sources to establish notability. Edison (talk) 18:48, 3 February 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 is broad and reasonable disagreement here as to the notability of the topic, which is unlikely to be surpassed by extending the debate. Skomorokh 01:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland–Pakistan relations
- Ireland–Pakistan relations (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)
Ireland (despite being the richer nation) does not have an embassy in Pakistan. most of the third party coverage centres on sports results on multilateral relations looking at the first 70 of these [113]. yes there has been coverage like this but the article states "made major contacts" and "shown interest" rather than real investment. sure there may be some but you kind of expect IT companies in Western Europe to do some contracting in the subcontinent. LibStar (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally, I would say to merge the information to "Foreign relations of ______" (Pakistan, Ireland), but none of the items here even qualifies as relations. Though I appreciate the effort taken to make something of another one of Groubani's excreta, it pretty well shows that there aren't any Ireland-Pakistan relations. If anyone wants some straws to grasp at, maybe you can make the argument that Pakistan was once part of India which was a colony of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and...." (wait for it)... "IRELAND"!!!!!It's better now than it was four days ago. Not yet ready to say keep, but I'll withdraw my delete Mandsford (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- If someone cared to take the effort they could work up a plausible essay on the subject. Back in the days of the British Raj a lot of the troops on the Northwest Frontier were Irish. The brothers Henry and John Lawrence were Irish in origin. Presumably there have been economic and cultural exchanges since then, as well as the normal diplomatic meetings. The Irish sport of hurling has similarities to field hockey, although that connection may be a stretch. And of course there is the famous cricket match. But unless more content is added, it is hard to see that notability is established. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I was able to find a significant number of independent 3rd party sources (which I've now added to the article) regarding relations, outside of cricket and football, that demonstrate notability.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a rather choppy collection of factoids now. I should criticize, given some of the ones I have started. Enough to establish notability. I would be inclined to add more on the Irish involvement in what is now Pakistan during the Raj. I don't think the title restricts the article to modern, formal relations between the two governments. It should cover all aspects of the relations between the people of the two countries. The note on textiles in interesting, because I think at one time the trade was in the other direction - cheap Irish exports harming the local industry. Could be wrong, but it is worth checking. A reasonable basic article on a complex subject with a lot of room for expansion. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep meets and exceeds the usual inclusion standards. (i.e. WP:N). Not expanded to it's full potential, sure, but that's hardly here or there. No reason for exceptional treatment. WilyD 17:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See the talk page for more cites.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Most of what I see is mentions of a meeting or someone saying "that's a good idea". What I don't see is anything notable about their relationship. I can't count trade since the activities of private companies in Ireland don't necessarily represent the relationships of their government. In short, normal govt. interactions, nothing notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The relations between nations' governments are not necessarily representative of the relations between nations' peoples. For the purpose of these debates, I suggest we use the broader definition.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While there appears to be more of a relationship between Ireland and Pakistan than between other pairs that have been AfDed recently, I'm still not seeing evidence that anyone cares enough to write about the relationship itself, other than a few wikipedians. Without a source or two that actually addresses the subject head on and in some detail, we're left cobbling an article together from the free hundred-word previews of tangentially related newspaper articles provided by online news archives like accessmylibrary, newslibrary, and highbeam. This is not a good way to write a college term paper, never mind an encyclopedia article. And the rescue effort for this article seems particularly sloppy: In going thru the cited sources I identified and fixed two copyright violations and saw several other near verbatims that really toed the line. There was info included on Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland not the Republic of Ireland. And mentioning Ireland's cricket victory over Pakistan on St Patrick's Day or that both countries contribute to UN peacekeeping operations seems particularly like grasping at straws. But this is what happens when there are no substantive sources on topic to guide the writing of an encyclopedia article, a work that is supposed to be a tertiary source. Yilloslime TC 06:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm restoring the information you removed. The Irish peace process is relevant to Ireland and the comparison was direct. Your copyvio corrections are appreciated.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Above and beyond the inherent notability of these bilateral relations articles, the notability of this article under discussion here is established by the ample reliable and verifiable sources provided. Alansohn (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- seems like an almost identical standard text argument was used here and here. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well since you nominated all of them for deletion, maybe we should just disregard your nominations too. No. Obviously not. The argument that these articles are inherently encyclopedic is a valid point that's been raised before and deserves to be considered here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- and I've used different text and different gnews searches for each. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I intentionally cut and pasted the same argument to ave myself some wasted time retyping minor variations of the same statement. What's wrong with that? Alansohn (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- it gives the appearance that you have not read the AfD or article or made up your mind beforehand. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Far from the truth. I've seen your previous nominations and I review every article and its sources before passing judgment. That the same words work and cutting and pasting saves time is a reflection of my attempts to avoid wasting effort. If subtle variations in wording somehow make a vote more worthy that's your issue, not mine. Alansohn (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- it gives the appearance that you have not read the AfD or article or made up your mind beforehand. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I intentionally cut and pasted the same argument to ave myself some wasted time retyping minor variations of the same statement. What's wrong with that? Alansohn (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There does seem to be some very slight co-operation here They do for example have a Joint Business Council and Ireland has taken some wider actions then just saying hello. But there does seem to be a lack of information. It reads like a list of questions on a quiz show.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A few sources here. I do not believe in inherent notability for bilateral relations, and reject any such arguments, however. Gigs (talk) 00:42, 11 February 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gallow Hill (Abigail Williams EP)
- Gallow Hill (Abigail Williams EP) (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)
Bootleg collection that is not notable WP:N enough for inclusion; a Google search results in blogs, forums, and non-notable sources, WP:MUSIC. This article can be considered original research WP:OR. There are no sources cited WP:V. Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 05:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am withdrawing nomination following further search for sources. My apologies! –Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:38, 3 February 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) 00:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apollonius Institute of Language and Linguistics
- Apollonius Institute of Language and Linguistics (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 meet criteria for notability of organizations. Not easy to even verify its existence. The article claims the organisation publishes three journals but it does not appear to be mentioned on the journal website, whose copyright is held by Shakespeare Centre Limited Press. Nurg (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't meet WP:N; possible WP:HOAX. With 33 incomprehensible Google Web search results, I wasn't even able to verify the existence of this institution. — Rankiri (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It bodes ill for an institution publishing linguistics journals, that Google Scholar knoweth them not. What of the three journals they claim to publish - Journal of Language and Linguistics, Journal of Language and Learning, and Journal of Language and Literature? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Regardless of the notability of Graeme Davis, or of the journals - this Institute clearly isn't notable. StAnselm (talk) 06:19, 4 February 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 withdrawn by nominator with no outstanding arguments to delete. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bernard Baars
- Bernard Baars (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)
vanity article of not-notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothughthomas (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. GS cites 695, 373, 251....etc. h index = 34, easily passes Wp:Prof #1. Incompetent and time wasting nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Strong Keep. The version of the article at the time of nomination was rather vanity-infested, but it doesn't take much Google Scholar/Books/News search to establish notability. Take for instance this NYT article from 1984, or this in New Scientist from 2002. Favonian (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WoS query "Author=(Baars B*) Refined by: [excluding] Institutions=(LAKE OSWEGO PUBL LIB) Timespan=All Years Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" (the exlcusion filters-out a different individual named ill Baars) shows 90 peer-reviewed publications with citations of 117, 74, 70, 54,... with an h-index of 16. This is well within the pass range for WP:PROF #1 alone. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep (CHANGED VOTE). With the significant and proactive editing done by User:Cirt I am able to digest the topic in a fuller and fairer light. Also, two of the above comments (not the one that said "incompetent and time wasting nomination") have presented a compelling enough case that I have changed my mind, and my vote, to Keep. Nothughthomas (talk) 17:51, 3 February 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) 00:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Society for social studies
- Society for social studies (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 unremarkable society. No reliable sources exist (strangely, I couldn't find even web sources, leave 2). Request AfD delete. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 04:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there are other societies with the same name that get coverage but not this one [114]. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:ORG. Joe Chill (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:ORG Defender of torch (talk) 17:32, 7 February 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 per A10 by SchuminWeb. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Terry (Terrence) O'Brien
- Terry (Terrence) O'Brien (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)
Duplicates Terry O'Brien. -Rrius (talk) 03:07, 3 February 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) 00:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delta Chi Lambda
- Delta Chi Lambda (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 was listed as a CSD A7. Perhaps I am being overly too cautious on this one, but there is an objection from the author that they are notable enough for an article. If enough people say to speedy delete (which I suspect will be the case here) then I'll do so. I've added a watch to this AFD discussion and will periodically review. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete is there any way the author can look at a merge of this info into a similar subject/category? from it being a category in itself, not worthy of inclusion. perhaps Closing admin can look at where this info can merge to? --60.240.117.215 (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: When I've run across fraternity/sorority related AfDs in the past, I think that articles on individual chapters of larger organizations are usually deleted. This appears to be a case, however, where there is only one chapter. An AFD in 2006, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alpha_Chi_Alpha, suggests that a single chapter house may be notable enough to have a page on a case by case basis, if its gotten enough coverage. I suspect this one doesn't have enough coverage for a consensus of editors to deem it notable. If it was the first Asian-American greek house it would have a good claim, but this book[115] lists a number (the first of which appears to be Rho Psi in 1916).--Milowent (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No demonstration of notability outside of the university campus, so it fails WP:ORG, and no significant coverage in secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I appreciate Milowent's point above, but this sorority hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, and it simply doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. There also seems to be no appropriate place to merge. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentPlease take the courtesy and time to see that these other Greek Organizations have Wikipedia pages, and I could not find any large significant "coverage" differences from Delta Chi Lambda. Just because Delta Chi Lambda does not have several chapters does not mean they are not note worthy. (Delta Gamma Pi, Delta Sigma Iota, Alpha Iota Omicron, Kappa Pi Beta Fraternity, Inc., Delta Chi Psi, etc).72.208.244.230 (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but "Wikipedia has other articles just as non-notable" isn't a reason to keep this one. If anything, it's a reason to nominate the other ones for deletion as not suitable for this encyclopedia. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I could not locate any non-local coverage. If they form a number of chapters on other campuses, they can come back and re-create the article at that time. Racepacket (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They are currently starting their second chapter at Arizona State University (ASU). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.244.230 (talk) 05:15, 9 February 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. (NAC) Swarm(Talk) 06:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Motörhead extended discography
- Motörhead extended discography (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)
Much of the content is redundant of the individual articles. Remaining content could easily be merged into the main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. What makes this any different than the last AFD? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. This looks like a significant piece of information and would overwhelm an already large article on the band. Furthermore, why do articles have to suffer through these needless AfDs? There should be some protection about obvious situations like this. It certainly works the other way. If an editor were to revive an already deleted article, it gets a Speedy Delete.Trackinfo (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, until... - I agree that there is a great amount of notable information in this article that would make a merge to the main discography article awkward and bulky (as argued successfully in the first AfD nomination). The nominator has a good point that the problem could be solved if all of the "unofficial" releases had its own album article, so then a simple list could be added (merged) to the main discography article and this extended discography article could be deleted. But only a few of those album have their own articles right now. Until they all have articles, there is too much unique information in this extended discography article to justify deletion. This AfD does have some merits but I consider it premature. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:36, 8 February 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 Keep. Invalid grounds provided by nom while no others suggested deleting the article. (non-admin closure) Blodance the Seeker 03:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dawn Padmore
- Dawn Padmore (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 singer is called Liberian, but she appears to live in NYC now. Her press page doesn't list much substantial, and I can't find anything much in google or google news. For a notable performer in the US there should be more coverage than this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found an interview in the Sea Breeze Journal of Contemporary Liberian Writings and a review at this website. There are some reviews of her performances in the Google Search Archives, and she was mentioned also in The NY Times. I'm not sure with the reliability of this profile at the website Welcome Liberia.--Vejvančický (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I think there are some sources which exist which indicate she is of some notability. But Jen has a point that the coverage isn't that spectacular. She has though sung for people such as Desmond Tutu which I would hardly call a bar singer... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 10:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly notable with at least one NY Times review (now added to the article) and apparently other newspaper reviews in N America. --Kleinzach 13:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep "there should be more" is hardly an argument for deletion. Consider reading some arguments to avoid in deletion discussions?--TM 13:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong KEEP: Some more info and fleshing out of some refs. Could always use more research (still a stub) but NYT piece is convincing, even if not wildly enthusiastic.....Viva-Verdi (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets the notability criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:43, 3 February 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 a7, no claim of notability, making a mixtape does not constitute "working with" a famous artist. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
J-Bar (rapper)
- J-Bar (rapper) (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)
Title appears to be an attempt to evade the creation block put on JBar after repeated recreation. Claims of notability are not backed up with references. Album mentioned in the article is untitled and unreleased. Zero Google news hits on the title or with Soulja Boy in the search. Some web hits but the reliability of those sources is not clear. This artist might be notable once the album is released but not today. RadioFan (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This appears to be an attempt to promote an unrecorded artists. It should be deleted until notability can be confirmed through legitimate sources. Georgiamonet (talk) 02:48, 3 February 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, without prejudice to a merge at editorial discretion. There is certainly no consensus here that the article ought to be deleted. Skomorokh 01:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anahata Yoga
- Anahata Yoga (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 was listed on CSD to be deleted because it was blatant advertising, but I cannot see it myself. It appears I'm not alone here, as a number of editors have expressed the same opinion on the talk page. However, general consensus on talk is that we cannot determine if this article is notable in the Yoga world, and it was suggested we take to AFD. I am therefore listing this here for further discussion. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following of Anahata Yoga appears to be significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. In my opinion, it passes the notoriety test. Georgiamonet (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge to yoga...its categorised as a "minor form of yoga", as a matter of fact, all other minor forms of yoga should have a mention on the yoga page, and their entries deleted. --60.240.117.215 (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: please note the similarity of the opinion expressed above with the opinions expressed by User:Debnathsandeep as found here and .here. Debnathsandeep was the editor who listed this article as speedy delete for spam. A look at his contributions shows that he has been extremely active in an effort, as he puts it, to "clean up my passion pages and describe Yoga, Tantra & Ayurveda in the most proper and precise way". I'm afraid this article may be a baby being thrown out with the bathwater. An effort to establish Yoga Purity is in my opinion open to question. One might just as well delete articles about various protestant denominations and sects for failing to follow the True Church, or delete Sunni Islamic groups for failing to follow the True Faith of Shia. Etc. This is a dangerous path, and I have just seen the trail of the spoor of this editor, and I find it disturbing indeed. --Nemonoman (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nemonoman: First things first. You are an absolutely proper Wikipedian considering the contributions you have made and also the quality of contributions you made while editing articles & cooling down arguments in the articles. You truly are an asset to Wikipedia, and just to keep up your record, I would humbly request you to not make a mistake now by misunderstanding me. As said in the documentary Enlighten Up (and also elsewhere), that "18 million Americans practice a Baskin Robbins variety of Yoga". If thats true (astonishingly - it is), then there will be a page for each and every flavor of yoga, thats created by a particular person. I do agree that its a (good) baby being thrown out of water, but maintaining more than 1000 (good) babies doesn't seems appropriate. Tomorrow if I come up with my own baby (Bhuto Yoga) and place it in Wikipedia - that houses Yogas by great seers, then I do not think so I am being fair. As per my opinion, NOBODY has the authority to establish a Yoga Purity, but all I am tending towards is Yoga Accuracy, considering the guidelines of WP (which might seem dangerous) & taking in account only the information available on the internet (and not using my own brains to make an opinion). Of all the different forms of Yoga flavours I plan to clean, NONE of them fails to follow the parent(s) yoga. Infact, as per my opinion, each and every (including Anahata) is completely inline and tune with Yoga. The only reason to delete them is WP:N (and the reason stated above)
- All in all, I would like to end this reply, concluding that I would rather respect Nemonoman's decision than follow my own opinion. -- Bhuto (Talk | Contribs) 17:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: please note the similarity of the opinion expressed above with the opinions expressed by User:Debnathsandeep as found here and .here. Debnathsandeep was the editor who listed this article as speedy delete for spam. A look at his contributions shows that he has been extremely active in an effort, as he puts it, to "clean up my passion pages and describe Yoga, Tantra & Ayurveda in the most proper and precise way". I'm afraid this article may be a baby being thrown out with the bathwater. An effort to establish Yoga Purity is in my opinion open to question. One might just as well delete articles about various protestant denominations and sects for failing to follow the True Church, or delete Sunni Islamic groups for failing to follow the True Faith of Shia. Etc. This is a dangerous path, and I have just seen the trail of the spoor of this editor, and I find it disturbing indeed. --Nemonoman (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this is the first article I started, and I was a newbie for sure. I have not kept up with the article since. Some factors to consider:
- FIRST: this is not as suggested a "self-named" yoga. Anahata is the chakra focus of the practice. That its founder happens to be named Ana is coincidence entirely. She finds the supposed connection embarrasing, she has told me.
- SECOND: As "minor" forms of yoga go, this one is becoming less minor all the time. It now has hundreds of teachers and I would guess thousands of students worldwide.
- THIRD: While lacking in citations, some RS documents are (probably) available. I have seen 4 framed print articles on the practice: 2 from the San Diego Union Tribune, 1 from the San Diego North County Times (Pulitzer-nomainated Daily), and 1 from something official-looking. I think these would do for references, providing I can find the actual sources on line or at the library.
I am on a forced wikibreak with short, haphazard access to the internet, so I will be unable to fix this article for several weeks. If it's deleted, I'd like to be sure that it's not blacklisted, so I will be able to recreate a more substantial article. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nemonoman
- FIRST: To the best of my knowledge, this maybe a derivation of Buddha's Heart Sutra. There are seven chakras in the body, and each can have 10 derivations of Yoga. Someday, even I plan to create a line of my-own yoga style, based on one of these chakras and will name it Bhuto Yoga (and yes bhuto means the Five great elements in Sanskrit, inline with Yogic connections). But as all yoga experts know, this is one way of cutting down and limiting the vast tree of Yoga.
- SECOND: Bikram Yoga is having 10 times more notability as compared to Anahata (as per Google's result page). But even that needs to clean up, since that is once again - just another flavor. -- respectfully Bhuto (Talk | Contribs) 18:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge. :This is one solution given by an unknown user, that I have been thinking of. Since the notability of these yoga articles, are hanging in between, only the name (with possibly a one-line description) can be put on the page of List of Modern Yogas (and not Yoga). Even I am a bit skeptical of removing the different flavors of minor yoga, since this is only place, where we can know the different kinds of Yoga that exists today. -- Bhuto (Talk | Contribs) 18:00, 6 February 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 keep - this is a disambiguation page, it's not just an "outlet for vandalism". - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2+2
- 2+2 (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 page appears to serve no purpose other than as an outlet for vandalism. If someone is capable of reading wikipedia, are they likely to need to know the answer to an elementary school (if not kindergarten) maths problem? Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 02:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep — actually this is a disambiguation page with three meaningful entries in addition to the maths, which itself (the maths) makes some kind of sense there as an intro to the disambig page. When the deletion nomination was made, two of the definitions and their links were absent because of several vandalistic edits which the nominator presumably hadn't seen. – Kieran T (talk) 02:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This is a disambiguation page. 2+2 has multiple encyclopedic meanings. Maybe they are not represented properly on the page currently but this should be included. DegenFarang (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. If someone cannot add 2 + 2 then I doubt they can read a Wikipedia entry about it. This is a pointless waste of computer memory. Georgiamonet (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Perfectly acceptable disambig page to other topics which deal with the disambig title. Nate • (chatter) 03:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. For all those who say the answer is obvious, please note that we have a page that says 2 + 2 = 5. StAnselm (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This seems to be a case of someone inventing an ambiguity so that they can create an unnecessary disambiguation page. Mandsford (talk) 03:42, 3 February 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) 08:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ashes to Ashes (Apoptygma Berzerk song)
- Ashes to Ashes (Apoptygma Berzerk song) (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 single from a demo album. No notability Richhoncho (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete: I would say it's notable due to it being the first single the band released from their first ever collection of professionally recorded material and therefore an important part of their history. Furthermore, Ashes to Ashes is one of the band's signature songs and is important to their catalogue. Lagozzino (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
and Merge: Sorry but the WP definition of "notable" is different than "of historical interest." The song is not appearing in reliable sources as a notable entity in its own right. Also per WP:ALBUMS demo albums are usually not notable enough to merit their own articles, so the that can be extended to the songs in a demo album. Text of historical interest can be merged to the band's article (and sourced). DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:53, 28 January 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) 02:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't merge and delete — while I have no opinion on keeping or deleting or merging, a combination of deletion and merging violates our licensing policies. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought it was common to merge background supporting text on an album (actually a single with B-sides in this case) to the appropriate section of the history in the band's article. Then it would be acceptable to delete the track-by-track information along with the rest of the album article. That is what I am suggesting here; possibly I am misusing the technical definition of "merge." DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my understanding of your comment. I am actually quite interested in how it "violates our licensing policies" especially with a wikilink. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Licensing requires us to preserve a complete edit history, for attribution purposes. If we merge text from article X into article Y, the authors of article X are now also authors of article Y. Deletion makes it impossible for anyone who's not an administrator to view the edit history of page X; consequently, it's impossible for the average reader to know the identities of all of the authors of page Y. A proper merge includes two pieces: (1) copying the text of page X into the text of page Y, along with a note (either in the edit summary or at the talk page) that it's being copied from page X, and (2) a conversion of page X into a redirect to page Y. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for your response. WP:Merging says, "Merging—regardless of the amount of information kept—should always leave a redirect or, in some cases, a disambiguation page in place. This is often needed to allow proper attribution through the edit history for the page the merged text came from. Superfluous redirects do not harm anything, and can be helpful in finding articles, e.g. from alternative names." I will remember this for future reference. Thanks again. --Richhoncho (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my understanding of your comment. I am actually quite interested in how it "violates our licensing policies" especially with a wikilink. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, now my vote is just plain old Delete. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought it was common to merge background supporting text on an album (actually a single with B-sides in this case) to the appropriate section of the history in the band's article. Then it would be acceptable to delete the track-by-track information along with the rest of the album article. That is what I am suggesting here; possibly I am misusing the technical definition of "merge." DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Moot? - the album page has been deleted, per the AfD discussion here. So per WP:ALBUMS if the album is non-notable then so is this song and the article should be deleted immediately. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:29, 11 February 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) 00:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AJ Steeves
- AJ Steeves (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 was tagged for speedy deletion, however given that it says he's won a Tony I think it best to bring this here. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – No evidence in the article, in Tony Awards website, or Google the subject won a Tony. Lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. ttonyb (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unverifiable and a probable WP:HOAX. In addition to what Tony says above, a search on the family last name "Noel-Steeves" turns up absolutely nothing to suggest these people exist—not a news report of the parents' home invasion double murder, not the sister's Facebook page, nothing. Tony Award? Fat chance. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 02:28, 4 February 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. Skomorokh 01:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kol Menachem
- Kol Menachem (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 publishing house. All the sources either give a very brief description or are reviews of editions of books published by the house or are sources which are not independent (being other sources run by Chabad. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Of course it's notable; the Gutnick edition of the Chumash has become very popular worldwide. And there are three non-Chabad references cited in the article discussing the publications of this publishing house. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkativerata (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Delete, per nom. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:00, 26 January 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) 01:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This subject fails WP:ORG so far as I can tell, as I cannot find significant coverage. That guideline also states, "'Notable' is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even organizations that editors personally believe are 'important' are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is." I therefore disagree with YO's argument and fully agree with JoshuaZ's. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The references cited in the article show that it has attracted notice. How much more notice do you think it needs to be notable? -- Zsero (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of those references are to independent reliable sources providing significant coverage of Kol Menachem? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable publishing house which only gets a few hits on the first page of Google[116]. What is notable is the Gutnick Chumash, which is listed under Chumash (Judaism)#Various Publications. (It should also be listed under Jewish commentaries on the Bible#20th and 21st century commentary.) Perhaps the Gutnick edition deserves its own article? Yoninah (talk) 12:56, 9 February 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) 00:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Janet Karvonen
- Janet Karvonen (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 an EXTREMELY poorly-sourced BLP of a non-notable (and non-professional) former women's basketball player. UnitAnode 01:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added some references. A high school or college athlete who achieves national recognition can be notable, which seems to be the case here. See http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-62466226.html – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The subject easily passes WP:RS and WP:BIO if anyone bothered to put references into the article: [117]. Warrah (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:RS and WP:BIO and now has proper referencing.sulmues (talk--Sulmues 14:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the nomination is now moot as the concerns raised by the nominator have been addressed and resolved. RFerreira (talk) 23:42, 4 February 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) 00:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opor Ayam
- Opor Ayam (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 and impractical to expand past a stub Supertouch (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This Google News archive search gets 374 hits. A Google web search gives 61,700 hits. And since for many of us, the gold standard of notability is an article in the New York Times, here is a recipe for Opor Ayam from that newspaper: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/dining/011arex.html - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. }—Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. }—Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Articles like these are not what google or any non Indonesian search engine or reference is of much use - the food and drink articles that exist in the Indonesian project are very poorly referenced and poorly started - however with some careful research they can become slightly better enough to justify keeping, but only if researched and if possible utilised Indonesian sources might help SatuSuro 07:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The template used to create this nomination links to 463 books which have coverage of this subject. Could the nominator please explain how none of those provide the coverage needed to demonstrate notability? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:04, 5 February 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) 22:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Sri Lankan Moors
- List of Sri Lankan Moors (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 cross-categorization. Anna Lincoln 09:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'll wait to see if the author has anything to say, but I note that this was probably split off from Sri Lankan Moors#Notable Sri Lankan Moors. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It is a spin off from Sri Lankan Moors#Notable Sri Lankan Moors. There are only twenty red links while the rest are all blue and 8 of the red links have a reference.--Blackknight12 (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is the correct approach to a spinoff list, which is to include discriminating information about each of the persons. Please note that an indiscriminate list is one that contains nothing but a list of items under a heading, with no further information to discriminate (i.e. distinguish) between one item and another. However, it does need some improvement, since the intro says that this is a list of "Arab traders who settled in Sri Lanka between the eighth and fifteenth centuries". Although a 500 year old MP or cricket player would be very notable, I suspect that most of these persons weren't around until the 20th century. Mandsford (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is an acceptable stand-alone list under the relevant guideline. As Mandsford wrote above, it is also not indiscriminate, although it could use some work. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:43, 3 February 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) 00:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Starmind Innovation
- Starmind Innovation (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 lacking GHits of substance and GNEWS. Has a couple of minor articles that do not appear to be of substance. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY ttonyb (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Thanks for your feedback on the article 'Starmind Innovation' that I have created. I feel that the Starmind community (of which I am an active member, but not affiliated) is noteworthy as it reaches out thousands of users across the globe and involves some very influential people within university institutions. I based the layout of the article on the 'Innocentive' article. As I am new to Wikipedia and this is my first article I think I have not managed to properly demonstrate the notability of the community -- this is my fault, and I will try to improve the article to establish it. Could you please tell me what GHit and GNEWS mean? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonBerryWiki (talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Admittedly there were no GNEWS hits, but I check the first five pages of GHits for 'Starmind Innovation' and they were almost all relating to the community. DonBerryWiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonBerryWiki (talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - In addition to quoting large Swiss institutions mentioning Starmind on their home-page, I have cited Several independent news sources explicitly discussing Starmind, and linked to more than one article in major National Swiss newspaper, as well as several websites. Starmind is a paradigmatic example of a crowd-sourcing community, a phenomena that has recently warranted several books dedicated to its discussion. Therefore, I think Starmind is just as notable as, say, InnoCentive, and that article has significant Encyclopaedic content. I will link to the books discussing it too if this helps. DonBerryWiki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, likely speedy delete candidate as unambiguous advertising: has received world-wide acclaim from both business and academic institutions... The business model has received several awards for its ingenuity. Open innovation websites are becoming increasingly popular for companies looking to out-source problem solving and find creative approaches to the business problems they face... Note also that the "references" provided all point to their own blog. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - The claim about the popularity of open innovation is supported by references. The references for this article do not 'all' point to the Starmind blog -- only four of fifteen do, and these only because the blog contains independent sources such as a scanned page of a national swiss newspaper that could not be found online. DonBerryWiki (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.187.164 (talk) 17:55, 3 February 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) 00:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Raj Ramayya
- Raj Ramayya (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 BLP on a non-notable musician. Closedmouth came along and de-prodded but failed to provide any sources either, let alone ones that would make him notable. Fails music, bio, etc... Bali ultimate (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is possible to verify the content with this article in the Marin Independent Journal, another article has been published by the Japan Times, another one in the Billboard. Finally I found a profile at the Karma Film website. With these sources, we can compile an informative and referenced article, in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've expanded the article a bit and included some of the sources Vejvančický found. Passes notability guidelines through significant coverage. Jujutacular T · C 07:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The new sources are significant coverage, and their content is enough to demonstrate notability to me. RandomStringOfCharacters [T] 19:59, 3 February 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 deleted per author's request. JamieS93 20:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYG
- FYG (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 article on non-notable Linux distro project, along with howto per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Not a trace of a project or distro by this name can be found online. Prod contested by article's creator, along with a subsequent speedy deletion for copyvio which has since been fixed (I think). Evident WP:COI by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems like brand new distro. A search for "Free Your Gnu" only returned its home page and this Wikipedia article. Pcap ping 01:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find significant coverage of this software. Jujutacular T · C 06:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above, not much more to say. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment have tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD G7 per [118] Can someone please kindly close/archive this case, I'm not familiar with the way AfD closures work. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 13:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reverted the page-blanking, but the author's wishes should be noted as part of this discussion. MuffledThud (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The user is requesting deletion in good faith, as per WP:CSD G7 the page should just be deleted, no need for the AfD discussion to continue. (CSD supersedes AfD) SpitfireTally-ho! 17:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The explicit request for deletion can be found here. Steamroller Assault (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, there is an explicit request now rather than a page-blank. Thanks for clarifying. MuffledThud (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mm; "If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page or category page, this can be taken as a deletion request." Anyway, I've re-tagged. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite: Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. MuffledThud (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mm; "If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page or category page, this can be taken as a deletion request." Anyway, I've re-tagged. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, there is an explicit request now rather than a page-blank. Thanks for clarifying. MuffledThud (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The explicit request for deletion can be found here. Steamroller Assault (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The user is requesting deletion in good faith, as per WP:CSD G7 the page should just be deleted, no need for the AfD discussion to continue. (CSD supersedes AfD) SpitfireTally-ho! 17:50, 3 February 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.