< 29 January | 31 January > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Swarm(Talk) 01:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Miki Higashino
- Miki Higashino (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. This biography is relying upon a single source, named "Square Enix Music Online", which is a site which relies upon user generated content and is not officially affiliated with Square Enix in any capacity. I am unable to locate any further evidence of non-trivial coverage, specifically from reliable third party publications. Google News Archives yields me absolutely nothing of use. It is quite possible that sources do exist in a foreign language, and if those can be found (provided they are substantial and reliable) I will happily withdraw. JBsupreme (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The subject is clearly worthy of note, as indicated by the long list of accomplishments. "Square Enix Music Online" biographies do not rely on user generated content and the site strives to be an authoritative source of biographical information for composers as per their "About us" page. Japanese wikipedia offers 3 additional references
[1][2] [3] [4]. Gigs (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Square Enix Music Online is a fansite of sorts and it most certainly does appear to be user generated in the same or similar way that Wikipedia, IMDb, NNDB, VGMdb, MobyGames (et cetera) are publishers of user generated content. I have no comment with regards to its authoritativeness or reliability. JBsupreme (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting the Square Enix Music Online "about us" [5] page: A large proportion of the site's success is due to the contributions of forum members and the site administration led by Chris, Don, and Andrew. JBsupreme (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Searching for "Miki Chang" which she was often credited under yields another set of sources which confirm all the same information. [6]. I don't understand how you can possibly think that someone who composed such a prolific amount of music for so many notable games is somehow not notable. I think you have forgotten that notable means "worthy of note" and not "can easily find sources". Gigs (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Gigs (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Gigs (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Emphatic keep She is an established video game musician. - Gilgamesh (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reliable sources treat this person in any depth at all. A non-notable video game musician, who was not won major awards or otherwise made an indelible mark on her field. Fails WP:MUSIC WP:BAND WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you kidding? (Rhetorical phrase, of course; not a personal attack.) Have you ever played Life Force? That had some of the most memorable music of a video game in the 1980s. And then there's the music of the Suikoden series, and her involvements in the KuKeiHa CLUB during her time there. Besides, Category:Video game musicians has a great many composers who are even more obscure than her. Besides, if you waited for video game musicians to win awards somewhere (I'm not sure of any such special awards that exist), we wouldn't have any video game music topics on Wikipedia. It is extremely notable—to the video game music scene. - Gilgamesh (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added additional sources. The video game music scene is not known for flashy publicity and award shows, etc. But it's extremely notable, especially in Japan and the U.K., with a very large underground following. Very few of the most well-established video game music composers necessarily have any more comprehensive publicity or profiles on them, especially those in Japan, where being a high-profile public figure has some cultural taboos tied to it. But despite being discreet, these figures are still well-known and acknowledged. It's rather similar to how Jane Austen kept a very low public profile and never even signed her books by name while she was alive, but everyone knew who she was and what she wrote. - Gilgamesh (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I have a question. You say Miki Higashino is not notable. Would you say the same about Masashi Hamauzu, Tim Follin, Kenji Ito, Akari Kaida, Hiroki Kikuta, Noriko Matsueda, Yasunori Mitsuda, Michiko Naruke, Hitoshi Sakimoto, Yoko Shimomura or David Wise? Do you know who they are? Do you know why they're all notable? If you do, then you would also know why Miki Higashino is notable. For the most part, either all of them are notable, or none of them are. - Gilgamesh (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I tried looking for sources in my search engine: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=%22Miki+Higashino%22 The results are a bit hard to interpret, since it's mostly catalogues and databases and official profiles, which I didn't feel I could safely exclude from the results.
- http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2008/08/irish-game-musi/ mentions Miki favorably twice and links to
- http://mitsuda.cocoebiz.com/friends/higashino.html which is an interview of Miki conducted by Yasunori Mitsuda
- She also gets an 'Honorable Mention' in http://music.ign.com/articles/937/937683p1.html
- But besides that, I didn't find much, even though I filtered out a lot of results. I suppose her notability stands and falls with that of her work, and not her person. --Gwern (contribs) 15:44 31 January 2010 (GMT)
- Keep. Plenty of reliable sources presented here to source/expand the article. The Prince (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Her body of work makes her obviously notable. Google news search shows her name in the English news media, appearing only once, that in Wired magazine, which mentions her briefly, and links to a site about her. [7] Dream Focus 20:46, 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 01:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TOTAL SLACKER
- TOTAL SLACKER (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The cited sources don't appear to show that this band is notable per WP:MUSIC. Gzmanagement About the statement of the writer's identity, we are a independent publicity firm called Grant and Zimmer llc. We in no way are affiliated with the artists management and or its agents.Gzmanagement Also, it appears that the article author is the artist's management company, see WP:COI. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unless someone can find more coverage. For something mentioned in the New Yorker, I'm very surprised that I really can't find anything at all that you could call "significant coverage." Neither that New Yorker namedrop nor the "Vice Magazine" blurb amounts to significant coverage, and I haven't come across anything else that would indicate this band might meet WP:MUSICBIO. I'm also not convinced Vice Magazine is actually a reliable source; calling Total Slacker "bonafied" [sic] doesn't fill me with confidence. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't fully establish Wikipedia:BAND. --Bsadowski1 16:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete, this small article, all be it small, holds true to most of the CRITERIA in "WP:MUSIC" such as :
criteria # 11 Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network : http://thefmly.com/2010/02/01/public-education-pla ylist-4/ also :http://www.wmua.org/tracks/view/160557 ( univ of mass radio ,,, and NYU radio ) and... critera #1 "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gzmanagement (talk • contribs) 21:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the new yorker magazine clip, is indeed REAL, and is credit enough. Please see the ava. link provided in the reference section of this Stub article, under "glasslands gallery", it states 1 sentences about this band. The VICE article is written by nicholas gazin, the 3rd photo on this link provided, has a published paragraph by this author, stating total slacker: "the band to watch." period. http://www.viceland.com/blogs/photos/2010/01/25/four-good-bands-death-by-audio/img_2480/ along with these 2 references, here is one more from a highly notable press : the village voice, NYC : http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/archives/2010/01/less_artists_mo.php (please note, the bottom of the 1st paragraph, reading, and i quote: "Chinatown's St. James Church, where Brooklyn Vegan points out they have a show booked this Friday with the Beets, Tony Castles, Beach Fossils, and Total Slacker". --VILLAGE VOICE
- Comment The Village Voice and New Yorker references are not articles *about* this band -- it's not enough just to be mentioned in an events listing. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(User:Gzmanagement Gzmanagementtalk) regardless, if these articles in the new yorker, actually were not specifically about this band, they WERE mentioned in these leading publications, and will continue to do so. Here is one more major web-based music blog centered around the Brooklyn, NY music scene, this is a Feature article about Total Slacker: http://www.jezebelmusic.com/8889/total-slacker-total-slacker-demo/ (User:Gzmanagement Gzmanagementtalk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gzmanagement (talk • contribs) 17:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC) another FEATURE ARTICLE, showing proof of ascension: http://microphonememoryemotion.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/total-slacker-on-thursday-nite/ Gzmanagement[reply]
- Weak delete - NawlinWiki's right, the Village Voice and New Yorker "references" are just listings, which don't indicate notability. Notably the Voice linked some other bands on that same list, but not this one.
They are getting some notice though, and playing venues, so I wouldn't be surprised if some reliable sourced popped up. The keeps aren't doing themselves any favors by being so verbose, instead of just finding some reviews or discussions of the band.
Would definitely support a userfication. Shadowjams (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Delete. Listing appearences isn't significant coverage and college radio stations aren't "major radio networks". Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete it doesnt matter, they are significant coverage, when the listing s come from the worlds leading publications.
THE NEW YORKER AND VILLAGE VOICE, do not publish any info about bands, except for they're tasteful decision of who should be mentioned. not everyone gets mentioned in these magazines-newspapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gzmanagement (talk • contribs) 19:02, 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 Withdrawn by nominator Niteshift36 (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frank Stilwell
- Frank Stilwell (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)
Simply fails WP:BIO. Subject was a minor character in the Tombstone/OK Corral saga that achieved little in the way of notability on his own. Article had some refs that no longer function (mostly to non-reliable sources). It does cite one book as a reference (although without any inline citations) and in explaining it's relevence, even the article author refers to Stilwell as a "minor Tombstone character". Niteshift36 (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Frank Stilwell (note they spelled his name wrong) has a life-sized statue in Tucson. http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM1QE7 How many of the forgettable soccer goalkeepers that WP keeps track of as BLP figures, have a public statue of them, anywhere?
Not a great deal is known about F. Stilwell, although more is being collected as time goes by. I suggest you give it some moretime. He is a pivotal figure. He probably murdered Morgan Earp, or else was in the party that did. His murder by Wyatt Earp (one of just two men Wyatt was thought to have killed without assistance) is the reason for the arrest warrants issued for Earp, Holliday, Johnson and McMasters, that finally drove Earp and Holliday out of Arizona, never to return. As such, somebody has had to play Stilwell in every film about Tombstone and Earp.
People want to know about Stilwell. His Wiki page was viewed 1837 times in just the month of Dec. 2009, and gets 50 hits a day or so. http://stats.grok.se/en/200912/Frank%20Stilwell How many BLP figures can you say the same of? The major source of the public's correct info on the man (like his name spelling) is actually the page you want to delete. He gets about 40,000 hits on Google, most of them to the right guy. But many of them are due to this page. SBHarris 05:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Talking about what he probably did or might have done doesn't get it. Ghits and number of views do not equal notability. What would make him notable was significant coverage, not always being in the periphery. Yes, he's been portrayed in movies. It was always a minor role played by a minor actor. That's because he was a figure in what happened, but not a central one. More time? The article has been there for 3 and a half years and the man has been dead for 128 years. How much more time is needed to demonstrate notability? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Frank Stilwell (note they spelled his name wrong) has a life-sized statue in Tucson. http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM1QE7 How many of the forgettable soccer goalkeepers that WP keeps track of as BLP figures, have a public statue of them, anywhere?
- Weak keep: could be a case of WP:BLP1E - press coverage but as a minor player in one event. But the coverage seems to be enduring: quite a few gbook results and he was a deputy sheriff as well. For that reason I lean to keep. Having the same name as the legend himself explains the hits. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, being a deputy sheriff isn't that notable. Especially back then when you could be a deputy in one city and a bank robber in the next, then a deputy again. He is mentioned in books. Nobody denies that. But most of the coverage is trivial, not the significant coverage that WP:N requires. He is known soley because he was around notable people and a notable event, not because of anything he achieved. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I count more than one event with this guy: murder and acquittal in 1877; fired as deputy sheriff in 1881; arrest for robbery in 1881; murder of Morgan Earp; killed by Wyatt Earp. They're multiple events placing him as an enduring part of the historical record. But I'll admit its not a strong case and there is a lack of sourcing (hence my weak keep). --Mkativerata (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, first, remove "murder of Morgan Earp" from the list. That hasn't been proven and he wasn't convicted of it. What someone probably or might have done isn't going to fly. A list of non-notable events doesn't equal notable. Murder and acquital? Not notable. Millions of people have committed murders and aren't notable. This is especially true when the person he was accused (and acquitted of) murdering was not a notable person. See WP:PERP. Fired from being a deputy? Come on....getting fired from a job isn't notable. Arrested for robbery? Again, millions have been and aren't notable and he was never convicted of it. See WP:PERP. The murder of Morgan Earp, if there was very strong evidence or a conviction, would probably make a case for inclusion under WP:N/CA. But there isn't very strong evidence or a conviction. Murdered by Wyatt is the strongest part of that argument, but leads more to a redirect to Wyatt Earp than a stand alone article of an otherwise non-notable man. We redirect victims of notable killers all the time. What weakens this immensly is that Earp wasn't the only one who shot him and that everyone charged was acquitted because Stilwell was "resisting arrest". So it wasn't really even a "murder". Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life. The actions were judged lawful. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, Wyatt wasn't the only one who shot him. Wyatt used the shotgun and that would surely have been fatal. The other shots were anger shots. Wyatt himself doesn't even suggest he was trying to arrest Stilwell. Nor was he acquitted of the murder (that's what makes it a murder). He fled the territory, there never was a trial, and those warrants remained outstanding to the end of his life. Colorado refused to extradite Holliday, but on a technicality. We assume that might have happened to Wyatt, but nobody ever tested it, and Wyatt wasn't about to.
Stilwell, acquitted or not, was mentioned in many newspapers of the time, and seems likely to have been planning an assassination when he died (what else was he doing armed in the trainyard in the middle of the night? Trainspotting?). The multiple newspaper accounts for multiple events make him notable. His mention in multiple places in every book on Earp and Tombstone (of which there are a couple of dozen) make him notable. Far more notable than most of the bio subjects in Wikipedia. SBHarris 21:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Earp was CHARGED with murder, but was acquited of it. That means he was judged to have not committed a murder. That means Stilwell wasn't murdered, he was killed. And your own article says the Earp defense was that Stilwell was "resisting arrest". You're contradicting your article. Being mentioned in the news isn't notability. Significant coverage is the standard. If you have all these significant stories, where are they? Why aren't they in the article? And again, complaining about what other bios exist doesn't justify this one. Please stay focused on the issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disaggregating the events of a person's life and arguing that each event is individually non-notable does not prove that the individual him or herself is not notable. In my view, (very much on balance) Stilwell's life as a whole is notable and he has received significant coverage of it. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, a list of non-notable events don't equate notability. Further, where is the evidence of significant coverage? Being mentioned in a book or a news piece doesn't make you notable. Especially when the news piece is local and the person is acquitted of the event. Can you imagine what Wikipedia would look like if we had a bio for everyone who was arrested for murdering a non-notable person? Or if we had a bio for everyone arrested for bank robbery and it was covered by the local newspaper? That doesn't even take into account that he wasn't convicted of either one. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What would it look like? WP would look like what it DOES look like. 14% of the BLP subjects here (more than 50,000 of 430,000 BLPs) have not a SINGLE citation. Most of the rest are obscure-- they certainly have had nobody play them in two films. Wyatt Earp Tombstone (And damn, they spelled his name wrong in both film credits). SBHarris 21:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a BLP. The L in BLP stands for LIVING. So BLP's are not the issue here. Why are you even talking about BLP's? And again, all you are doing is arguing that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which is not a valid reason for a keep. And yes, "John Dennis Johnston" is a minor actor. They used a minor actor because it's a minor role. Same with "Tomas Arana". Why? Because Stilwell is a minor character in the Tombstone saga. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What would it look like? WP would look like what it DOES look like. 14% of the BLP subjects here (more than 50,000 of 430,000 BLPs) have not a SINGLE citation. Most of the rest are obscure-- they certainly have had nobody play them in two films. Wyatt Earp Tombstone (And damn, they spelled his name wrong in both film credits). SBHarris 21:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, Wyatt wasn't the only one who shot him. Wyatt used the shotgun and that would surely have been fatal. The other shots were anger shots. Wyatt himself doesn't even suggest he was trying to arrest Stilwell. Nor was he acquitted of the murder (that's what makes it a murder). He fled the territory, there never was a trial, and those warrants remained outstanding to the end of his life. Colorado refused to extradite Holliday, but on a technicality. We assume that might have happened to Wyatt, but nobody ever tested it, and Wyatt wasn't about to.
As to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS that is a severe misuse of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which you really should read. Including this part which states (please read this three times): "Thus 'inherent notability' is basically codification of OSE [Other stuff exists]." Another way of saying that the fact that a heck of a lot of other stuff exists, is one way of detecting what the WP:consensus on a given notability issue is. In fact, it is the only good way, and the example given is that high schools are notable but grade schools are not. Why? Because of the way WP has always done it, is why. The appeal that this is OTHERSTUFF backfires there, because OTHERSTUFF tells you how we do things, particularly in the area of notability. So you swim against the tide, here. SBHarris 23:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't delete your answer. I moved the totally unrelated discussion to the talk page and left an edit summary stating that. You allegations of bad faith are getting old. As for Tomas being a minor actor....he is a minor actor. The major of his roles are supporting roles of minor characters (like Frank Stilwell) or single/limited appearences in TV shows. But, depsite being a minor actor, he meets the criteria for WP:ENT, barely, maybe. Mainly for his role in Gladiator, which happened years after Tombstone. He was even more minor when he was cast in Tombstone. How about we get back on track and discuss why Stilwell is or is not notable and not whether Tomas Arana is. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other views are needed. You can't tell if an Albanian is notable without asking some Albanians. I'll put neutral tags on the Earp and Holliday pages. Feel free to put RfC tags anywhere that YOU like. The more input the better on this, and I care not where it comes from, since it's bound to agree more with me than you. Sorry. SBHarris 02:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course other views are needed, which is why we are discussing this in public instead of on your talk page or mine.
I don't know what you Albanians analogy is supposed to mean. I'm an American, this is American history. So I don't know what you're driving atDisregard, I see now, you're going to canvass for votes. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't toss around the word "canvass" lightly. I've done nothing in contravention to WP:CANVASS. You can do anything you like which doesn't violate that policy also. SBHarris 02:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlike you, I don't make accusations without basis. I didn't say you did anything wrong. There is acceptable canvassing. Maybe you should read WP:CANVASS. But it is still canvassing. So my use of the word is entirely correct. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course other views are needed, which is why we are discussing this in public instead of on your talk page or mine.
- Comment - Chill out above guys. Shadowjams (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't think it's a 1Event issue, but rather somebody that fits into the fabric of the Old West. Featured in Matt Braun's book Tombstone, and some other biographies. William M. Breakenridge, Richard Maxwell Brown, Helldorado: bringing the law to the mesquite, page 286 also has a description of him of some note. Nearly every Earp biography I'm seeing on Google Books has mention of Stilwell. That, plus the OK Corral involvement is pretty clear notability. It needs more references now, maybe someone should plaster it with {{cn}} notices, but that's not the same as deletion, especially when it's referenced. Shadowjams (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said it was 1E. He was around a number of events, but always a minor player. Oddly, the leade in the bio talks abotu his "more notable" brother, who doesn't have a bio. And you said yourself "mentions" Stilwell. That is trivial coverage. When you have a book with hundreds of pages. The bio has almost nothing in the form of references. If everything that is unreferenced is removed, this will be about 3 lines. Someone so "notable" shouldn't be that hard to find some reliable sources for (not the tripod sites and fan sites).Niteshift36 (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They do more than mention. For example the reference I bolded above gives a page or two to the coverage. Similarly, I also think it fits into the general tapestry as I explained above. Shadowjams (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The book is 448 pages. A 'page or two" sure sounds more trivial than significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep minor compared to the others is still notable. Wyatt is famous, not merely notable, but the others involved in the most famous incident in Western history shouldn;t be negatively affected by that. I do not see what "One event" has to do with this in any sense at all: this is not part of news. This is part of history, and as with many other historical events the exact roles of everybody will remain in dispute indefinitely. Supposing (which is not the case) he were only notable for this event--if the event is of major historical importance to a very wide public it meets the test of historical significance. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does everyone keep coming up with one event? I never based this on one event, especially since I don't believe he was important enough in that one event. This nom is based on a general lack of notability and lack of significant third party coverage, not WP:ONEVENT. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Stilwell has a full entry in Encyclopedia of Western Gunfighters by Bill O'Neal; 1. His section is mostly not viewable, but with the other sources it should be enough. Also, he had at least three events, a stagecoach robbery, his suspected (but supported by secondary sources) involvment killing of somebody notable, and his own dramatic death. Look at the detail given just about the condition of his corpse in the O'Neal tertiary source. Abductive (reasoning) 04:51, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hastily formed network
- Hastily formed network (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:Notability, since there is only a primary source for this topic. Please see the talk page for an expanded explanation. Joshua Scott (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's a computer network. Like other computer networks. Set up quickly. That's it. Look forward to "rapidly organised telephone tree" and "lethargically cobbled-together chain-letter". pablohablo. 23:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per pablo - even if we might see "slackly sub-standard switching system" or "temporary traveling telex". Eddie.willers (talk) 18:44, 31 January 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. Note: After discounting WP:SPAs by weighting together as one, consensus is for deletion. Cirt (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander Schukoff
- Alexander Schukoff (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 non-notable filmmaker, whose article on Wikipedia qualifies as Wikipedia:Autobiography since it was written by himself and his wife. Plus there are no sources for this article besides his own website and IMDb. --bender235 (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. When the subject himself can't come up with better sources than imdb and youtube, he's clearly not notable. Wine Guy Talk 10:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep . At least 5 records in the International Movie Data Base IMDB-Schukoff proof that Schukoff worked as director and producer for the movies and for international tv-stations. Plus there are many records about his works besides IMDB and his official website you can find in the pages of international media in internet. For example ORF (Austrian Broadcasting Company) http://tvsales.orf.at/index_documentaries.htm , Austrian Independent Film Data Base: http://www.filmvideo.at/filmdb_persons.php?persid=3956 , Bayrischer Rundfunk (BR) http://www.br-online.de/download/pdf/alpha/programmwochen/woche40-h.pdf , official page of Ingeborg Bachmann (german) http://www.ingeborg-bachmann.cc/links_kuenstler.html , distribution company sixpack-films (verleih) http://www.sixpackfilm.com/catalogue.php?oid=1625&lang=de , Museum of Applied Art in Vienna http://lists.t0.or.at/wwsympa.fcgi/arc/announce-list/2003-10/msg00001.html , plenty of printed news about his work, for example just one from the archive of daily newspaper WAZ-Mediengruppe Germany as referenced by the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Schukoff#cite_note-WAZ-7 . another one from the Standard Der_Standard from 2007 http://derstandard.at/3031695 Many of that refs are in the article - and much more of them are necessary to fulfil the requirements of the criteria for the IMDB, so that the records in the IMDB are enough and accepted as notable. The identity one of the authors is obviously not hidden, more transparent than in many other biographies of living people, honest. The article meets the requirements of an encyclopedic listing of facts and works for the public. If there is one fact too personal, record in a cat or list false than delete or correct it and tell us your arguments, but remove the AfDM. Nadeschda alexandrowna (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Nadeschda alexandrowna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I might quote Wikipedia:Autobiography here: Many people exaggerate their own significance or notability above what third parties would think. That applies to you, as Schukoff's wife. --bender235 (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please see this note (6), WP generally does not accept IMDB as a reliable source, especially when determining notability. Wine Guy Talk 18:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep . IMDB sources are currently not the only ones in the article, but helpful for English.
notability: yes.
- Comment but if it is considered to relative the reliability of IMDB sources that would lead to many deletions of members of the filmbusiness. And second establish a principle debate. At the back of this AfD?
Wasiliy (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 22:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Comment Whilst ther seems to be a dearth of English language sources that does not inn and of its self render Mr Schukoff un-notable. What we need is some one who can read German to check the sources (ther edo appear to0 be more then just IMBD).Slatersteven (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep . the german wikis result of this article's AfD was a speedy keep (german: LAE) (nominated simultanously with english wiki)
principle debate question: The IMDB is the central data base for the filmbusiness worldwide. Like national-libraries for print publications, IMDB is an official register for movies that without exception have to be either aired to the public by national tv-channels , or were shown in the movies by listed film-distributors or screened at notable filmfestifals. At least - if standing not alone, added with (not always english) secondary sources those should reach notability status. just look at many wiki articles about for example french, italian or russian filmmakers...
Filmbuster (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC) — Filmbuster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- And again, Wikipedia:Autobiography: Many people exaggerate their own significance or notability above what third parties would think. That applies to you, Mr. Schukoff. --bender235 (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. The article was extensively revised and is now equipped with additional sources. He is neutral written and now contains a variety of reputable sources (not just the IMDb or Schukoff's website). Schukoff has directed and produced films that were broadcast on ORF, 3sat and BR-alpha. That makes him my opinion, clearly relevant. --Jocian (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While I appreciate the fact that more sources have been added, and agree that he has directed/produced films/videos/shows/etc. which have been broadcast, that does not make him notable. On the English Wikipedia, the applicable notability guideline for filmmakers is WP:CREATIVE, specifically:
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
- I still see nothing in reliable sources which would establish Schukoff's notability per this guideline. Regarding the AfD on de.wikipedia, it is not relevant here; each WP has its own guidelines for notability and sources. The keep result there was justified as: "Schukoff has shot and produced films that were broadcast on ORF and 3sat. That's enough." It's not enough here. Wine Guy Talk 00:19, 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 keep. JForget 02:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
100 Park Avenue Building
- 100 Park Avenue Building (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)
Unremarkable 12 story building. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Google news and book hits limited to mentions of it as an address for the subject of those articles but no indication that this topic might meet notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This was once the tallest building in Oklahoma City and was designed by a notable Oklahoma architect, so it's not exactly "unremarkable". A few more book references can be found under the building's original name, the Medical Arts Building; unfortunately, they have very limited previews, but they're out there ([8] [9]). TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the coverage found by TheCatalyst31. While the nom has decided it's "unremarkable," other writers found it remarkable enough to prompt coverage of it.--Oakshade (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not seeing how those above links demonstrate the notability of this topic. The building is the subject of the first article, which is good, but the second one is about the architect and mentions the building only in passing and in a large list of projects (it would make an excellent reference for an article on Layton or Wells). Notability guidelines insist on "Significant coverage that address the subject directly in detail." So far, only the Harlow's Weekly article meets this criteria. The claim that it was once the tallest building in the city has not been substantiated with a citation to a reliable 3rd party source yet. Are there other names this building might have gone under?--RadioFan (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article is a prime candidate for organic growth. The building is notable not only for the history/architecture of Oklahoma City, but for Art Deco style.172.130.147.237 (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. An adequately well-written and sourced article, notability is the only problem here. This building is remarkable because it was designed by a significant OK architect and is a datapoint in the story of "Deco" style in OK City and in Tulsa. --Lockley (talk) 00:33, 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) 00:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Lanzillotta
- Michael Lanzillotta (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 individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete After reviewing the sources (many websites were previously listed), he has been credited for quite a number of films where he (presumably) been the main legal representative. However, his particular contribution would have to be notable for itself rather than the notability of such films automatically conferring upon him. Without such specific sources (rather than tangential references) notability is not demonstrated and is unlikely to be in the near future. Lawyers are a particular problem as a number of lawyers have Wikipedia articles based on their name appearing in high profile cases, which by default are public record, even if the lawyer in question has made no particularly notable impact on the legal profession and are not otherwise generally notable. In this instance a parallel would be, say, the chief electricians for the same films, we would not consider them notable only for appearing in the credits. Ash (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no more notable than hundreds of other entertainment lawyers. Hairhorn (talk) 02:23, 1 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. (non-admin closure) Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Hunt For Gollum
- The Hunt For Gollum (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 WP:MOVIE guidelines; as this is an unofficial, undistributed fan film it would have to be etremely notable to be given an article here, and I see no evidence of this.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to fail most of them.Slatersteven (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKeep, nonnotable fan film.Looks like I was wrong - plenty of sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any dissenting voices on this one? Open to discussion if there are.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You asked this question 2 hours and 24 minutes after nominating it, and after two other people had commented. In a discussion meant to last 7 days (or 5 days, I can never remember which). I found that surprising. Maybe wait a bit longer next time before asking if there are any dissenting voices? Anyway, my views: from what I can see, this fan film might not meet a specific notability guideline (SNG, here WP:MOVIE) but might well meet general notability guidelines (WP:GNG). Sometimes SNGs do a poor job on picking up on other coverage a topic may have received. I commented to this effect in a recent AfD discussion that involved the WP:MILHIST notability guidelines. I'm also looking at the references that were present when you nominated the article for deletion. That is not a badly-done article, so clearly the text can be retained somewhere, even if not under this title, as the information is verifiable and informative for people reading about this topic, even if the topic itself might be better summarised elsewhere (such as in an overview article on Tolkien fandom and other responses to Tolkien - the main articles for that are Tolkien fandom, Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien, Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings, and Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien). There are some individual articles like this one that may be borderline, such as Born of Hope and Fellowship!, but The Hunt for Gollum clearly made much more impact than those two. Carcharoth (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article would be interesting and informative for a Lord of the Rings fan or researcher. Perhaps instead of deleting it, it could be re-categorized. Perhaps incorporated within the Middle Earth Portal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Middle-earth) in the category Middle Earth Adaptations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Middle-earth_adaptations).Psteichen (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- 84user (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - discussion by NPR and the BBC are good enough for me to show that notability has moved beyond esoteric to general audience. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep As shown by the references in the article, and its coverage in reliable sources which allow the topic to meet notability guidelines. It's prudent to do even a simple news check before pre-emptively deciding that notability could not exist. World-wide coverage is quite difficult to miss and harder to ignore [10]. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's all please AGF and not accuse anyone of deliberately ignoring news coverage or failing to do research before a nom. Coverage alone does not normally establish notability for a film unless it is widely professionally distributed and has at least two full length reviews by nationally known critics. But if the consensus on this one is keep, then we keep. That's what discussion is for.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is any topic that might be sourced as notable through worldwide coverage in WP:reliable sources, film or not. The caveats at WP:NF, begin with the Wikipedia:NF#General principles stating "As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline"... which the topic most definitely does. The "indicative attributes" which you are quoting in good faith as if they were somehow mandates, are offered only to alert and encourage editors to circumstances that might be indicative of the wisdom of an expanded search for sources. Quite specifically, the preamble to that list states "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:" As has already been demonstrated, numerous reliable sources exist that meet WP:N. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You click Google news search up top, and you can see it discussed in over a hundred news sources. I noticed Wired magazine talking about it in the second search result. Remember, to save time, its always best to do a Google news search BEFORE you send something to AFD. Dream Focus 02:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I can see how this would have been nominated ("a fan film?!!?"), but it did receive wide press coverage, and its really not an ordinary fanfilm.--Milowent (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep This fan film has received a very wide coverage; with a superficial googling, I get sources like slashdot, Wired, The Register, the BBC, Rotten Tomatoes, Metro, [], as does a news archives search: Salon, The Times, Il Corriere della Serra, PC Welt, Bayerischer Rundfunk, La Tribune de Genève, Libération.... ¨¨ victor falk 04:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question to the nominator Would you agree that your nomination should be withdrawn? I think you should reconsider your statement that widely professionally distributed and has at least two full length reviews by nationally. As User:QSchmidt precisely explains, those conditions mustn't unconditionally be fulfilled; or do you mean that it is no case possible for a non-professional film to be notable? ¨¨ victor falk 04:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:BURO. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:15, 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 Nick Griffin. no information that's notable need be lost. All notability relates to the son. Scott Mac (Doc) 17:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edgar Griffin
- Edgar Griffin (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:POLITICIAN; those sources available deal either with his son (irrelevant) or his sacking (WP:BLP1E). Ironholds (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm in agreement that these sources do not establish sufficient notability to warrant a standalone article. It would be much better to merge existing relevant content into the article on Nick Griffin if necessary. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I would have to agree. His political life seems to have consisted of being a counciler and father of Nick Griffin there are a lot of ex-councilers in the UK. Merge with the Nick Griffin page.Slatersteven (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'weakkeep' We do seem to have articles about other relatives of party leaders e.g. Elspeth Campbell who, judging by her article, has done less to get herself in the public eye than Edgar Griffin. It would be good to clarify what criteria we should use for relatives of politicians in general. Looking at [11] and [12] the Griffins do use Edgar's history as a political tool. So he isn't a totally private individual, nor am I convinced that WP:BLP1E does apply.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC) (Emeraude's arguments re rarity of expulsions from tory party etc. convince me that I should remove weak. --Peter cohen (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]- Keep. WP:BLP1E states "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." The low profile requirement certainly fails in this case as we have sources from 2001 for the expulsion, a follow-up story in 2002 and further interest in 2009 caused by claims made by his son. It also doesn't matter if he fails WP:POLITICIAN as he passes the Basic criteria at the top of that page "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Within the sources is at least one interview by a reliable, independent source; that cannot be considered trivial as it is specifically about him and the source is valid. Multiple reliable sources are also in place to support the article. Road Wizard (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So essentially, your argument that he is not going to remain a low-profile individual is because of crap his family is doing. Please explain how this article is, for example, different from Suri Cruise. Ironholds (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why try to predict the future and say "is he going to continue to be a low profile individual?" The evidence is that he has been at the attention of the media for two separate issues 8 years apart and he was considered interesting enough to have a follow up article in between the two periods. That means he passes the 1E test as someone known for two separate issues and also someone who has not managed to keep a low profile. It doesn't matter if his son caused him to receive media attention, what matters is the fact he received it.
- There are a number of differences to the case of Suri Cruise. 1) Cruise is a minor and there is often stronger arguments of a right to privacy under BLP for minors - Griffin is not a minor and is capable of making his own decisions. 2) The child is not known for any of her own actions, but solely for those of her parents - Griffin came to media attention through his own actions in 2001 and chose to deny his son's comments in 2009 (he could have chosen to remain silent); active participation in publishing information about both events removes the privacy concerns about those issues (you don't tell a journalist about something you want to keep private). 3) I don't know the specifics of the Cruise case, but I suspect the child is only known for the single issue of her birth. Griffin is known for his mistake in 2001, the Tory's response to that mistake, his active participation with the media in 2001 and 2002 to talk about the mistake and his denial/correction of his son's statement in 2009. Road Wizard (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So essentially, your argument that he is not going to remain a low-profile individual is because of crap his family is doing. Please explain how this article is, for example, different from Suri Cruise. Ironholds (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Verifiable perhaps, but there's a lack of notability.--Michig (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, for reasons already stated. Edgar Griffin is not just a councillor and father of Nick Griffin, though that in itself may be just be sufficient to keep him in but would, admittedly, be borderline. His claim to fame includes that more significantly he was "vice-president in Wales of Iain Duncan Smith's party leadership campaign" and "vice Chairman of Montgomeryshire Conservative Association", i.e. he has been a senior Tory party official as well as councillor. Add to that his expulsion because of direct links with the BNP; that story in itself is important enough to be worth an article (party leader's aide expelled for helping a rival party!). And aside from all his Tory/BNP connections, he has been one of the most senior masons in the UK. Emeraude (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And does he have coverage for those qualifications? No. Does WP:POLITICIAN contain any mention of internal party positions? No. Arguing that the story is important does not make him important; see WP:BLP1E. Ironholds (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again WP:Politician is not relevant as the basic criteria are met and exceeded. The test is if there is sufficient source material to support an article; all the notability guidelines are is a quick reference to the types of articles that often have insufficient source material. They are not a blanket permission to delete all articles related to low-level politicians.
- You will also find that his senior position in the Tory party in 2001 has been noted by several of the sources in the article, so yes, there is "coverage". Road Wizard (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And does he have coverage for those qualifications? No. Does WP:POLITICIAN contain any mention of internal party positions? No. Arguing that the story is important does not make him important; see WP:BLP1E. Ironholds (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, for reasons already stated. Edgar Griffin is not just a councillor and father of Nick Griffin, though that in itself may be just be sufficient to keep him in but would, admittedly, be borderline. His claim to fame includes that more significantly he was "vice-president in Wales of Iain Duncan Smith's party leadership campaign" and "vice Chairman of Montgomeryshire Conservative Association", i.e. he has been a senior Tory party official as well as councillor. Add to that his expulsion because of direct links with the BNP; that story in itself is important enough to be worth an article (party leader's aide expelled for helping a rival party!). And aside from all his Tory/BNP connections, he has been one of the most senior masons in the UK. Emeraude (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, insufficiently notable. You can't make someone notable by piling on a list of non-notable acheivements. Hairhorn (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Nick Griffin. This is virtually a WP:BLP1E: the only significant coverage relates to his expulsion from the Conservative party in 2001. While there is some minor coverage at later dates, it's hard to argue that makes him notable. I think he deserves mention in his son's article, but not an article of his own. Robofish (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Expulsions from the Conservative Party do not happen every day you know. In fact, it's extremely rare. (His son's tiny party has expelled far more in the same time!) This makes the event significant in its own right, even without considering WHY he was expelled and the position he held in the party. So, his "acievement" in being expelled is notable. Merging into his son's already large article will lose the plot. Road Wizard has quite clearly demonstrated that basic criteria for inclusion have been adequately met. Emeraude (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really; lots of people are expelled from political parties (I know. I had one kicked out of the Liberal Democrats two weeks ago.) If you join another party, you're expelled. If you act in a way unbecoming, you're expelled. If you are an elected official and join another political grouping, you're expelled. To say that expulsion from a political party constitutes notability to pass BLP1E? No. Ironholds (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Expulsions from the Conservative Party do not happen every day you know. In fact, it's extremely rare. (His son's tiny party has expelled far more in the same time!) This makes the event significant in its own right, even without considering WHY he was expelled and the position he held in the party. So, his "acievement" in being expelled is notable. Merging into his son's already large article will lose the plot. Road Wizard has quite clearly demonstrated that basic criteria for inclusion have been adequately met. Emeraude (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To say that expulsion from a political party constitutes notability to pass BLP1E? No. Agreed, but I'm not suggesting he's qualifying ONLY on the grounds of being expelled (though the natue of the expulsion is rather unusual, I think even a Lib Dem would agree). And the article says a lot more about E Griffin that that he was expelled from the Conservative Party. Emeraude (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm extremely surprised anyone thought it would be a good idea to delete this page. Notable person indeed. SE7Talk/Contribs 19:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you perhaps give, I dunno.. a reason? Since AfD != voting. Ironholds (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never been asked to give a reason when I vote in an election!!! Besides, AfD is most definitely NOT a vote. To quote from WP:AFD: "Articles listed are debated for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus. " and "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." (my emphasis)Emeraude (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems reasonably clear that EG's public fame is due solely to the context of his son - relatively trivial things like a person being thrown out of a political party wouldn't be covered in the news otherwise. With that in mind, it seems quite reasonable to merge this into Nick Griffin, which could easily support a paragraph on his father. 217.33.68.71 (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Nick Griffin into His son is the BNP chairman, his wife is a BNP candidate who ran against the guy whose campaign he joined, then because answered calls for his wife's campaign, he is kicked out of the party .. the failure of a failed party chairman to vet his campaign works doesn't really make him notable. An argument could be made that he is not even notable as a politician. The only reason anyone knows who he is is because of his son. Otherwise, this would not have been reported anywhere. He and his wife are also accountants for some school run by an italian neo-fascist who has connections to their son. Should that be included in the article as well? I actually would lean towards deleting, but, merging the relevant material (parents have connections/are members of the BNP members as well) into Nick Griffin seems reasonable. XinJeisan (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a small correction to your last point there; the sources say Edgar Griffin is not a member of the BNP and does not wish to be. Road Wizard (talk) 13:34, 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. DS (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Netypsy
- Netypsy (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 per WP:NEO, unreferenced, zero coverage online. Prod contested by WP:SPA. MuffledThud (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious delete, it's a WP:MADEUP WP:NEOLOGISM. Zero GHits other than this article. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteOnly exists on Wikipedia, an attmept to invent a term.Slatersteven (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom, also, the source given doesn't seem easy to verfy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadManCF (talk • contribs) 21:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The source given? I'd usually expect "weird internet lingo" to appear, well, anywhere on the internet! Glenfarclas (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. "Shyam Ratauri Das" the supposed author of the reference has no hits on google either. Seems to be WP:MADEUP. Joshua Scott (talk) 03:14, 2 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. Snow close, nominator appears to have withdrawn. n DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday Was a Lie
- Yesterday Was a Lie (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 notability requirements. Film meets few, if any, of the requirements listed for movie notability at WP:MOVIE (no wide release, did not have two or more full-length reviews in national magazines, no obvious historical significance, etc.). Article was nominated for deletion in the past; the Keep result was reportedly skewed by socks. Only two editors appear to be actively editing this page through various sock accounts; one of them has bee banned completely; there does not appear to be any wide interest in the subject matter outside of the one or two editors who regularly edit the page.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If I understand the rules correctly this does not meet notability.Slatersteven (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This editor's !vote was changed below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The film is clearly notable, having been reviewed in Variety, which qualifies as significant coverage in an independent reliable source, and having won some awards at film festivals, albeit not major ones.
Although the nominator is correct that a large number of edits to this article were made by the socks described in this SPI complaint, and by myself under this and a previous account (User:H Debussy-Jones), there have also been been numerous contributions by well-known and established editors.[13], indicating a general acceptance of the film as notable.
Also, it needs to be pointed out that the nominator is a brand-new account, only two days old[14], which raises the possibility that this is a retaliatory nomination by the very sockfarm used as the excuse for the nomination: if I can't edit it, then nobody can being a negative aspect of ownership. I would suggest that the article be kept, and that User:AncientTrekkie be checkusered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I also note that this AfD was filed just 14 minutes after one of the sockpuppets mentioned aboved blanked their talk page[15] after having their request for unblocking turned down 3 times[16][17][18], further evidence that this may be a retaliatory nomination. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That aside does this film meet the criteria for notaility? It seems to fail them all but please point out where I ere.Slatersteven (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Explanations have been provided below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That aside does this film meet the criteria for notaility? It seems to fail them all but please point out where I ere.Slatersteven (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I also note that this AfD was filed just 14 minutes after one of the sockpuppets mentioned aboved blanked their talk page[15] after having their request for unblocking turned down 3 times[16][17][18], further evidence that this may be a retaliatory nomination. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand it (do correct me if I'm am wrong) to be notable a film should (but does not need to be) Widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics (it seems to fail this). to have recived a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking (it again seems to fail this one). Has the film been selected for preservation in a national archive (I do not beleive it is)? I also do not bleive that it is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program (but please correct me if I am wrong). So it fails 4 or the 5 cirteria for notability (and I am being geneous with the other). How therfore can it be notable if it fails to meet this many indicators of notability?Slatersteven (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notification made to Wikiproject Films. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The part of WP:MOVIE that is being referred to here states "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." The article refers to at least three reviews. RadManCF (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I think the important phrase there is "nationally known critics". If there are full length reviews by nationally known critics other than Variety, they should be included in the article and I would revise my deletion nom. As the article is written this film doesn't meet a single one of the standards listed at WP:MOVIE. So if we don't delete at the very least we should bring it up to notability guidelines.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question what was this films release schedual? Has it been wdiely distributed?Slatersteven (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Reviews in notable venues such as Variety, Film Threat, The Epoch Times, capsules in LA Times & Weekly, other articles such as this one... And on top of that, multiple notable personnel involved, and released by a notable distributor. No reason even to invoke WP:MOVIE, it passes WP's general definition of notability, which WP:MOVIE expands, not restricts. Dekkappai (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, then Keep, but needs to be rewritten to establish notability. It's not neutrality that's at issue as much as notability. For example as it reads the article does not include full-length reviews from "two or more nationally known reviewers" and it doesn't establish any type of wide release which are supposed to be criteria. If the movie had those things (which I'm not convinced of) then they need to be included.
- Also accuracy is in question because there are inconsistencies. Variety review is the most notable review, but the remainder of "Reception" section is wierd: "During the film's earlier festival run it received generally positive reviews." But then the reviews listed as having occurred during the "earlier festival run" include 3 reviews that it looks like were written during the theatrical run according to the cites. Then it says the film got "generally positive reviews" during its festival run "with certain notable exceptions." However, no exceptions are provided. So on second thought maybe there is some COI going on here? I think it needs fresh editors if we're keeping.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fair point -- the reception section was subject to a good amount of back-and-forth editing as the sockpuppets tried to put the film in the best possible light, and other editors, including myself, tried to keep the section as accurate and neutral as possible. This is almost certainly the cause of the discontinuities that you point out. I agree that fresh editors with fresh eyes would be a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, meets both WP:NF and WP:N. Just do some clean up any POV/tonal issues from the sockpuppetry, and maybe protect it awhile to keep them from coming back. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already removed the alterations to the article made by the sockpuppets, who downplayed the mixed Variety review in favor of reviews from less prestigious outlets. I'd welcome additional eyes on the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am all for an admin closing out this nomination with a Keep and I will then remove the badge from the page so we can collectively attempt to improve articles accuracy.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Before that happens, would you mind if a checkuser takes a look at you? The timeline of events I mentioned above, and the newness of your accounts certainly looks ... convenient, let's say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, my understanding is that because another editor has voted to delete, you cannot withdraw this nomination. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this has had coverage in The Guardian, Variety, and L.A. Weekly. That meets the notability requirement. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK as we have two reviews from at least two well known sources I see no reason not to keep this, change my vote to keep.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has reviews in national media, has a nice official-looking poster. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per significant coverage that enables the film to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Clearly across the threshold, in my opinion. Erik (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Per well-established notability. With a good faith presumption that the nominator might not be a disruptive puppet or SPA, I would suggest that the new account User:AncientTrekkie peruse WP:N and WP:GNG before in good faith believing that the indicators at WP:NF are actually mandates instead of simply being a means to encourage a diligent search for existing sources. And further, I might ask he also study WP:ATD to better understand that is any preceived issue is correctable, that is a reason to fix it... not delete it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think this can be closed per WP:SNOW -- the nominator has effectively withdrawn the nomination, and the only "delete" !vote has changed to "keep." Seems like a good candidate for a non-admin closure, if someone not involved is willing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 2 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, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yuuki Kuromitsu
- Yuuki Kuromitsu (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. Unsourced biography going on 5 years now, despite the tag only being added one whole year ago. Unable to locate non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications for this individual. JBsupreme (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Little or no information on this person (indead is it a real person?). Who's body of work consists of some songs (but not all) on series of games but appears to have done no work outside the franchise.Slatersteven (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 04:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 04:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a blp unreferenced for 5 years is quite long enough. Not even an assertion of notablity, certainly not one supported by reliable independent sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. To my mind, this does not even assert notability. I read it; *so?* ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't even try to look notable. 5 years, no sources? Dump it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:02, 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 speedy keep. NW (Talk) 20:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last will and testament of Adolf Hitler
- Last will and testament of Adolf Hitler (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)
Only two references to the article. WP:NOTABLE is being brought into question. Micro-Cruzer (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Looks good enough to me. Unless the nominator has good evidence for saying that the http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/poltest.htm page is a fake... Peridon (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is perhaps worthy of note that the nominator is a new account who in half an hour has made two AfD nominations, and taken part in a sockpuppet investigation. Peridon (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the site look like a professional or reliable source? Micro-Cruzer (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Before nominating, for lack of nobility, a last document from a head of state establishing the national command to follow him, the nominator should have looked beyond the two references included in the article for more references from reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. A Google book search shows 643 hits for hitler "last will and testament" , as seen at [19]. It was covered in William Shirer's "The rise and fall of the Third Reich" and in Hugh Trevor Roper's "The last days of Hitler" to name two of the better known books about the subject. "Inside the Third Reich" by Albert Speer says (p488) that Admiral Doenitz "constantly invoked Hitler's ;ast will and testament" as the basis for his non-constitutional accession to power. Edison (talk) 20:46, 30 January 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. Bad faith nom by now-blocked sock. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Emily Hagins
- Emily Hagins (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)
Listed for further debate. The article is about a young producer of an independant film which recieved a minor grant and who spoke at a minor conference. Further notability has not been established and the article continues to fail WP:CREATIVE. A search of websites mentioning the producer, images located on Google, and YouTube clips all appear to be self-promotion with no reliable third-party references Micro-Cruzer (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A convention notable enough to have a Wikipedia article... Notability is there in being invited to address a convention of this size, and being the teenage creator of a film notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Peridon (talk) 20:58, 30 January 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. JForget 02:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Iron Maiden (blues rock band)
- Iron Maiden (blues rock band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
not notable Band seems un-notable. They released one single and then an album 30 years after they split (and from the sounds of the release self released). They only seem notable for two things their name (really a foot not to Iron Maiden and the fact they released a single (thier only one) with the same name as a mick jagger film [Ned Kelly (1970 film)]]. So their notablitly seems to stem from accidental (and in truth unrelated) links to others. Even the record label went bust. There is a dearth of sources. All in all very poor.Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Completely fails WP:MUSICBIO. No evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. No evidence of ever having charted. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no notability, no real assertion of notability either. pablohablo. 19:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I read this as "non-notable band seems un-notable" at first, which is funny, but also true. JBsupreme (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Enough said. ¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Almost notable because of their number of lineup changes, name changes and disasters. Reminds me a bit of that group in 'Soul Music', except that I assume they could play their instruments. Peridon (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable at all. BeastmasterGeneral 17:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Its been a week with no one leaping to its defence I propose we close this down.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Save.I saw this band in the late 60s in The Marquee in Wardour St they were one of the first doom style bands before it became known as a style, songs of death & dark forces. And a number of the band have joined and left as members of other notable bands Eg Spirit of John Morgan, Zior, Steve Gibbons, Inner City Unit which included Nick Turner of Hawkwind. To delete this article would loss some resources to help in tracing band family trees. Their album was re-released on Audio Archives a label specialising in bands from the period and not self released (as I have a copy). I vote not to delete Jigajig (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Jigajig (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no mention of Doom style in the article they are listed as a blues rock band. Links to other bands does not make this one notable, they have to be notable in thier own right. Two Who is Audio Archives? I have searched for them and cannot find a referance (besides which it was not re-released, it was never released in the first place). Also as far as I can tell only Trevor Thoms played in any of those other bands. As such the only notable element of the band is him, so this (at best) should be merged with his page. Found a referance to Skeels playing in a band called Bum before playing in zior (a Two album wonder). I assume this is the samed band.Slatersteven (talk) 20:14, 2 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. JForget 02:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nintendo DSi XL
- Nintendo DSi XL (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)
Since the redirect gets reverted, this is up for afd. This article is repetitive of Nintendo DSi, particularly Nintendo DSi#Larger model. Any further information will be mainly sales and reception, which can easily fit. « ₣M₣ » 19:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep First, new versions of systems usually get their own article (i.e. Game Boy Pocket, Game Boy Micro, plus all the different iPod models have their own articles instead of grouping them together). Plenty of sources show it is notable enough to have a article. The article will be improved more as its North American and European releases in March gets closer. TJ Spyke 19:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Game Boy Pocket actually redirects to Game Boy line#Game Boy Pocket. <Jess now removes her pedantic hat> DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question How reliable are the sources being cited currently? JBsupreme (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on the advice of TJ Spyke. If we have reliable sources in triplicate that ought to do it. JBsupreme (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as I feel the notability of the subject warrants its own article, and also per the reasoning of TJ. I'll see if I can add some more sources to the article, too, as there's more out there than are already in the article. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per TJ Spyke. (It's also worth noting that, for example, Game Boy Advance SP was a redesigned version of the Game Boy Advance, yet has its own article.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 04:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As others have said, I also feel that this is a new iteration of the DSi and so deserves its own article. Gaunt (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Never ever delete this article!!!! --74.240.186.138 (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is just a bigger form of the DSi. It has all the same features. All the same software. All the same games. Its just larger and comes in a few different colors. Any reception or anything on it would be about the DSi features, not it's largeness. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Didn't think the whole "x article has it, so y should have it too" argument would be so popular. I personally haven't worked on those Game Boy articles, but none of them are as comprehensive as Nintendo DSi. There was a small discussion on redirecting DSi XL awhile ago, that said, I fully support Aether7's stance on the matter. « ₣M₣ » 16:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep – There's enough there that I think this easily passes for notability. However, a merge is possible, but as mentioned above, that's normally not done with separate handheld consoles (or even iterations, in the case of Game Boy Micro). I'd say, for now, this can be a separate article. I would also argue as to whether or not Nintendo DSi#Larger model fits within the context of that section; perhaps that should be moved and/or condensed, I'd have to look into that more. –MuZemike 17:31, 1 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 regarding Willard, delete the other two. Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dean Willard
- Dean Willard (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 per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO; no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources; online news coverage only extends to passing mentions in local press, candidacy for Congress doesn't of itself make someone notable. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similarly non-notable candidates in the same election, with online news coverage only extending to passing mentions of their candidacy in local press:
- Gregory Hoover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- David Spring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) MuffledThud (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I am contesting the initial Prod and now AfD. I deleted the Prod notice because I believe that Dean Willard is noteworthy. Willard is notable on three counts - for being a former Partner and Vice President Accenture (formerly Andersen Consulting) and a former Vice President of T-Mobile as well as being a candidate for Washington's State Senate. He has also been very active in the Democratic party in King County. kgrr talk 20:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Dean Willard meets WP:GNG. The Prod notice was put up 7 minutes after I posted the article. And, the AfD notice was posted a mere 15 minutes later. Many of the comments were made before I was even given a chance to complete the article.
- "Significant coverage" - there are several reference that give Dean Willard much more than a trivial mention.
- "Reliable" - there are secondary sources.
- "Sources," - there are multiple sources.
- "Independent of the subject" - the sources are newspaper articles and are independent of the subject.
- Presumed" - I believe that Dean Willard does have significant coverage in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not specific as to how many articles are required to meet "significant" coverage. On some articles, this had to be three references or more, on others the wiki deletion police/cabal required as many as 50. Please judge the article now that it's much more complete. kgrr talk 03:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. None of these meets WP:POLITICIAN, clearly; and as far as I can tell none meets WP:GNG. Although they've been mentioned in local newspaper articles about their candidacies, that cannot amount to "Significant coverage" of a politician, or else every pretty much every city council and board of education candidate in America would be encyclopedically notable. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Dean Willard as he appears to be a serious politico already, but delete the two other candidates as not meeting WP:POLITICIAN. Bearian (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- David Spring, a teacher and Gregory Hoover, a lawyer are running for State Representative positions, not for dog catcher. Admittedly, neither of the two meet notability under WP:POLITICIAN. However the guideline does say: "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, consider redirecting to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion." I would be happy to create
a page that covers the 2010 Washington State election and re-directing those candidates David Spring, and Gregory Hoover to that page. kgrr talk 10:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)the Washington State House elections, 2010 page and re-directing those candidates David Spring, and Gregory Hoover there. kgrr talk 01:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Comment User:Bearian, could you please expand on how Dean Willard is notable per WP:POLITICIAN? Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply According to the article, he's a major political person in the Seattle area. For example, "he's a district committeeman ... and the chairman of the King County Democrats endorsements committee." Also, "Willard worked behind the scenes on several campaigns including Joe Mallahan's recent Seattle mayoral campaign..... Willard was a legislative assistant." Individually, these are not great accomplishments, but it at least appears that he's a behind-the-scenes politico and the citations appear to show he's got some political power in Seattle. I think he barely meets the standards. King County, Washington is the jursidiction over Seattle. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: Willard has had plenty of coverage. Barely would be a back page mention. Yes, a couple of articles mention his assistance to a campaign in passing. But there are several articles dedicated to his own campaign and his name is on several Democratic party pages. Also he is notable enough in his career to be chosen as a panelist in several conferences. kgrr talk 19:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply According to the article, he's a major political person in the Seattle area. For example, "he's a district committeeman ... and the chairman of the King County Democrats endorsements committee." Also, "Willard worked behind the scenes on several campaigns including Joe Mallahan's recent Seattle mayoral campaign..... Willard was a legislative assistant." Individually, these are not great accomplishments, but it at least appears that he's a behind-the-scenes politico and the citations appear to show he's got some political power in Seattle. I think he barely meets the standards. King County, Washington is the jursidiction over Seattle. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- David Spring, a teacher and Gregory Hoover, a lawyer are running for State Representative positions, not for dog catcher. Admittedly, neither of the two meet notability under WP:POLITICIAN. However the guideline does say: "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, consider redirecting to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion." I would be happy to create
- Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN notability criteria. Notability does not arise from being a candidate for political office and his "behind the scenes" work is not enough for notability either as a politian or under the requirements of WP:ANYBIO. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect. Even if being a candidate alone is not sufficient, I believe that Wikipedia has a responsibility to respect the work of authors and individuals being written about. The content, or a summary of the content, should be merged into a page that would provide basic information on all of the candidates for office in 2010, similar to what we did in previous years like 2008 and 2006. If people go to Wikipedia looking for information and resources on candidates and races, do we want them not to find anything? Or do we want to be a resource? We can be a resource without having a separate article on every single person who has ever run for office anywhere in the world. So let's build Washington State House elections, 2010 into a page where people can go to find information on candidates with links to more information. Chadlupkes (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:USEFUL discusses content that, although useful, is not encyclopedic. WP is an encyclopedia. There is a lot of information that is useful that is not suited to such a medium. So, as a resource, WP is useful for encyclopedic information. Anyone looking for other information will need to use another resource. Accordingly, I am not sure I support Chadlupkes's argument entirely, although I understand what he saying and appreciate his comment. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PRESERVE, a core policy on Wikipedia states that we should preserve useful information that is sourced to reliable sources. As such, Chadlupke's proposal is a good compromise. I support a merge/redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Washington, 2010. Cunard (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Gregory Hoover, David Spring, and Dean Willard are candidates for Washington State Representatives, not the US House of Representatives. This is why the Washington State House elections, 2010 page I had proposed makes much more sense for the non-notable candidates. Also, most incumbants already have their own Wikipedia pages. While I agree that Gregory Hoover may not meet WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. However, David Spring, having made a run for State Representative in 2008 does meet WP:Politician, having had significant coverage as per WP:NOT's definition: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." And, Dean Willard also meets WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG's requirements for notability. Willard was a vice president of two notable companies and has been a well known politician behind the scenes with significant coverage.
- WP:PRESERVE, a core policy on Wikipedia states that we should preserve useful information that is sourced to reliable sources. As such, Chadlupke's proposal is a good compromise. I support a merge/redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Washington, 2010. Cunard (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:USEFUL discusses content that, although useful, is not encyclopedic. WP is an encyclopedia. There is a lot of information that is useful that is not suited to such a medium. So, as a resource, WP is useful for encyclopedic information. Anyone looking for other information will need to use another resource. Accordingly, I am not sure I support Chadlupkes's argument entirely, although I understand what he saying and appreciate his comment. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:14, 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 speedy delete, G3. Evidence submitted by nom indicates this is a hoax. Blueboy96 19:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frederico Vega
- Frederico Vega (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 with one claim of notability. However, a Google search brings back only 8 results, all mirrors/forks of WP. Lugnuts (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom and per WP:BLP concerns raised by its being unsourced. UnitAnode 18:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, I also cannot find any sources that verify even the existence much less the notability of this person. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:52, 30 January 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. I looked over this discussion for days, and there are several good arguments from both sides; but it comes down to whether or not Tommy passes WP:ACADEMIC. The majority of the keep !votes are not anywhere near trying to satisfy this guideline, while the delete !votes showed real reasons to remove this article. However only one criteria from WP:ACADEMIC needs to be met for it to pass the guideline, and therefore per [20], he passes criteria 7, and therefore the few keeps that mentioned this make the consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tommy Möller
- Tommy Möller (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 BLP of a professor. Doesn't meet the multiple, non-trivial requirement for sources. The NYT "source" only mentions a quote from him on some issue. Another source is his own book, and the last source is simply his university profile. UnitAnode 18:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Full professor (this the the meaning of "professor" in Swedish terminology) of political science at Stockholm University and active participant in Swedish political debate, clearly fulfills WP:ACADEMIC. The fact that this article has been nominated despite the fact that this has been pointed out on the discussion page seems to be related to the BLP out-of-process mass deletions a couple of days ago, of which this article was a part. Tomas e (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A brief search pulls up these sources: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. Killiondude (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I however see little evidence that you have reviewed Prof. Möller's credentials. There is no higher "grade" of academic researcher than full professor in the Swedish university system, so in essence it looks like you (and OpenFuture below) say that it is not possible to achieve notability through any Swedish academic position. Membership of the Royal Academies is a bit more selective than "just" being a full professor (but they exist outside the university system itself), but there is no academy that is really focussed on political science or most other social sciences. So I would just have to assume that the vast majority of articles in Category:Swedish scientists will be AfD'd. Or is is it only the living ones that are non-notable under current standards? Tomas e (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you honestly claiming that there are no department heads in Swedish universities? They don't have any form of hierarchy? That may well be true, but even if it is, it's not Wikipedia's problem. UnitAnode 03:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Swedish universities do have both department heads and named chairs. Tommy Möller is neither. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you honestly claiming that there are no department heads in Swedish universities? They don't have any form of hierarchy? That may well be true, but even if it is, it's not Wikipedia's problem. UnitAnode 03:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I however see little evidence that you have reviewed Prof. Möller's credentials. There is no higher "grade" of academic researcher than full professor in the Swedish university system, so in essence it looks like you (and OpenFuture below) say that it is not possible to achieve notability through any Swedish academic position. Membership of the Royal Academies is a bit more selective than "just" being a full professor (but they exist outside the university system itself), but there is no academy that is really focussed on political science or most other social sciences. So I would just have to assume that the vast majority of articles in Category:Swedish scientists will be AfD'd. Or is is it only the living ones that are non-notable under current standards? Tomas e (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There may be a national divide here; in America, almost every academic is a professor of some kind. In European nations, such as the United Kingdom or Sweden, "professor" is used to refer to what Americans refer to as a "university professor", and normally is a "chaired" position. As such, this chap easily fulfils WP:ACADEMIC. The pdf provided by Killiondude (a government report gives more-than-significant coverage of the fellow. Ironholds (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you have to have a "named chair" or a "distinguished professor" title, and Tommy Möller doesn't. Having a chair is not enough according to WP:ACADEMIC. If those requirements are supposed to include all chairs, this needs to be clarified, because that's not what it says now. --OpenFuture (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We've had a debate on his notability on the page, no-one has been able to show that he is notable. He does not fulfull WP:ACADEMIC, but may be notable some other way, but no arguments or support for such notability has arisen. --OpenFuture (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that discussion it seemed that your opinion on notability was obviously that you had heard of him rather than anything in WP:ACADEMIC. Just out of curiosity, how many scientists have you heard of, and should we delete all the rest? Tomas e (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he has written textbooks used at major universities, , passes points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does he pass these criteria? I can't find any source that he passes any of these criteria. Specifically you mention criteria 5 which, according to the discussions here it is by now completely evident that he do *not* pass. Could any of the people here that wants to keep the article just for once actually argue for how he passes any of these criteria, and come with sources, and maybe even add that information on his Wikipedia article, so that it would be evident by reading his article that he indeed is notable? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already answered that, his research was so good they decided to let him write textbooks which are used at major universities, how many professors can say that? TomCat4680 (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Quite a lot, since it's not mentioned which these "major universities" are. Professors quite often write their own textbooks, which automatically gives you one "major university". 2. Even if his textbooks are used at major universities, that does not mean he fulfills ANY of the above criteria. So no, you haven't answered that. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His books prove he passes point #4 which states The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Obviously the specific book names and schools that use them should be added, however. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the fact that he has written a whole bunch of books prove he has had a significant impact? I'm getting really tired of asking the question "how" all the time. It's getting pretty darn obvious nobody can answer. You are not notable because you are a professor. You are not notable because you written books. If you where, these things would be listed as criteria for notability, and they are not. I also note that don't answer how he fulfills 1, 3, 5 and 7, which you claimed he fulfilled. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're tired of asking, why don't you stop asking? You made your point tenfold, now move on with your life. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I continue asking, because I get no answers, but people continue to make the claim. There is no reason to be bitter just because you were wrong. And learn to indent. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ¨¨ victor falk 06:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
arbitrary break
- Keep I agree, he passes the requirements. I also notice that Google search, when you add the word professor to the search, shows many articles listed. Since they aren't in English, I can't really judge them, but that might add to his notability. [28] Dream Focus 08:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again: *How* does he pass the requirements? I can judge them and they don't support the claims that he passes the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you speak Swedish? If so, why don't you translate the bibliography section? TomCat4680 (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The books are in Swedish and have Swedish titles, so I'm not sure what there is to translate. Also, the discussion here is about his notability. There has been a lot of discussion, sometimes even really heated about the subject, yet nobody has been able to come up with any support for his notability. I think the article should be deleted. Why would I work on it? My question is instead: Why don't you add to his article in a way that shows that he is notable? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to expand articles why did you even join Wiki? If you just want to argue there's dozens of other sites for that purpose. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Learn to indent, it's getting really annoying. 2. I want to expand articles, but I have no desire to expand things that should be deleted, and I can't find anything to expand this article with in the first place. 3. What good arguments for notability that was. Not. Can we keep to the topic? If you have sources showing his notability, add them. I have looked, I can find *none*. I can not find *anything* that makes him fulfill WP:ACADEMIC. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I already added several of his books. Obviously it proves he's an expert in his field. That's why the media constantly asks him to contribute to discussions on the topic, they value his opinion and think he adds a lot to the programs/articles, etc. TomCat4680 (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being an "Expert" is not listed as something that fulfills notability in WP:ACADEMIC, clearly we are now finally moving towards consensus that he doesn't fulfill those criteria, which is about time. Then is the question if he fulfills notability in some other way. Apparently you think being an "expert" is enough. I'm not an expert (hehe) on notability guidelines, and couldn't find anything conclusive on that subject. Of his publications (they are not all books in any general meaning, many are research publications) few are available for purchase as of today. They are indeed published by the type of published that publish course literature, but that doesn't mean they are used as course literature by any one except Tommy Möller himself. They *may* be, but then please provide sources for this. I can't find any. I can only find one reference to one of his books being used at any notable university outside Stockholm, and that's the university in Uppsala, which is a major university by Swedish standards. I don't know if it's major by international standards. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a FTR - it is considered a major university by international standards with world rankings of around #75 in the most important university rankings (but that doesn't automatically mean that all authors of textbooks used there are notable people. I teach at UU, and I sometimes use textbooks whose authors are definitely not notable.) --bonadea contributions talk 12:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being an "Expert" is not listed as something that fulfills notability in WP:ACADEMIC, clearly we are now finally moving towards consensus that he doesn't fulfill those criteria, which is about time. Then is the question if he fulfills notability in some other way. Apparently you think being an "expert" is enough. I'm not an expert (hehe) on notability guidelines, and couldn't find anything conclusive on that subject. Of his publications (they are not all books in any general meaning, many are research publications) few are available for purchase as of today. They are indeed published by the type of published that publish course literature, but that doesn't mean they are used as course literature by any one except Tommy Möller himself. They *may* be, but then please provide sources for this. I can't find any. I can only find one reference to one of his books being used at any notable university outside Stockholm, and that's the university in Uppsala, which is a major university by Swedish standards. I don't know if it's major by international standards. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're probably having trouble finding sources because he's Swedish. If he were from an English speaking country we'd probably have more hits on the English language search engine we're using. For example I searched for him on Google News but the only thing that came close was an NHL player with a similar name. TomCat4680 (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you have trouble finding sources because there are none. I've looked for them too, remember? --OpenFuture (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no English sources, but there's probably tons of Swedish ones. This article belongs in the Swedish Wiki. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you now agree it should be deleted? This discussion is about the English article, not the Swedish one, which already exists. (And no, there are no tons of Swedish sources either). --OpenFuture (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care, but at least I tried to expand the article. Just stop arguing with me. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I also tried to expand the article. Again: I can't find anything to expand with. I don't understand why this seems to raise such an intense debate. And when you claim things that are obviously wrong, you'll have to accept that I correct you, and that I ask for support of claims of notability. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I accept it. Why do you insist on beating a dead horse? I already admitted I was wrong. Don't you have anything better to do? TomCat4680 (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Who is arguing? All I did was ask you for references supporting your claim of notability. When you seemed to back down I asked if you conceded that the article should be deleted, and then you told me to stop arguing. It was a question. Geeez. What is it with Tommy Möller that makes people so stingy? It's it the heave-metal umlaut? What? :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not changing my keep. I think he meets the guideline still. TomCat4680 (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, fine. Can you then please explain how he meets the guidelines? Because in your attempts so far you have failed to do so. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and added several books. I stopped at page 4 of the Google Books search but the rest should be added (and all of their titles translated if anyone here speaks Swedish). TomCat4680 (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
arbitrary break
- Comment He is acknowledged as a political commentator; he writes op-eds for Dagens Nyheter and participated in Almedalen Week last year, chairing a seminar about political lobbyism[29] as well as being on a panel with Margot Wallström[30]. I'm pretty sure notability is independent of language and nationality (please provide me with a relevant policy/guideline if I'm wrong). --bonadea contributions talk 12:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is definitively independent of language and notability. He clearly does not meet WP:ACADEMIC in any language. He does indeed get quoted in articles, at least in SvD and Expressen. He is clearly on these newspapers lists of people to call if you want to have a name to quote in the article. I asked there if that's enough to be called "notable", but no-one answered. He also have had several debate articles in Dagens Nyheter, is that notable? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes being included in the country's largest newspaper Dagens Nyheter (basically the Swedish USA Today) is notable. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Included"? You mean having an article on the debate-page of DN? Is that really notable? We better start pages about Annika Taesler, Björn Johnson, Christian Clausen, Lena Ag and Peje Emilsson. And that's just the last week or two, and I ignored those articles signed by three or more people. :) No, maybe you meant something else. Are there any other set of rules for notability except WP:Academic? I'm really trying to find some reason to view this guy as notable so we can end this silly discussion, you need to help me here. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although slender GS cites he appears to have inpact as a political commentator. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Note to closing admin: Please ignore the people who state that he passes multiple portions of ACADEMIC. He does not. I am not sure whether they are intentionally "fudging" the truth or what, but if you take a look at ACADEMIC, he passes none of them. As AFD is not a majority vote, this article should be deleted unless someone can source it to non-trivial mentions in reliable, secondary sources. Some have tried to do so. No one has been able to accomplish it. UnitAnode 12:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further: it also appears at least one of the "keeps" is blatantly lying about Sweden not having any department heads or named chairs, in order to perpetuate their own view that Moller is notable. UnitAnode 12:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - articles like this help counter Systemic bias and I am grateful for swedish speakers to help out here. Writing textbooks does qualify 1 and 4. Ref 2 is interesting in that the NYT sought to consult him. TAken together, there is enough to satsify notability for mine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it's nice to know we have a hardcore inclusionist with regards to BLPs on the Arbcom. UnitAnode 14:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That you write a book used by some universities in some courses does *not* mean you have significant impact on higher education. It has become clear from the above discussion that he does not fulfill ANY of the WP:ACADEMIC criteria. Other criteria has to be found. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Appears to be sufficiently notable for inclusion.--Milowent (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ironholds and Casliber. Nathan T 17:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Struck per Bishonen's further research below. Nathan T 13:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I strongly suggest delete. As far as I can see, Tommy Möller doesn't fulfill any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. I'm a native Swedish speaker, but I need to sleep now... it's nighttime in Sweden... and so c-c-cold. [/me crawls gratefully into hibernation igloo and flops.]. I can explain about the criteria and those "major universities" tomorrow, if you like, and if this hasn't been closed. Bishonen | talk 02:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- 'A prophet is not without honour except in his own country', although characterising this subject as a prophet may be hyperbolic. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete: I would like to divert this discussion from the issue of notability to that of quality, which I think is an equally important issue in this case. This is an awfully unbalanced article that says nothing about Möller's work, which should be the main raison d'être for such an article.
Apparently this article was deleted as an unreferenced article on a living person. I think it should have been allowed to remain deleted. There was nothing in that version of the article that wouldn't have been easily recreated from scratch by someone writing a new article. An article like this should be written by first assembling all relevant sources (and a person who knows Swedish and has access to the appropriate library resources should know how to do this) and then use these for a thoughtfully composed biographical article reflecting a balanced view of Möller's work. This is difficult to do when dealing with a living person, where no obituary or biographical dictionary entry or similar retrospective summary yet exists, but I think it is possible. It is just not possible to do it by desperately scrambling for random Google hits to insert into the page.
This is what I think should happen: Delete this now. Just don't let a rather unpleasant discussion such as this of a pretty crappy article create a precedent against any article on the topic. Allow whoever feels like it to work on an article on Möller in a no-indexed user subpage (or on a file on their hard drive) and restart the article when that new version begins to look like it gives a decent, balanced view of Möller as a political scientist. If nobody wants to do this right now, I think the English Wikipedia can survive without an article on Tommy Möller for some time. There is no hurry.
I was going to say something about the hierarchy in Swedish academia, which is a bit more complex than the proponents of the "named chair=notable, everybody else=non-notable" school of thought appear to think. But since it seems that Bishonen has promised to do this I will let him/her do this. --Hegvald (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, It took me less than a minute to find dozens of books referencing him/his work and Google scholar nets 163 Ghits including many citations to his work. AfD establishes if the subject reaches GNG and if a good article are possible. Clearly these are both possible. -- Banjeboi 07:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: I have to say that I find neither Unitanode's nor OpenFuture's comments helpful in the least. Is this really acceptable behaviour in discussions like this? --Hegvald (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it not helpful to point out when people are incorrect? And what is acceptable behavior? Shut up and let incorrect statements pass? This decision needs to be taken on correct information, and we have here repeatedly have people claiming that he fulfills point 5 of WP:ACADEMIC when he does not. Should I just ignore that? I'm only unhelpful, if you want to keep the article no matter if he is notable or not. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
arbitrary break
- Comment and some translation: OK, I've slept, and checked out the References section. I understand and respect the effort to supply "sources" for the article, but I'm afraid the References section is a sad scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel job. Let me just run through them quickly:
- Ref 1 is Möller's university profile. It shows that he works at Stockholm University (so do I, what about it?) and is a full professor.
- Ref 2 is an article about Carl Bildt (Bildt is notable, yes!) which proves (again) that Möller is "a professor of political science at Stockholm University". He's quoted, in passing, as having made a brief comment about Bildt.
- Ref 3: Parts of a book by Möller are read for a not-high-level course in political science at a small college (Jönköping). Yes, the "University Foundation" stuff is a bit misleading. Colleges like to introduce a whiff of universityhood in their self-description, of course. But compare the Swedish Jönköping page.
- Ref 4. Parts of another book are read for a fairly modest course at a bona fide major university (Uppsala); in the context, this is something of a find.
- Ref 5 is the entry in LIBRIS, the Swedish national library database, for Möller's dissertation from 1986. Offering this as a "reference" is embarrassing. You're probably getting tired of me, but my dissertation is in there too, together with every extant Swedish dissertation since... oh, the reign of Gustav Vasa, probably.
- Ref 6: bona fide reference to Tommy Möller being interviewed on Dagens Eko. This is pretty good!
- Ref 7: Möller is quoted on the major SVT news Rapport's homepage. That could mean that he had also appeared on Rapport itself. But the trouble with both 6 and 7 is that there is only one comment (in passing) from each of Dagens Eko and Rapport offered in evidence of the large claim that Möller has "acted as political commentator in various Swedish media". This would be a notability claim with some meat to it, if the article offered any evidence (such as a claim from a reputable secondary source) that Möller has been commenting at all frequently, but it doesn't. And I don't believe he has, either. My own anecdotal experience isn't relevant here, of course, but I'll just mention that as a Swedish resident, I listen to/watch Dagens Eko and Rapport pretty much every day, and I haven't seen or heard Tommy Möller above two or three times altogether.
- Ref 8, Sveriges Radios election night coverage in 2006. Möller is not part of the major "valvaka", which is covered by the major channel P1; instead, he's mentioned with reference to local coverage on P4. No offense, but that's a whole different kettle of fish, and the conclusion drawn from it in the article, while formally correct, is highly misleading.
- Ref 9: Möller gave the introductory speech at a two-hour seminar about the role of lobbyism in a democracy. Notable?
- Ref 10: Möller took part in a 90-minute seminar about political leadership. Neither of the two seminars at 9 and 10 appear to have been covered by any media.
- Ref 11: Möller's university profile (again). Not what I'd call a homepage, but it has a list of his publications—an impressive list, at least number-wise. I don't want to demean this academic productivity in any way, but, well, it is academic. Not the kind of books that have an impact on public debate.
- How are those links "sources", anyway? Few of them are actually used for the article.
I cover the "used as textbooks at major universities" claim above; it turns out to mean part of a book, at one course, at one major university (plus another one at a modest college). As for the "department head or named chair" business in WP:ACADEMIC, however, that's different, and speaks, if anything, in favor of Möller's possible notability. Those concepts are sort of irrelevant to it. Full professors generally take turns to act as department head, which is an administrative position, and not a coveted one. [/bishonen remembers with a shiver the time she was inveigled into acting as head of her department for a couple of years. Brrr.] Research positions are what people want, and highly active researchers, as Möller clearly is, may well manage to avoid the headship altogether. Named chairs, on the other hand, are very rare, so, for Swedish academics, one of those shouldn't be required for notability.
Can notability be acquired by professors at all, then? Not qua professors, IMO. Not by professor-ing away. But, say, by being in a lot of high-profile conflicts. (I have no reason whatever to suppose Möller is that.) Or by being given a professorship because they were already notable on the (in this case) political arena. A good example of a notable full professor is Leif G.W. Persson. Now Persson really is known for frequently commenting on stuff in the media, as well as for various other things.
To recapitulate: Möller is a very respectable and, as appears from the list of his publications, very diligent professor of Political Science. I'm not at all surprised that Google Scholar gets lots of hits for him. But that's the academic publishing track; it's only tenuously related to public debate in Sweden. Möller is not...how shall I put this...not a well-known political commentator. Not often in the media. He's by no means someone in the public eye, or generally quoted. (Though Thomas Möller, formerly head of Swedish Hell's Angels, is; be careful you don't get the two mixed up!) OpenFuture makes a good point about the debate-page of Dagens Nyheter; that's not a...uh... not a hotspot nowadays. The page has increasingly become the reserve of politicians and academics; it was at one time widely read, but, well, not so much now. It's putting it politely to state that being published there doesn't confer or imply notabilty.
I agree with Hegvald that the article seems to have been produced back-to-front. It's unbalanced; it's very short; conclusions drawn from its "sources" are consistently inflated. It would have been a lot more interesting, at least, (though still hardly notable) to focus on what is unusual about Möller. On what makes viewers swallow their coffee the wrong way when he makes an appearance on Rapport. And that is his, for professors of Political Science, unusual conservatism, readily apparent (at least to a Swede) from his book titles. And I've saved the best for a note to end on: what is absolutely freakishly rare for an academic in Möller's position is his support of the Monarchy, and the comments he has made in that context. That's mentioned in the article, but I'm not sure you guys see the significance. A bit more emphasis on it would turn this article into a perpetual bitter edit war, wouldn't that be fun? But I don't think it makes him notable, for all that. Bishonen | talk 11:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC). Leif[reply]
- Poor sourcing and sources misapplied - often to prevent deletion (hint hint) does not equate that a subject lacks notability. Only that the article requires clean-up which remains not a reason to delete. Improving article context, structure, spelling out notability, improving sourcing, these are all considered regular editing. We do this every day on thousands of articles. A case can be made in some cases that it's better to start over but frankly even that is not a deletion but an overhaul. -- Banjeboi 11:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is true. But the problem here is that the poor sourcing is simply an effect of lack of sources. Let me remind you again: I *have* been looking. It said that his books was used as textbooks on many major universities. The truth is I could find that it was used on two minor courses in Uppsala, and one other minor university. It's not poorly sourced because nobody has bothered, or just slapped bad sources i there to make it looked sourced. It's poorly sourced, because there are no sources. And to me, that indicates that he probably isn't notable.
- Let's recap:
- He does clearly not fulfill WP:ACADEMIC, he has had no significant impact, and does not have a named chair, etc. Possibly the amount of references can be notable, I don't know, somebody needs to find comparisons with other people who are deemed notable.
- Appearing on the debate page of Dagens Nyheter is not notable in an international perspective.
- Getting called up to quote on random events in politics doesn't seem notable to me. Everyone else has been silent on the issue.
- Being one expert on an election program doesn't seem notable to me, further discussion on that could be helpful.
- He is possibly notable by being the only Swedish political sciences professor who is a monarchist. But that seems like a longshot.
- Clearly what we need to concentrate on here is if we can find a reason to say that he is notable on the basis of him being referenced, called to quote things, or being a conservative. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Likely he meets GNG whether a specific guideline is also met. Google News also yeilds an impressive amount of hits that will have to be sorted to suss which are relevant to this article and likely this article will require those willing to translate numerous sources as well. -- Banjeboi 12:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those hits are for another Tommy Möller. 'Professor "Tommy Möller"' yields 43 hits, which is less than two political scientists without Wikipedia pages who's blogs I read: Fredrik Segerfeldt (75) and Andreas Bergh (258) (neither are professors). Heck, *I* have been quoted by the New York times, and get three hits. :) Maybe he does meet GNG, but there has been a notable lack of arguments for that. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 99 news ghits, without the references to coach Tommy Moller-Nielsen. Many sources don't he's a professor, or use terms like statsvetenskapproffessor. Goodle does not understand compoundwordmaking.walk victor falk talk 11:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those hits are for another Tommy Möller. 'Professor "Tommy Möller"' yields 43 hits, which is less than two political scientists without Wikipedia pages who's blogs I read: Fredrik Segerfeldt (75) and Andreas Bergh (258) (neither are professors). Heck, *I* have been quoted by the New York times, and get three hits. :) Maybe he does meet GNG, but there has been a notable lack of arguments for that. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Likely he meets GNG whether a specific guideline is also met. Google News also yeilds an impressive amount of hits that will have to be sorted to suss which are relevant to this article and likely this article will require those willing to translate numerous sources as well. -- Banjeboi 12:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Those who seem to know most about the subject seem to think it not notable, and I am swayed by bishonen's analysis. If it is kept I would think that a sourced version of this stub would be better than the current article, given the concerns that bishonen and others have expressed about the way in which the sources are being used. Quantpole (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the named chair business (another TL;DR comment): It seems to be necessary to get this out of the way. As I have tried to point out on the talk page, possession of a "named chair" is not a useful cut-off point for Swedish academia. There is a cut-off point that could be more useful. Let me explain: Until 1993, most professors at Swedish universities were the possessors of chairs with some degree of continuity (although sometimes re-delimited and redefined between holders). Some of these have a continuity back to the 16th or 17th century, many others at least to the 18th or 19th or early 20th century. Many subjects had only one chair, some had two. Some were "named chairs", because they were established through a private donation. Most were not, as they had been created through a grant from the Crown or Government (until the early 19th century at least, that would usually mean the Monarch or regent personally). In addition, there were positions as heads of major non-university institutes and museums that came with the title of professor. There were personal research chairs (that expired with the retirement of the holder). There were also (and still are) people who were granted the honorary title of professor (professors namn) by the Government. These were all rather exclusive groups.
In the 1990s, this system was reformed to something similar to the U.S. system, where a tenured academic can gradually achieve a higher rank. In addition to the existing chairs, the possibility was opened for people possessing the position of lektor (lecturer) to get the title of professor. The previous system would exclude even the most highly accomplished academic from ever becoming a professor once the existing chairs had come into the possession of other academics of roughly the same age or younger. The ambition from the political powers-that-be of the time was probably to erase the difference between the old type of chaired professor (lärostolsprofessor) and the new "promoted professor" (befordrad professor). The old universities have so far resisted this change and held on to their chairs. These old, well-established chairs tend to come with far more resources and time for research (vs. teaching or other duties) and remain coveted even by people who have alrady been "promoted" to professors but who in actuality are just glorified lecturers.
As for the Lars Hierta chair and other named chairs at Stockholm University, there is one point that needs to be explained: When Stockholm University was established back in the late 19th century, it was a municipal and partly private venture. It had very limited resources, no government grants. The only way it could possibly get a new professorship was through a private donation. Stockholm University was a högskola until 1962, although of higher status than the current crop of young institutions going by that name (it granted doctorates and employed some brilliant professors, including Nobel laureates and members of the Swedish Academy). Another example: both professorships of Art History at Stockholm University are "named", one after J. A. Berg, a wealthy army officer, and the other after the painter Anders Zorn. I am perfectly willing to argue that every holder of these two chairs has been notable and could find good biographical sources at least for the dead ones. But it would be silly to argue that the two chairs of Art History that exist at Uppsala or the two in Lund are not notable (these chairs all date from the early 20th century when art history established itself as an independent academic discipline), just because they aren't "named", i.e. were established through decisions by the Government rather than through a donation by some random rich guy.
So, how does this apply to this case? Well, the question is: does Möller possess a professorial chair (any chair, not specifically a named one) or is he just a "promoted professor"? At least a few years ago he was still a "promoted professor" applying for chaired positions, including (twice) the Lars Hierta chair.
The Swedish political science journal Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift is partly available on-line for the period 1998-2006 and has actually published the expert committee evaluations (sakkunnigutlåtanden) of candidates to various chairs. These contain a great deal of information on Möller and the other candidates. See 2001:1, pp. 73 ff (a chair at Umeå University); 2001:2, pp. 138 ff (on the Lars Hierta chair); and 2006:1 (on the Lars Hierta chair again; see pp. 81-110, including a debate between one of the experts and another one of the applicants). There may be more; my search was not exhaustive. They could actually constitute pretty good sources for an article on Möller, among others. I found these yesterday and first thought "how useful!", before realizing how much care and thoughtfulness is needed to use evaluations such as these for writing a biographical article. That is why I concluded that delete-rewrite-repost is a better solution than keeping the article in its current shape or letting it develop by random addition of out-of-context factoids or "criticism" sections (bad enough for historical articles, terrible when dealing with a living person).
In conclusion, Möller does not appear to fulfill the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC, unless he has acquired a chair since 2006. On the other hand, there are good, but slightly difficult-to-use, sources out there for anyone who reads Swedish and really wants to write about him. But whoever wants to do that really needs to look at all the material, digest it, then repost a new article and ask a couple of people to take a look at the article and the references. --Hegvald (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First, thanks for your work on this matter. In your view, how does using these evaluations conform (or not conform) with our policy on original research? It sounds as if they may be primary documents, and that some level of synthesis might be necessary in order to use them well. What are your thoughts about this? UnitAnode 14:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that they need some understanding of the context where the evaluations were made and comparison with a range of other sources to be "used well", but I don't see how synthesis ("a synthesis of published material to advance a new position") would need to come into it at all. For writing about Möller's work, they would be secondary sources. The only way they would be primary sources would be if someone would want to make a study of the experts who wrote these evaluations and their views of what type of competence or profile a professor of political science needs to have (or something like that). The primary sources for the subject of Tommy Möller would be Möller's own writings. --Hegvald (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can certainly sympathize with your double reaction to using sakkunnigutlåtanden for a bio, Hegvald, from "How useful" to some alarm. I'm kind of appalled by the idea myself. Those evaluations are... well... I don't know how to put it, but they're kind of special (not in a good way). I know I couldn't muster enough tact to use them for anything. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
arbitrary break
- Comment. Because of the vast screeds that are being written on this seemingly not terribly important AfD there appear to be deep Swedish cultural currents running here that I do not claim to understand. One editor seems to disapprove of the subject because he has expressed support for the Swedish monarchy. There may be some POV here. Although keeps slightly outnumber deletes at present it could be a No Consensus. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Not really. This isn't a vote, so I'd say if an admin wades through all the arguments, this will be a pretty easy delete. UnitAnode 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are Swedish cultural currents here, I don't understand them either even though I'm Swedish. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. This isn't a vote, so I'd say if an admin wades through all the arguments, this will be a pretty easy delete. UnitAnode 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear delete despite the best efforts of the WP:ARSeditors, what have we got? A Sweedish professor who comments on Sweedish polics? Huge amount of TLDR research and that's the best? Sorry, this doesn't even assert notability much less establish it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "a frequent political commentator in Swedish media.[3]" walk victor falk talk 19:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? This isn't a vote, so without a contribution to the discussion by way of rationale, you will probably be ignored.--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear keep: His notability is amply illutstrated by the number of references where he is used as an expert commentator. If that were not enough then his publications list should easily do the trick - some of his books have been published in several (six!) editions - this doesn't happen to books with low notability.
I would even go so far as to call the nomination obviously frivolous.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Please note that none of that information was in the article when it was nominated. Thank you for not using obviously false statements about his notability as most people above have. I don't agree about his notability, but at least this is a matter of judgment about how many times you need to be quoted as an expert, and what kind of quotes, so it's ultimately subjective. A note on the editions: It's typical for Swedish university professors to write their own course material, so having many editions doesn't have to be an indication of usage outside his own curriculum. He could just as well update it every year. It should also be noted that the book with six editions is written by Mats Bäck and later updated by Tommy Möller (this is an error in the article, I'll correct it), not that this necessarily makes a difference. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, the article has been improved since nomination - I'll strike my comment about the frivolousness of nomination - the nomination was probably completely legitimate then. But the fact that it has been improved and is now sourced and makes (reasonable) claims to notability might then be a motivation for withdrawing the nomination all together? ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's obviously up to the person who nominated the article for deletion, but I still don't agree there has been any convincing arguments for Tommy Möllers notability, so I think withdrawing it before we have a decision is a bad idea, as there is a high risk the discussion appears again. We'd better get a AfD decision from somebody with more experience of notability discussions. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These references [31](preprint of article later published in "Party Politics, Vol. 9, No. 3, 369-390 (2003)") [32][33][34] [][35][36] [37] show that Möller is cited in international contexts (English, Norwegian, Czech and Chinese)when dealing with topics of swedish politics. This book[38] (p. 69) by the swedish research council of political sciences states that "Although the work at Stockholm trails that of Göteborg in the field of electoral studies, Tommy Möller’s work on Swedish elections and political parties, some of it co-authored or co-edited with Sören Holmberg at Göteborg, has been recognized both by academic peers and the public. Möller has also been a frequent commentator on Swedish politics on national television." ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The last one is a pretty good source. With the historical chapter (which could undoubtedly be fleshed out from other sources), it would form a good basis for an article on Political science in Sweden. --Hegvald (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These references [31](preprint of article later published in "Party Politics, Vol. 9, No. 3, 369-390 (2003)") [32][33][34] [][35][36] [37] show that Möller is cited in international contexts (English, Norwegian, Czech and Chinese)when dealing with topics of swedish politics. This book[38] (p. 69) by the swedish research council of political sciences states that "Although the work at Stockholm trails that of Göteborg in the field of electoral studies, Tommy Möller’s work on Swedish elections and political parties, some of it co-authored or co-edited with Sören Holmberg at Göteborg, has been recognized both by academic peers and the public. Möller has also been a frequent commentator on Swedish politics on national television." ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's obviously up to the person who nominated the article for deletion, but I still don't agree there has been any convincing arguments for Tommy Möllers notability, so I think withdrawing it before we have a decision is a bad idea, as there is a high risk the discussion appears again. We'd better get a AfD decision from somebody with more experience of notability discussions. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, the article has been improved since nomination - I'll strike my comment about the frivolousness of nomination - the nomination was probably completely legitimate then. But the fact that it has been improved and is now sourced and makes (reasonable) claims to notability might then be a motivation for withdrawing the nomination all together? ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- this editorial in a major newspaper describes him as a "framstående" (distinguished, prominent) political scientist. The paper has a similar political alignment as Möller though. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article is an embarrassment, to the subject as well as to us. People have evidently been editing it in a desparate effort at dredging up hints of notability from anything they could find. And it shows. "His book [...] is a part of the course literature at some universities in Sweden". OMG. If that's the most interesting thing we can say about him, we'd better say nothing at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That piece of information has obviously been included in order to assert notability when challenged. Using, the fact that it is irrelevant to the article to argue that it should be deleted is putting a catch 22 on those who would try to save it. As I have already said above the fact that his book is used in a a course is not the interesting part - the fact that it has been published in six editions is. And the fact that his works in swedish are referenced in international contexts (english, norwqegian, czech and chinese), and that the swedish ministry of science explicitly states that he has had a broad impact in science and as a political commentator.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yeah, that piece kinda has been inserted for that reason. Although originally it claimed that his textbooks (plural) was used at several major universities. That turned out to be yet another incorrect claim in the effort to assert notability for Möller. When checked, it turns out that his books are used in one or two courses at one major university and one course at a minor one. And that was all I could find. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That piece of information has obviously been included in order to assert notability when challenged. Using, the fact that it is irrelevant to the article to argue that it should be deleted is putting a catch 22 on those who would try to save it. As I have already said above the fact that his book is used in a a course is not the interesting part - the fact that it has been published in six editions is. And the fact that his works in swedish are referenced in international contexts (english, norwqegian, czech and chinese), and that the swedish ministry of science explicitly states that he has had a broad impact in science and as a political commentator.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Keep - has lots of references. References => notability. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Almost an embarrassing riches of sources shown above, and clearly a highly accomplished acadmic. LotLE×talk 23:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't speak for Bishonen, but you may be reading too much into what I wrote. Basically I agree with what Fut.Perf. said above: the article is an embarrassment (for Wikipedia and the subject, but the latter is a far worse problem). But I also think that the sources could be used to write about Möller. (Maunus has also presented an additional source of some value.) But because these sources are difficult to use (one needs to tread carefully in order not to overrepresent their bias in the article), I would just prefer to see someone doing it in a way that won't be an even worse embarrassment before the page gets re-introduced as an actual article. --Hegvald (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There's a convincing array of sources demonstrating notability shown above, and I don't find the counter arguments compelling. Rebecca (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that I have since presented sources in English and three other languages beside swerdish - I don't think that should be a problem.·Maunus·ƛ·
- Delete per Future Perfect at Sunrise. JBsupreme (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep As a frequent political commentator in the media looks like passes #7 of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regarding the poor quality that a couple of editors speak about. Poor quality is emphatically not a reason for deletion. It is a reason to {{sofixit}} and WP:IMPROVE the article. If it is really unsalvageable, the thing to do is to WP:STUBIFY in or order to WP:PRESERVE the information and rewrite the article. walk victor falk talk 10:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If an article is in such pathetically bad shape that there's no real possibility of using even the bare bones of it to start fixing it (and this one certainly qualifies), then deletion is a valid option. We don't have to keep barely notable -- and irredeemably shitty -- articles around, just because of SOFIXIT. UnitAnode 16:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article as it stands still only tells us he is a professor at Stockholm University, that he sometimes is quoted in media, that he supported the King after his Tsunami-speech (well who didn't, really ;) ) and list the books he wrote. OK. *shrugs*. There is still little discussion of what he did that is actually notable. If his research has had significant impact, *what* is that impact? I asked that already the 26th, but there has been no answer. If he has had significant impact outside academia, ie as a political commentator, what is that impact? If the article could explain this, and thereby the article could explain *why* Tommy Möller is notable, then this would be an open and shut case for my part. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If an article is in such pathetically bad shape that there's no real possibility of using even the bare bones of it to start fixing it (and this one certainly qualifies), then deletion is a valid option. We don't have to keep barely notable -- and irredeemably shitty -- articles around, just because of SOFIXIT. UnitAnode 16:14, 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) 00:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cathy Greene
- Cathy Greene (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 BLP of an actress. The only sources provided offer only trivial mentions of her, which does not satisfy our notability requirements. If such sources can not be found, then the article should be deleted. UnitAnode 18:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:ENT asks for "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I highly doubt (though haven't exhautively checked) that her role on Another World was significant, but even if it were, per IMDb she has not had "multiple" significant roles. No other evidence of notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this appears to be an insignificant actress. JBsupreme (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't appear to pass WP:ENT. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:04, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be with You (2009 film)
- Be with You (2009 film) (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 not scheduled to go into production until 2011,and would thus violate WP:CRYSTAL (not my field, but I came across it in following up speedies) DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Violates WP:CRYSTAL; not to mention the fact that the film appears to be dead in the water anyway.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 2009 film, going into production 2011? Come on.... Peridon (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Quite simply, even imdb took down its page for it. The article name is just factually wrong - there was no such film in 2009. So... And DGG: Thanks for putting the correct tag on the Vandalia films article! Hutch y2k (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it's WP:CRYSTAL until the Fat Lady sings or principal photography begins! Eddie.willers (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "Scheduled to enter production in 2011"... ¨¨ victor falk 05:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:NFF, WP:CRYSTAL. Take your pick. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:06, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Wake
- Eric Wake (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)
Academic of unclear notability, tagged as such since November 2009. I searched Google/Google News/Google Books/Google Scholar in the hope of finding sources but this did not turn up anything that made a convincing case for notability. The only incoming links are housekeeping ones. Michig (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see any evidence that he passes WP:PROF. The article mentions only some student groups he's worked with and national organizations he's a member of, none of which confer notability. And the publication list does not seem stronger than that of a typical Wikipedia editor: most of the items listed there are entries in specialized dictionaries and encyclopedias. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per David Eppstein. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:07, 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 speedy delete, G11, with a generous sprinkling of salt. Per alerts from other users, this article is indeed word-for-word the same as Sanook.com, and is therefore a blatant attempt to evade the salting of that article. Author blocked as a spam-only account. Blueboy96 18:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sanook
- Sanook (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)
Previously declined A7. While notability is asserted, a search doesn't reveal enough non-trivial coverage in my mind to satisfy WP:WEB. Blueboy96 18:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the creator has created the 4-time deleted Sanook.com (same content), which is now create protected. Connormah (talk | contribs) 18:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Should have been speedied, per being a substantial recreation of deleted content. UnitAnode 18:50, 30 January 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) 00:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prerna Suri
- Prerna Suri (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 as it fails WP:Bio. The references only support the fact that she is a journalist, that she has a webpage, and that she actually reported. There is no significant published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. --Bejnar (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 01:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just having a job that puts you in the public eye doesn't make you notable and that's all this bio rests on. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing about her to pass our notability guideline, and for a journalist, the number of reports by her are quite low too. —SpacemanSpiff 06:31, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
K.I.D.D.
- K.I.D.D. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject has produced some songs for B.G. (who is a notable MC) and it seems a few other people, but I'm not finding any discussion in reliable secondary sources when I search on variations of his name. Some hits from blogs (including an interview), but no mention in popular hip-hop magazines like XXL and The Source, and certainly none in more general interest secondary sources. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject suggests K.I.D.D. is not notable enough to pass the general notability guideline. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTP, the source have practically no online presence, and xxl keep print-exclusive content. but really the only ppl who write about producers who aren't superstars are wax poetics and the old Scratch anyhow, and they did not pay attention to nola in this period iirc. This guy wrote and produced the music for a billboard #21 record, so does WP:MUSIC apply anymore or not? Why should I even try to hunt down sources when no one has a clue what is going on? Just pull BLPs by diktat and be done with this chaotic hypocrisy and time-wasting imo. 86.44.33.121 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you'll remember me from kool herc btw. 86.44.33.121 (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't appear to pass notability. Lack of significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: non-notable producer. Mattg82 (talk) 19:51, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OSScamp
- OSScamp (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 independent, reliable third-party sources cited, see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Note that the one third-party source is by an author with the same name as the principal editor here, so there are WP:COI issues too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note PROD was removed, when I searched Google News I found no coverage of this topic. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the News search above now finds 5 relaible sources.Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]Unsure, leaning deleteThere are seven news sources found above. Two are on OSScube, which seems to be an unrelated company (or at least the focus is not on OSScamp). All of the five remaining news items seem to be press releases fromm OSScamp which these web sites have just posted. My original concern was notability, and it seems to me that this still lacks "multiple independent third-party sources" to establish notability, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Delete - this article has no valid hits in books or scholar (one false positive each), all of the images are from Flickr or Picasa, the news finds seven hits, but two are very marginal mentions in OSScube press releases, and the other five are also just press releases. On the web there are no relaible sources that I could see in the first two pages on Google. Fails WP:NN. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Author's Note: Why the page should not be deleted
- OSScamps are a series of unconferences that have been organized since March 2007 across India. In the 12 unconferences that have been organized many developers, students and open source enthusiasts have participated and numerous open source tools, technologies, and projects were discussed. OSScamps is perhaps the only open source community in India (at least) that has non-developer participants (doctors, lawyers, journalists, etc) as well. It has been a decent (my subjective opinion) platform for discussion and propagation of open source in India. All of this demographic information is available. Will these numbers help in evaluating if OSScamp is something that is relevant to a large number of people and hence worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia?
- The content that exists about the community and the event over the interweb is one of the following (is any of these not acceptable?):
- Press Releases and Sponsorship announcements by the various sponsors (some of the major IT companies)
- Event Announcements and Updates by media partners
- Event coverage (always written by one of the organizers)
- Talk/Session/Presentation details either provided by the speaker or a participant
- Blog posts about the community/event by various participants (1281 results according to Google Blog Search).
- Participant-contributed pictures (as found on Picasa (342 items), Flickr (536 items)) and videos (on YouTube (64 items) and Vimeo (26 items))
- Event details listed on many event calendars - corporate, media, not for profit, community.
- The community is found to be lacking in notability primarily because there is a lack of third-party independent reference. This is primarily because the community is ad-hoc to the extreme. There is no organizing body, no legal entity, no group of promoters. Media agencies have no one to contact too. Perhaps the participants took the unconference idea too seriously. But, OSScamps is a decentralized community where everyone is an equal member. There is no notability since there are no specific mentions of the community in general media. However, there is a huge amount of content and reference from the participants and community.
- If I look at references for the community/event - there are references to the events by organisations already listed on Wikipedia either as sponsors or participants. OSScamp was also referred on FOSS.IN and Unconference. The old link on these pages pointed to the OSScamp Website, which I modified to the OSScamp page after adding the page.
- When I created the page, I read the policies on Notability and on Conflict of Interest as well. I wrote a page that was neutral and provided as much relevant information as possible to the best of my understanding of the policies. I am of the opinion that OSScamp is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. If the page is not completely compliant to Wikipedia policies, it would make much sense for sections that are non-verifiable or disputable be removed from the page, instead of the whole page being deleted.
Kinshuk Sunil (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note This "neutral" article by Kinshuk Sunil has the following sentence: "Kinshuk Sunil is one of the most active volunteers of the community, who plays an active role in the organisation of every camp." It says above here that "the community is ad-hoc to the extreme. There is no organizing body, no legal entity, no group of promoters." but all seven of the "news sources" found above have contact information and/or email addresses from the corporation OSScube, and four of the seven mention Kinshuk in some way. Please see WP:COI Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the page history and saw that the specific text was added by Yadu Rajiv and the complete text included a reference to him as well. Before adding my note on this page, I re-edited the document and removed all disputable text including this claim of popularity. I have also added some new references, which might be more notable than the current ones. The page in the introduction to the camps section says that Vineet and Sonali spearheaded the community. They also started the company OSSCube, which is also mentioned in the Page. I work for OSSCube as well, taking care of their community initiatives. Please do not misunderstand this relationship as a vested interest by the company in the community, since I am equally involved with other communities in the country as well. I am only apalled that other companies dont show up in the news results. I am now reading the WP:COI and will make changes accordingly. Kinshuk Sunil (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Delete but don't block. It is possible that if the movement continues that it will acquire appropriate secondary sources. Although Kinshuk Sunil added a citation to an academic article, unfortunately that article does not mention OSScamp or unconferences. A copy of the article was at http://www.aldwychassociates.com/gis/conferences/files/19/pdf/44_505.pdf, but has been removed. An html copy was still here as of 18:40 (UCT), 30 January 2010. --Bejnar (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:50, 1 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 and move. JForget 02:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evo Championship Series
- Evo Championship Series (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)
Unencyclopedic article that reads more like a rant against the subject rather than providing any actual useful information. A video game tournament by this name exists, but notability is uncertain. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 18:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The current version is
Speedy G10, but a previous version was deleted via WP:PROD, which I've put in a request toundeleteon account of recent coverage like this. Nifboy (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Digging around a bit, I found User:Jeremybox/Evolution Championship Series, a decidedly more neutral (though userfied) article on the subject. Nifboy (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Nifboy's sources. SharkD Talk 09:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – the newly-found sources look good. –MuZemike 22:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is kept, it should definitely be moved to Evolution Championship Series (which is currently a redirect but was previously a duplicate of this one when it was an attack article). NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 23:14, 2 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) 00:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weston and Worle News
- Weston and Worle News (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 stub article about a free local newspaper with a small circulation, which is no longer published. I don't believe it would have met general notability guidelines when it was in print, and I certainly don't think it is notable now that it has been out of print for 12 months. Simple Bob (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As the creator of this article I would not object to its deletion.— Rod talk 17:21, 30 January 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. Valid arguments are presented for both keeping and deleting the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ruth Abbey
- Ruth Abbey (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. Contested prod. This article was created one year ago and has only primary sources to show for it. JBsupreme (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails
WP:SELFPUBLISHWP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Armbrust (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Delete. I don't think that WP:SELFPUBLISH is a valid argument for deletion here, as there are plenty of independent sources. However inability to satisfy WP:Prof is. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has published three books: one each at Oxford UP, Princeton UP , and Cambridge UP. The only secondary sources needed are proof of the books, and worldcat does that. And then there are the multiple articles in good journals. All in all, a very distinguished publication record, that sh If their referees all of them have judged her notable as an authority in her field--they would not have published the books otherwise. Would meet WP AUTHOR also, after the reviews for the books are added. JB is not wholly wrong: it is true that some of the opinion should either be sourced specifically to the reviews or removed. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A named chair appointment at Notre Dame (although as an Associate Professor) is already close to passing WP:PROF#5 and certainly counts quite a bit towards WP:PROF#1. I don't know too much about Liverhume Fellowships, but if The Times sees fit to publish a list of recipients[39], it must be fairly prestigious. DGG provides additional good arguments. WorldCat shows multiple published reviews of her work[40]. Certainly good enough for passing WP:PROF#1. Nsk92 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per DGG. MiRroar (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. DGG has, in his enthusiasm, overlooked the fact that she edited, not authored, two of the three books. Since the book whe actually wrote has only nine citations, and no reviews, she fails WP:AUTHOR. As an associate professor, she does not pass WP:PROF. She is not a "disinguished professor", she holds a named chair. Notre Dame has many of these, named for people who gave money; I just found this passel of ND profs in Economics [41] [42] [43] and English [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] all with named chairs. It's harder to find a professor without a named chair at Notre Dame. Abductive (reasoning) 11:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Her books have been reviewed in the following academic journals: The Review of Metaphysics, The Review of Politics, Political Theory, Mind, and Ethics. These are not freely available online, but it's quite obvious that she is a notable scholar within her field. I added info from one of the reviews of her book on Nietzsche (Absuctive's claims above are simply incorrect—it seems that neither the book on Nietzsche nor the 2000 book on Charles Taylor are edited volumes, and both have reviews written about them). There are obviously reliable sources which discuss Abbey's work, so there's no problem with sourcing the article. I would argue that she passes the first criteria of WP:PROF, and probably passes #5 as well. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Still no evidence of significant independent coverage in the article itself, but appears to have been reviewed and cited sufficiently. Many professors hold their positions via financial arrangements rather than being at the pinnacle of academia, so being an associate professor isn't a strong indication of notability. The 'Leverhulme Research Fellowship' appears to be simply a research grant, which is something that researchers routinely receive, and I don't see a compelling reason to consider a researcher recieving a grant as evidence of notability. Her book on Charles Taylor, however, appears to be fairly widely cited, so I am inclined to keep. The details of her 'forthcoming publication', however, should be trimmed - if it receives significant coverage it would be worth mentioning, but is currently unsourceable.--Michig (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per abductive. lack of clear cut third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Her books have indeed been reviewed in the five journals I cited above (and I believe more, these were just the ones I noticed on the first search page). Anyone with access to JSTOR or similar databases can view the reviews, which like all academic reviews summarize her work and critique it. They are actually exactly the kind of thing we need to write an article about an academic, and indeed an academic's work might be quite important but covered primarily or even solely in specialized journals that are not so easy to access. I'm confused as to how multiple reviews in peer-reviewed journals does not qualify as "clear cut third party coverage." You can't read them just by doing a google search, but that obviously does not matter. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying Abductive (not surprising for a one word comment). Is your point that one of her books is an edited volume? The other two are not, it seems, and there are multiple reviews for both. Can you clarify what you are getting at? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two are edited. The one she wrote on her advisor Taylor has the least interest. Writing a book on one's own advisor doesn't move me to want to keep this article. Let me be blunt; this is an associate prof. No sources have been provided saying that she is important. There are at least 2 million professors in the world, and they all do stuff. Abductive (reasoning) 01:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not "the encyclopedia of stuff that Abductive finds interesting". The standard is not whether any individual editor likes the subject or their work, but rather whether we can find sufficient evidence that other people have taken note of the subject or their work. Bigtimepeace's listing of reviews is exactly that. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not about my personal opinion. What I am saying is that every author writes books, and WP:AUTHOR says
Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
- The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
- The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
- The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
- The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
- See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics
- and I say she fails all these points. Nowhere is she regarded as important. She did not originate a significant theory. She is not widely cited; her citation record is quite low. She did not create a well-known work. Her work is not a significant monument. She fails WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 01:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) What two do you think are edited? Neither Nietzsche’s Middle Period nor Charles Taylor (the one from 2000) are edited. The Nietzsche book has multiple reviews in journals (and is probably in a sense the book on that period of Nietzsche's oeuvre), as does the book on Taylor. I'll take your word that Taylor was her adviser (didn't notice that), but that hardly matters since he's obviously a very significant modern philosopher (hence our article on him and indeed on his books Sources of the Self and A Secular Age) and since the book she wrote was basically well received. I'm not sure what makes you decide that it has the "least interest" or somehow doesn't matter just because you think it doesn't, but in any case she did write another unedited book as well. So you're simply wrong on the facts, but you also are completely ignoring the fact that there are multiple reviews of her books which establish that she has done well-regarded work within the field of philosophy. I don't think you're articulating a policy-based rationale for why Abbey does not warrant an article, and I know that the sentence "there are at least 2 million professors in the world, and they all do stuff" is not even close to an argument for deletion (plus the premise is not true—I personally know a number of professors who don't "do stuff"!).
- and I say she fails all these points. Nowhere is she regarded as important. She did not originate a significant theory. She is not widely cited; her citation record is quite low. She did not create a well-known work. Her work is not a significant monument. She fails WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 01:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As to your copy-paste of WP:AUTHOR, what actually matters here in terms of guidelines is the first criteria of WP:PROF: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." You'd have to actually look at some of the reviews in the journals I list out above, but specialized academic journals are indeed the place where it's generally determined whether or not one has made a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline." It's fine if you don't have access to those journals, but don't blithely claim "nowhere is she regarded as important" if you have not looked her up in the journals in which she publishes and in which her books are reviewed. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here, the Amazon listing shows her as editor. The other book is listed as author, my bad.
- As for the first criteria of WP:PROF. I refuse to accept that Abbey is a leader in her scholarly discipline, unless you can show me a "Department of Charles Taylor Studies" or even a "Journal of Charles Taylor Studies". She has not made significant impact in her scholarly disciplines; as the article says, her interests are "political theory, history of political thought and feminist political thought," not Taylor. The low number of citations is evidence of this lack of impact. Abductive (reasoning) 05:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your arguments are trending into the absurd, and frankly I'm not sure you understand how academia works. Forget about "Department of Charles Taylor Studies," there is not even a "Department of Hegel Studies," or "Department of Abraham Lincoln Studies," or a "Department of Colonial American History Studies." Academic departments are generally quite broad, they never focus on individual people or subfields. Journals are more specialized, but "Journal of Charles Taylor Studies" is not something you are going to see. That doesn't mean those topic are not important. Scholars of necessity specialize, and no one would ever criticize another scholar for being a specialist in a certain area, or chide them because there was no journal or department named after their research interests. If their work is respected, they would be considered a leader in their sub-field or specialized area. Furthermore, you seem to be willfully ignoring that Abbey wrote a book about Nietzsche who, you must know, is very much not the same person/thinker that Charles Taylor is. He's also kind of a big deal in the history of philosophy, and based on chronology it seems pretty much impossible that he mentored Abbey.
- As to your copy-paste of WP:AUTHOR, what actually matters here in terms of guidelines is the first criteria of WP:PROF: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." You'd have to actually look at some of the reviews in the journals I list out above, but specialized academic journals are indeed the place where it's generally determined whether or not one has made a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline." It's fine if you don't have access to those journals, but don't blithely claim "nowhere is she regarded as important" if you have not looked her up in the journals in which she publishes and in which her books are reviewed. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to leave off replying now because the statement "I refuse to accept that Abbey is a leader in her scholarly discipline [course that's not what WP:PROF says, but whatever], unless you can show me a "Department of Charles Taylor Studies..." is just a bit too ridiculous for me, and it's obvious you are not interested in listening to counterarguments, thus you're making what Nietzsche famously called "A very popular error -- having the courage of your convictions. Rather, it is a matter of having the courage for an attack upon one's convictions!" --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know there is not a Dept of Hegel Studies etc, and you know that. My statement was meant to be absurd, and you know that. My argument itself is not absurd. You are the one engaging in truth-obscuring rhetoric in an attempt to save an article on an associate prof.
- My point is that every professor is a narrow expert on a particular something. WP:PROF says one has to be well above average. This person is not, based on lack of citations, and on being an associate professor. Abductive (reasoning) 18:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to leave off replying now because the statement "I refuse to accept that Abbey is a leader in her scholarly discipline [course that's not what WP:PROF says, but whatever], unless you can show me a "Department of Charles Taylor Studies..." is just a bit too ridiculous for me, and it's obvious you are not interested in listening to counterarguments, thus you're making what Nietzsche famously called "A very popular error -- having the courage of your convictions. Rather, it is a matter of having the courage for an attack upon one's convictions!" --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Holding a named chair is ordinarily notable. True, the most important major research universities have many such chairs--but they also have many such highly notable professors. That they also tend to be well-endowed is similarly no coincidence. It is their endowment that permits them to have named chairs that will attract distinguished people, and the donors give such chairs for that purpose. Named Associate professorships are quite unusual. They are so unusual that I think they would be given only to the most exceptional people. (except for the fortunately rare case where a university has permitted a donor to support a chair for a particular individual of the donor's selection) . DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In particular I have checked Abductive's assertion that " It's harder to find a professor without a named chair at Notre Dame. ". The English Department, one of his examples, has exact 6 chairs, and even as a non-specialist, I recognize some of them, & I think it is fair to say what the University does when it says that they are so designated "In recognition of their world-renowned scholarship and excellent teaching,"[49]. It's harder only in a very technical sense to find those without a named chair, because they are not listed separately but I went through the entire list, and I find there are 12 full professors without named chairs. So his guess is simply wrong--perhaps he should have counted. More to the immediate point, in the Department of Political Science there are 9 endowed and 11 non-endowed full professors; there are 4 endowed and 10 non-endowed Associate Professors. So it seems that even by standards of an absolutely top quality university, she is one of their more distinguished associate professors. We have had some discussion whether Associate professors in major research universities would generally be notable: the opinions are divided, & at present there is not consensus for that in general. (Personally, I have sometimes !voted delete and sometimes keep for associate Professors). But certainly I think the top rank of them, as here, probably would all be notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that she is one the only associate professor who has a named chair that I found, but I still don't see it as sufficient. As for the named chair thing, I should have said that the proportion of named chairs at ND is unusually high, high enough that one cannot apply it towards notability. Abductive (reasoning) 04:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG makes excellent points above, but I'd just like to throw in a meta-comment here about professors/scholars and notability. More so than most biographies of living persons (which I generally think we should restrict), in an ideal Wikipedia bios on scholars would be extremely useful. Any notable professor has had their work reviewed (often extensively) by other scholars. Their BLPs (while giving basic info) should function as a place to describe in detail the work they have done and the evaluations of it. We will generally have plenty of (specialized) sources to do this, and these kind of descriptions can usually not be put in more general articles (e.g. we can't talk about every book on Nietzsche in great detail in our main bio of him or indeed in sub articles). For example there are many hundreds of important scholars of the history of Slavery in the United States—it's one of the richest fields of historical inquiry on the planet. Serious students of the subject (either in an "amateur" DIY fashion or at a university) would be well-served by biographies of scholars who made contributions to the field, bios which would discuss not the person so much but rather their work and how it fits in with the overall scholarship. Indeed if this was done properly such a resource would be useful even to senior scholars, as it's not always easy to keep track of who said and wrote what, the other work they did, and how it's been evaluated. Biographical articles on people who have made important (if specialized) intellectual contributions are among the most valuable we can have in an encyclopedia. Probably I should be saying this somewhere else, but it popped out here I guess. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, this sounds like directory-thinking. There is no way that Wikipedia can create an accurate directory of all the professors in the world, or even all the full professors. Page views and other evidence suggests that nobody cares about professors, unless they hit the popular press. Serious scholars would never, ever trust Wikipedia to tell them anything about an obscure topic. The professors I know spend inordinate amounts of time trying to figure out who is important in their field, who is up-and-coming, and who never amounted to anything. Abductive (reasoning) 04:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what "directory-thinking" is, but I'm not talking about creating a directory, I'm saying having a lot of articles that describe the work notable scholars have done would be useful. I don't care that you think that "nobody cares about professors" based on "page views"—summarizing someone's scholarship is a good task for an encyclopedia, and if you don't think so then you are simply wrong. Professors definitely know about everyone within their area of specialization, but a professor who studies slavery in colonial South Carolina does not know everything about scholars who work primarily on California while it was controlled by the Spanish, or about the people who study medieval prisons in Italy. Our goal should be to make Wikipedia the kind of source that anyone would turn to (as a first stop) for subjects about which they are not an expert, or which are just outside their expertise. This is not even the place to discuss this, but I'm just saying more articles on notable scholars that discuss their work would be a good thing, and you're not going to dissuade me from that view. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I very much agree on "discuss their work". Abductive (reasoning) 07:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- for a change, Abductive and I agree on something! We need to do this much more than we have been doing. We've been so pressed for time we have been including the bare facts, and not the actually important content. We need to take existing article,s, and add to their depth. Assuming anyone has cited their published work, or reviewed their book, there should be no great difficulty in selecting an appropriate 3rd party RS discussion. That is, there should be no great difficulty for someone who understands the subject--although we are not doing OR,we do need some knowledge to do a suitable synopsis of this sort, and we have very few people to do it. (except in some of the sciences, where it is sometimes done to a variable extent). When it is present in an article, it's likely to be there as a POV statement trying to promote the work, not discuss it, We need to figure out ways to help people do this--for example, if there is a book, will we accept a list of chapters? We also need to recruit more people who can and will do this in their subjects, by accommodating to some degree their idiosyncrasies and not rushing to delete articles about them. . Where Abductive and I continue to differ, is that I think this is not helped by deleting articles on people of modest importance. It's not wrong to screen out the unimportant, but its better to add to the important. Every time we argue at length over whether someone just passes the bar of notability or does not, its time & energy lost from doing something more useful. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what "directory-thinking" is, but I'm not talking about creating a directory, I'm saying having a lot of articles that describe the work notable scholars have done would be useful. I don't care that you think that "nobody cares about professors" based on "page views"—summarizing someone's scholarship is a good task for an encyclopedia, and if you don't think so then you are simply wrong. Professors definitely know about everyone within their area of specialization, but a professor who studies slavery in colonial South Carolina does not know everything about scholars who work primarily on California while it was controlled by the Spanish, or about the people who study medieval prisons in Italy. Our goal should be to make Wikipedia the kind of source that anyone would turn to (as a first stop) for subjects about which they are not an expert, or which are just outside their expertise. This is not even the place to discuss this, but I'm just saying more articles on notable scholars that discuss their work would be a good thing, and you're not going to dissuade me from that view. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, this sounds like directory-thinking. There is no way that Wikipedia can create an accurate directory of all the professors in the world, or even all the full professors. Page views and other evidence suggests that nobody cares about professors, unless they hit the popular press. Serious scholars would never, ever trust Wikipedia to tell them anything about an obscure topic. The professors I know spend inordinate amounts of time trying to figure out who is important in their field, who is up-and-coming, and who never amounted to anything. Abductive (reasoning) 04:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In particular I have checked Abductive's assertion that " It's harder to find a professor without a named chair at Notre Dame. ". The English Department, one of his examples, has exact 6 chairs, and even as a non-specialist, I recognize some of them, & I think it is fair to say what the University does when it says that they are so designated "In recognition of their world-renowned scholarship and excellent teaching,"[49]. It's harder only in a very technical sense to find those without a named chair, because they are not listed separately but I went through the entire list, and I find there are 12 full professors without named chairs. So his guess is simply wrong--perhaps he should have counted. More to the immediate point, in the Department of Political Science there are 9 endowed and 11 non-endowed full professors; there are 4 endowed and 10 non-endowed Associate Professors. So it seems that even by standards of an absolutely top quality university, she is one of their more distinguished associate professors. We have had some discussion whether Associate professors in major research universities would generally be notable: the opinions are divided, & at present there is not consensus for that in general. (Personally, I have sometimes !voted delete and sometimes keep for associate Professors). But certainly I think the top rank of them, as here, probably would all be notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Multiple books on "good" academic presses. Well cited for original research (clarify: original by Abbey, not in the sense of WP:OR). LotLE×talk 22:31, 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) 00:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brooke Gunning
- Brooke Gunning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete as badly failing WP:GNG. I tried to add a link to her column, and it's blacklisted. Then I formatted the stub. Various Google searches found very little in terms of sources about her, and absolutely nothing reliable and Zero news Ghits. A few hundred regular Ghits are out there, but many of them from Amazon, Human Events, etc. She makes only 107 hits on Bing, almost all of them for this article, her column on Examiner, Amazon, Linkedin, facebook etc. Bearian (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Supreme delete. Tagged as unsourced as far back as 2007, and wow.... I cannot believe this article is even still here. JBsupreme (talk) 05:22, 1 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) 00:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soulive Tour Dates
- Soulive Tour Dates (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)
Just a list. DimaG (talk) 16:56, 30 January 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) 00:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Siriporn Ampaipong
- Siriporn Ampaipong (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 singer. I've searched Thai English language newspapers website's and only found passing mentions. Mattg82 (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Her Thai-alphabet name gets 1.2 million Google hits.[50] I know that WP:GHITS are not everything, but might it not be worth checking in Thai-language sources before nominating? Fences&Windows 00:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Perfectly satisfies WP:MUSIC #5, having released thirteen albums[51] with GMM Grammy, the largest music label in Thailand. Plenty of press coverage, also subject of published academic studies.[52][53] --Paul_012 (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, of course, for the reasons given above. Nominations like this would be funny if they weren't such a depressing commentary on the state of Wikipedia. HenryFlower 19:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is difficult to build articles on the English Wikipedia about people who are not notable in the English speaking world. It does appear that this person is notable in Thailand, and I have now added three cites to the article to reflect that. But the notability is largely picked up in passing rather than directly. I would favour in cases like this, merging with the nearest notable parent article, such as Mor lam, until such time as sufficient material can be built up to allow a stand alone article to be written. SilkTork *YES! 12:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable singer. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I prod tagged this almost a week ago, primarily because it had been identified as unsourced for THREE YEARS (when in actuality it had been for six years) and I could not find any non-trivial mentions of the subject. Hooray for AFD being cleanup. JBsupreme (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plainly notable, leaps and bounds past the bar for notability, plenty of sources, especially if one includes those not in English. The existence of systemic bias is not an argument for deletion. Rebecca (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep One of the most prominent luk thung singers not notable?? 217 youtube hits, this one has more than 200,000 views... ethaicd.com lists 3 pages of records of her in stock... 13:18, --峻義 Jùnyì 論 13:20, 2 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. nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 19:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Xbox Live Arcade games
- List of Xbox Live Arcade games (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)
Complete list of games sold though an arguably official retail channel, even listing a proxy for the price (MS points). WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOPRICES. Pcap ping 16:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This nomination came about from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Steam titles (2nd nomination), where I've explained the difference between why this is not a directory while the List of Steam titles is more so. Specifically, titles that arrive on the Xbox Live service are ones that have been certified by Microsoft and gone through a rigorous process, while Steam can sell anyone's games. Another different to consider here is that many of the titles on this list are titles unique to XBLA; on the other hand, nearly every Steam title can be purchased from a different channel. In other words, XBLA is closer to a list of what products a specific company makes (which is appropriate) while the Steam list is a list of third-party products a vendor sells (which is closer to a directory). I would consider ditching the prices (in favor of a statement that most games are between 800-1200 MSP), but their present inclusion is not an issue regarding this article's keep-ability. --MASEM (t) 17:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your statements about the certification are not documented in the article on Xbox Live Arcade. Please provide some references independent of MS marketing that verify that's indeed the case. Otherwise I'm inclined to think this is just a thinly veiled deal between MS and some software makers. Also, we do not have a list of applications sold on the Apple App Store, even though those certainly require a certification from Apple. So, I'm not terribly convinced that even if the certification is serious, that entitles the store with a list of products on Wikipedia. Pcap ping 17:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, remember, WP is not a reliable source, but here's at least one source that talks about the rigors of getting a game to XBLA. In contrast there is also Xbox Live Indie Games, which is a user-contributed that has a peer review process but no release control by MS, which is compared to the difference with the Steam game lis. There is no cert process for iPhone apps, (Apple does reign control on removing apps as they see fit) so this is also the same as the Steam store analogy. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to be mostly a marketing-driven selection:
- Well, remember, WP is not a reliable source, but here's at least one source that talks about the rigors of getting a game to XBLA. In contrast there is also Xbox Live Indie Games, which is a user-contributed that has a peer review process but no release control by MS, which is compared to the difference with the Steam game lis. There is no cert process for iPhone apps, (Apple does reign control on removing apps as they see fit) so this is also the same as the Steam store analogy. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your statements about the certification are not documented in the article on Xbox Live Arcade. Please provide some references independent of MS marketing that verify that's indeed the case. Otherwise I'm inclined to think this is just a thinly veiled deal between MS and some software makers. Also, we do not have a list of applications sold on the Apple App Store, even though those certainly require a certification from Apple. So, I'm not terribly convinced that even if the certification is serious, that entitles the store with a list of products on Wikipedia. Pcap ping 17:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
“ | The team at Microsoft is looking for several things. For one, they want ideas that'll expand the Xbox Live Arcade offering -- not clones of existing games. For another, they want games that'll work well on a console and that'll utilize the features of Live as much as possible. [...] These games are meant to be downloaded, so they shouldn't require a manual, or maps, or complex instructions -- "pick up and play" simplicity is the key to a successful Live Arcade game. [...] Once Microsoft likes the idea, the team there will provide game developers with support throughout the process. Documentation is available, developers can talk out their problems in a special Xbox Live Arcade developers' support forum, and Microsoft provides checklists and testing guidelines for every milestone along the process. Microsoft even has partnerships with testing and localization companies, meaning that small developers can access these services at discounted rates. [...] Of course, the certification process for Xbox Live Arcade games is just as rigorous as for a regular game title. Games are tested technically (making sure they don't crash or corrupt saved game data, for example) and functionally (making sure that it's possible to win the game and to get all the Live achievements, among other things). It's pretty serious stuff, but despite this, Xbox Live Arcade games have made it through the whole development process in as fast as three months, with many first-time developers releasing their game after around 6-7 months of development. | ” |
(emphasis mine) So, do we have a list of Microsoft certified games? Because this certification appears not that different, except for the marketing filter that excludes anything MS doesn't think will sell well on-line. Pcap ping 18:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter if it is a marketing filter or not, it is the fact that it is not just any game but those that MS has selected and approved through certification that will be on the service. Retail, non-downloadable games for the Xbox have to go through the same process. Unlike Steam or iPhone app store, where any small developer can get their game included on the service, XBLA is highly selective, and thus more than just the type of directory that WP:NOT#DIR is meant to discourage. It is instead closer to List of Xbox 360 games in that the XBLA is a unique platform, not a storefront for games that can happen to be sold on it. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (unindent) I had a look at a radom sample of the games Mega_Man_9, Battlefield_1943, Ion_Assault, Undertow_(video_game), Pac-Man_Championship_Edition, and I agree that many are unique for this platform/delivery, even if some appear to be just ports with some tweaks. Nomination withdrawn. Pcap ping 19:07, 30 January 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 by Athaenara (talk · contribs) under WP:CSD#G11 (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David Petranker
- David Petranker (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 covers a non-notable photographer in a highly promotional manner — this is approaching an advertisement. Also an autobiography: observe that the author is User:Dpetranker. Speedy deleted in October 2006 with similar content; I prodded this version of the article (rationale of "No evidence of notability; clearly an autobiography"), but the author removed the prod. Nyttend (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Clear case of promotion Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Looks like this might not be the first time the article was deleted. See author's talk page entry from 2006 (User_talk:Dpetranker#David_Petranker).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deary Me Records
- Deary Me Records (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 local record label. Released 2 7"s by bands that later went on to become notable, otherwise, nothing of interest. Fails WP:CORP. TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He guys....I'm the founder of the record label Deary Me Records. I'm the one who created the article...I leave it up to your discreation whether or not it should be deleted or kept. As mentioned, two of our bands (The Greenhornes and Thee Shams) went on to form more note worthy bands (The Raconteurs and The Buffalo Killers). But for what it is worth the lead singer of the band Travel (Matt Hart) is also the lead siger of Squirtgun. The band Wolverton Brothers have had releases with Sub Pop and Atavistic Records also. It would be nice to keep it from my view point but I understand if it does not fit Wiki's criteria... CincySports (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: A search doesn't return anything significant enough to indicate notability. With all due respect to CincySports' friendly comment, notability is not inherited, and so the fact that those band members went on to be part of something notable doesn't translate back to Dreary Me Records. Transmissionelement (talk) 18:34, 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/incorrect venue. For directions to list a redirect for deletion, please see here. –Black Falcon (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Shopping malls in Thailand
- List of Shopping malls in Thailand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This was redirected to List of shopping malls, hypermarkets and department stores in Thailand, but consensus seems to be that that was too much like a trade directory (and there's no precedent for it in anything similar). So I've pruned a lot of that and moved it to List of shopping malls in Thailand (different capitalisation), and this redirect isn't needed any more. Boing! said Zebedee 14:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just re-read this and I realise I didn't explain it very clearly (I note the Speedy Close comment below, and it seems sensible to go to Redirects for discussion, but I'll explain here to keep it all in one place - and can copy over there later).
- What I've effectively done is mess up an attempt to reverse a previous page move. It appears that in the beginning, there was a page called List of Shopping malls in Thailand (with a capital S). Over time that also accumulated dept stores, hypermarkets, etc, and was then moved to List of shopping malls, hypermarkets and department stores in Thailand, turning List of Shopping malls in Thailand into a redirect. That has no real precedent, and the consensus seems to be that the resulting unwieldy list was a mistake, so I removed all the unwanted dept stores etc. But then, which I think was my mistake, I moved List of shopping malls, hypermarkets and department stores in Thailand to List of shopping malls in Thailand (with a small s - I hadn't spotted the big S version at that time), creating another redirect. So now List of Shopping malls in Thailand redirects to List of shopping malls, hypermarkets and department stores in Thailand which in turn redirects to List of shopping malls in Thailand. I *think* that deleting the first two (the two redirect pages) will solve the problem, or maybe just remove the intermediate redirect? Boing! said Zebedee 17:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't mess up the page move. This was a different page with a separate history from the beginning. No real need for deletion (via whatever route), since redirects are cheap; just fix the double redirect. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, yes, thanks - I see it was a separate page all along, and just a double-redirect to sort out. Boing! said Zebedee 12:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close, this belongs at Redirects for discussion. Nyttend (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural close it's a redirect, this is articles for deletion. Further, a bot corrects double redirects anyways. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural close. It was me who requested this, and I accept this was the wrong avenue and there's no AfD issue (and thanks for the explanation - I've now learned more about Wikipedia). I'm happy to leave it to the bot, or do it manually if that doesn't happen. As the originator, can I request a speedy close of this? Boing! said Zebedee 12:56, 31 January 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. The keep side has not been able to successfully refute the statements by the delete voters that the article fails WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. NW (Talk) 18:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Herman Rockefeller
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Herman Rockefeller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article does not meet the notability requirements outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts). This is better suited to a Wikinews article. Even if the incident itself were notable (in encyclopedic terms), such notability is not automatically conferred on the victim. See the policy here. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sources indicate he was notable prior to his death as a businessman. Have a look at all this coverage from the 1990s (1) and 2000s (2) --Mkativerata (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Response) The article says next to nothing about his significance as a businessman. In fact it indicates that his disappearance and murder are the source of his "notability". I actually agree with the article in that respect - he is only known after the crime. His work as a businessman does not meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO. Many of the news articles in the Google search provided by Mkativerata relate to the Rockefellers in the US. I can only find 15 Google archive news articles relating to "Herman Rockefeller" between 1990 and 2010 ([54]) and most of those are quotes as a company spokesperson (for example, "Rockefeller says that the balance sheet is sound...") This isn't a strong case for notability. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Response). Why doesn't it matter? If he wasn't notable before the incident, then the incident itself is what needs to be debated. In that case the notability guidelines of criminal acts and (given that this is an article about the individual and not the incident), the notability of the victim are what is important. WP:VICTIM provides the guidelines and, if read objectively, there's no doubt that HR is not notable. In case you don't want to look it up, the notability of a victiom is 1) due to notability before he/she became a victiom; or 2) the victim, as a victim, played a significant role in the incident and the incident has historical significance. Historical significance cannot yet be determined, as it is a recent event. So, my point (which I believe is established in the debate here) is that he was not notable prior to becoming a victim and, as a victim, is not notable under the policy guidelines of WP:VICTIM. I'd be interested in a keep argument proving otherwise, but so far (as at 6 February) I remain completely unconvinced by any of the arguments raised - and I'd be as bold to suggest that any objective analysis of Wikipedia's notability policy would lead to the same conclusion. Wikipeterproject (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Person is not notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (response) Well, he is notable. He is the number one news item in at least two countries. You have to prove he is not notable. That will be difficult for you. Wallie (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Response). Not that difficult. The quoted Wikipedia policies and guidelines make it rather easy! Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (response) Well, he is notable. He is the number one news item in at least two countries. You have to prove he is not notable. That will be difficult for you. Wallie (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Rockefeller was notable in the finance and property development sectors long before his death. He has had a media presence since 1998 at least (see [55]). His significant business achievements, his bizarre double life as respected family man and sex swinger, and his disappearance and violent death place him well beyond WP:SINGLEEVENT. WWGB (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Response). See my comment above as to his notability before the crime. He simply wasn't. He may have been wealthy, but he just wasn't notable. His (very little) previous press coverage consists almost entirely of him being quoted as a company spokesperson. Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. This is a high publicized case in Australia, New Zealand and in the United States. I cannot imagine why anyone would want to delete it. Wallie (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Above comment. --SamB135 TalkContribs 08:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Respone). If the event itself is the notable thing, which it may be in relation to WP:CRIME, then that should be the subject of the article, not the victim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipeterproject (talk • contribs)
- Essential to Keep This is clearly a criminal act which is notable for the prominence of the victim, coinciding with the luridity of his lifestyle. Preservation for the record of the coincidence of the two qualities is notable for the science of sociology, where a better understading of this type of lifestyle and this prominent personality type is of paramount value for a better understanding of socioeconomics and psychology, also known as psychoeconomics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.240.155 (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL. LibStar (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. None of the above keeps provide reasons in accordance with WP policy, as per WP:BIO or WP:VICTIM. With regard to the notability of victims, the policy states "A victim of a high-profile crime does not automatically qualify as being notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on his or her status as a victim. Notability with regards to this is normally defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline..." So, we have to look at the notability of the crime itself or of Mr Rockefeller's life before the crime. If it's the crime that's notable, that should perhaps be the subject of the article, not the victim. Before the crime, Mr Rockefeller was a very ordinary and, according to his family's own press statement, a very private person. 15 news articles in 20 years - most just quoting him as a company spokesperson certainly doesn't make him notable. With regard to the crime as an example of psychoeconomics, if that is indeed the case, I would recommend a merge with Psychoeconomics. I feel that this deletion must be argued in accordance with policy, otherwise we have a case of Wikipedia becoming a newspaper, in breach of WP:NOTNEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipeterproject (talk • contribs)
- The Wikipedia guideline WP:ANYBIO notes that "a person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards ... (1) The person has received a notable award or honor". The Sydney Morning Herald notes that Rockefeller "holds a masters degree in business administration (honours, George Fisher Baker scholar), from the Harvard Graduate School of Business." [56]. Wikipedia notes that the top academic honor at HBS is the Baker Scholar designation (High Distinction), given to the top 5% of the graduating MBA class. Top 5% in top business school ... notable? WWGB (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Baker Award is, in my opinion, the first valid argument to keep the article. This does, however raise a few questions/issues, which would be helpful to discuss in resolving this debate:
- Is the Baker Award notable? It doesn't have an WP entry in its own right , nor is there an list of winners (cf. List of Rhodes Scholars
- We still have a single event situation - all the references for the entire article are from the disapperance and murder. That makes it look, prima facie, that there was no notability before the event. The Baker Award is a single sentence in a news article about the crime. Are there any other sources?
- Comment. None of the above keeps provide reasons in accordance with WP policy, as per WP:BIO or WP:VICTIM. With regard to the notability of victims, the policy states "A victim of a high-profile crime does not automatically qualify as being notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on his or her status as a victim. Notability with regards to this is normally defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline..." So, we have to look at the notability of the crime itself or of Mr Rockefeller's life before the crime. If it's the crime that's notable, that should perhaps be the subject of the article, not the victim. Before the crime, Mr Rockefeller was a very ordinary and, according to his family's own press statement, a very private person. 15 news articles in 20 years - most just quoting him as a company spokesperson certainly doesn't make him notable. With regard to the crime as an example of psychoeconomics, if that is indeed the case, I would recommend a merge with Psychoeconomics. I feel that this deletion must be argued in accordance with policy, otherwise we have a case of Wikipedia becoming a newspaper, in breach of WP:NOTNEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipeterproject (talk • contribs)
- Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Compromise. Alright, since I created the article, I could create one, like many of you said that relates to the actual murder of him. This is big news in Australia and New Zealand, and it also made news in the United States - I definitely believe something about it should be on Wikipedia. I could create something like, Murder of Herman Rockefeller or Disappearance of Herman Rockefeller, and just merge him into it, though like many other pages it would probably be better to just keep the murder article in with his bio. --SamB135 TalkContribs 22:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need to "compromise" anything. There is no argument here from "many of you". Just one editor is strongly defending the deletion of the article. Let's just wait for the AfD to take its course. WWGB (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Marginally notable as a businessman at best (and that is stretching it) and will be forgotten 3 months from now. A non-notable "murder of the the week". There are on average 302 murders in Australia per year and most of them, like this one, are not suitable for an article -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete In general with victims, the question is whether or not they would be sufficiently notable, without the one event, to have an article. In this case I have to go with no, in spite of the great work being done to it - the only mentions of him prior to his death were trivial, and the award isn't sufficiently notable to have made a difference. Perhaps if his death becomes more significant then things will change, but at the moment there doesn't seem to be enough, I'm afraid. - Bilby (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If "the question is whether or not they would be sufficiently notable, without the one event" then why do people like Madeline McCann and Maria Korp have Wikipedia articles? WWGB (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess in the case of Madeline McCann that the event is very, very big - if Herman Rockefeller's death becomes more important, even if not on that scale, then I'd definitly support keeping it. It just isn't at the moment. I'm not sure in the case of Maria Korp, although my recollection is that the euthenasia controversy, combined with the crime, was significant - more so than either one on its own - and that moves it away from being one event or, possibly, being covered in an article about either single event. But I'd need to think about that should it end up at AfD. - Bilby (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If "the question is whether or not they would be sufficiently notable, without the one event" then why do people like Madeline McCann and Maria Korp have Wikipedia articles? WWGB (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. if he's still getting coverage in 12 months time then recreate. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move. I don't think this falls under the victim guidelines as the page is about the events, not so much the person. I vote the page be changed to Murder of Herman Rockefeller as previously suggested and as per WP:ONEVENT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.191.54 (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC) — 59.167.191.54 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete, BLP1E. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- BLP1E? But he's dead ..... WWGB (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, WP:ONEEVENT then :). Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- BLP1E? But he's dead ..... WWGB (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Agree with WWGB in relation to the compromise proposal by amB135. I've strongly argued a position, but that doesn't mean that I am necessarily right - or that the consensus will go "my way". I'm more than happy to go with the consensus, once that is determined. Thanks, however, for the willingness to compromise and perhaps the proposal should be discussed (i.e. this might not be a straightforward keep/delete debate). Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment in relation to Maria Korp - I think that article is in the same category as this one. If the outcome of this current debate is anything other than "keep", I think we should open that one up for debate too. I think Madeline McCann is more difficult - she's had sustained and very widespread coverage, but it would be an interesting debate... Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are many articles like this one, such as : Murder of Liam Ashley or even this one Disappearance of Aisling Symes - the first was mainly national news in New Zealand, and the second made international news, like Herman Rockefeller. I do believe we should keep the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamB135 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - clearly he has adequate notability for an article even if his death is not taken into account. So by all means create an article for the incident, but there is justification to keep this article at the same time. dramatic (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Response). Why? Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- clearly a weak WP:ITSNOTABLE argument. LibStar (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. СЛУЖБА (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Response). Why? Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JUSTAVOTE LibStar (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The Herman Rockefeller article had over 12,000 visits in its first week, which suggests that the Wikipedia community finds it a useful encyclopedic article that summarises the past and present publicly-available information concerning Rockefeller. WWGB (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL, the number of visits would relate to his high current media presence particularly in Australia, the best test would be 3-6 months time. Wikipedia:RECENT#News_spikes clearly applies here. LibStar (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This case has captivated the interest of the nation and the article will also be of interest as the murder trial progresses. He was a person of interest in life and a notable business person, so this article's creation is timely. Matt (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Response): WP:INTERESTING states "personal interest...is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article..." As far as notability is concerned, this needs to be argued against valid WP policy guidelines, otherwise I believe WP:JUSTAVOTE appiles. Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Herman Rockefeller IS notable in Australia and in New Zealand, in the latter case because of his public relationsihp with Prime Minister John Key. Anyone who has been in the news as much as he has been is surely notable. One question I haven't been able to resolve is whether or not he is related to the Rockefeller family, or whether the name is just a coincidence. If anybody has any sources either way, it would be helpful to clear the matter up here. David Cannon (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. "(Robert Rockefeller) said the family was not related to the legendary American business clan" [57]. WWGB (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Notability is not inherited. Somebody isn't notable, just because he/she is/was friends with someone notable. Read WP:NOTINHERITED for more information. One must be notable in one's own right in accordance with Wikipedia's notability policy. If this isn't argued in a keep position, the weight we should put on that position ought to be significantly reduced. Wikipeterproject (talk) 11:43, 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, per WP:NOTDIR. The non redlinked material in this list doesn't appear to qualify for inclusion in List of LGBT community centers, per BelovedFreak. Jayjg (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of gay and lesbian resource centres in Ireland
- List of gay and lesbian resource centres in Ireland (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)
Wikipedia is not a directory. This is a list of various gay-related organisations in Ireland, very few of the items have articles here, it was (before I converted the links) a mass of external links. No encyclopaedic value. I can't see any other equivalent lists. BelovedFreak 14:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 14:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 14:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of LGBT community centers -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDIR. JBsupreme (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDIR.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of LGBT community centers per SatyrTN, as a sensible alternative to outright deletion. Bearian (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge surely.Red Hurley (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete cleary against WP:NOTDIR.Ktlynch (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of LGBT community centers per SatyrTN. Categories can further dissect geographically until there is a strong reason for smaller country=specific lists. -- Banjeboi 11:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not really sure what should be merged here. Only two items have articles (not counting the radio & tv stations that are not specifically LGBT-related). One of them is a magazine - so not a resorce centre. So all there is really is Irish Queer Archive. Not really a list. The rest is just a magnet for people to add external links to non-notable organisations. List of LGBT community centers isn't much better and would be better (IMO) as an article called LGBT community center (or something similar), keeping the prose, but without the unnecessary list. List of LGBT-related organizations also exists, maybe both the above lists should be merged there. Just a thought. I'm not trying to have valuable info deleted, but I can't see the encyclopaedic value of long lists of red links (which probably always will be) and external links.--BelovedFreak 12:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If formatted correctly those entries would be redlinks which can show where our coverage is lacking. FWIW, each entry should likely include if the city it's in is the largest or state capital also when it was established or anything else particularly unique. At some point someone who is very interested can look to starting an article. -- Banjeboi 07:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- merge per ben. Ikip 01:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per NOTDIR, move the applicable info to the list of community centers. - Schrandit (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:NOTDIR. Skip the redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 18:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pop culture history, 1920-present
- Pop culture history, 1920-present (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 a bunch of random largely unsourced "facts". I can see no plausible direction this article could take that would warrant its inclusion. Nymf talk/contr. 14:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 14:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although it's somewhat interesting and qualifies as informed opinion, it's all original synthesis. Basically, this is one man's personal vision about "six different stages" of Western pop culture history since electronic media (i.e., radio, television, internet) came into common use. An original essay, no matter how good, no matter how well-informed, is barred by Wikipedia. Were it not otherwise, we would have no end to the personal observations of out many editors. Mandsford (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not TV Tropes. Pretty much a magnet for inflated what links here number and sounds like a summary of any of a number of remember when specials. Nate • (chatter) 21:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I was tempted to nominate this as soon as it was created, but held off and left notes at appropriate WikiProjects to see if it would improve. It didn't. What 'pop culture' is is not defined in the article, it's a hodge-podge of whatever came off the top of the head of the article creator. It's their opinion of what counts as pop culture (in America), lumped into sections according to their own judgement. Fences&Windows 03:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 03:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 03:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see a talk page that is empty, and no citation needed tags placed anywhere about. Please read WP:BEFORE. AFD is suppose to be the final step, not the first. There are plenty of books out there published on pop culture, or you can tell something is popular by seeing the sales figures. To list what sort of music was popular in an era, you can just take the ten bestselling ones. This could've all been worked out on the talk page, without having to come here. List your complaints and concerns there, and talk it out. Dream Focus 06:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That comment didn't make a whole lot sense, but see User_talk:DriveMySol#Pop_culture_history.2C_1920-present. It has been close to a month since the user said that he/she would work on it. It has been untouched for the past 2 weeks. Also see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Culture#Pop_culture_history, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History#Pop_culture_history etc. Really no need to lecture me, as I am aware of the policy, which is why I or F&W didn't nominate it earlier. Nymf talk/contr. 12:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and see this edit. Nymf talk/contr. 13:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, generally per other delete recommendations above. This article seems to be extremely superficial coverage of the last 90 years of movies, television, music, and certain other cultural aspects, and it is not clear whether more in-depth coverage was even intended to be included. The topics covered in this article are much better covered in other Wikipedia articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per almost everyone above. JBsupreme (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Trivial listcruft at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for all the good reasons already articulated. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- This is a bad article, but (unless there is something better to merge it with), it ought to be kept and improved. I am surprised at the failure to mention the Beatles, and I am far from sure that musical phases are marked by the ends of decades. However, a general article on this subject certainly is needed. This is from some one who does not like "pop". Peterkingiron (talk) 00:06, 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) 00:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chinga Chang Records
- Chinga Chang Records (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 record label with only one notable release. Article created and mainly edited by the label's owner, DanEmack (talk · contribs). When challenged to find references for claims in the article he instead removed the claims. Now his only edits are to remove the COI, unreferenced, and notability tags. Fails WP:CORP and WP:V. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 16:43, 30 January 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. Assessed consensus was for deletion, in addition there was also the prior Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons chalkboard gags, which is similar in nature. Cirt (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of The Simpsons billboard gags
- List of The Simpsons billboard gags (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 trivia. No coverage in reliable secondary sources, unlike List of The Simpsons couch gags. Theleftorium 13:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep without prejudice to deletion a month down the line when the article is in its final state. Criminy, I created the stub fifteen minutes ago. What's the rush? I'm certainly not going to waste time working on it until this is resolved. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons couch gags. THF (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What does that AfD has to do with this? The couch gags are an iconic part of the show, the billboard gags aren't. Theleftorium 14:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In your opinion. People can read the reasoning in that AFD, and decide for themselves whether the arguments there are applicable here. THF (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, that makes sense. Why would one gag be less valid than another? Billboard, Bart writing something on chalkboard, and couch gag. I don't see why all three wouldn't be equally valid. Dream Focus 15:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The couch gags have existed since the show was created twenty years ago. The billboard gags were introduced in February 2009. Theleftorium 15:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's your point? Its part of a notable show, and its there to stay, not just a one time thing. Dream Focus 15:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SBST states: "Notability is not predictable: A topic that does not meet the general notability guideline at one time may do so later. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may meet the criteria in the future." Theleftorium 15:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, notability is not inherited. -- Scorpion0422 00:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's your point? Its part of a notable show, and its there to stay, not just a one time thing. Dream Focus 15:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The couch gags have existed since the show was created twenty years ago. The billboard gags were introduced in February 2009. Theleftorium 15:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, that makes sense. Why would one gag be less valid than another? Billboard, Bart writing something on chalkboard, and couch gag. I don't see why all three wouldn't be equally valid. Dream Focus 15:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In your opinion. People can read the reasoning in that AFD, and decide for themselves whether the arguments there are applicable here. THF (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What does that AfD has to do with this? The couch gags are an iconic part of the show, the billboard gags aren't. Theleftorium 14:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The AFD ends in a week, and by that time the missing information should be filled in. Remember, AFD is for judging whether the article should exist, not judging it in its current stage. The other AFD mentioned stated that the cough gag article had five thousand hits a month. Having articles on Wikipedia people actually want to come here and read, is a good thing. Dream Focus 15:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter if the information is filled in. That's not why I nominated the article for deletion. The so called "billboard gag" concept hasn't received coverage in reliable sources. Theleftorium 15:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added some references to two major newspapers, one doing an article on the addition of the billboard to the iconic Simpson's opening, and another commenting on a specific Billboard. Those were the first two links I clicked on after a Google news search revealed them among many others. Dream Focus 15:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first reference is about the new opening sequence, not the billboard gags. The second is a one sentence mention. That's hardly significant coverage. Theleftorium 15:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How much could you write about one sentence? Its the same amount of coverage the couch gags get. Dream Focus 16:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misunderstood me. What I meant was that two sources are not enough to satisfy the inclusion criteria. Theleftorium 16:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when? List of The Simpsons couch gags only has two references. I've been in plenty of AFDs, and you never need more than two. Dream Focus 16:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the couch gag article only has two secondary sources in it. However, far more sources do exist (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons couch gags), they just haven't been added to the article. Two newspaper articles that barely mention the billboards are not enough. Theleftorium 16:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when? List of The Simpsons couch gags only has two references. I've been in plenty of AFDs, and you never need more than two. Dream Focus 16:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misunderstood me. What I meant was that two sources are not enough to satisfy the inclusion criteria. Theleftorium 16:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How much could you write about one sentence? Its the same amount of coverage the couch gags get. Dream Focus 16:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first reference is about the new opening sequence, not the billboard gags. The second is a one sentence mention. That's hardly significant coverage. Theleftorium 15:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added some references to two major newspapers, one doing an article on the addition of the billboard to the iconic Simpson's opening, and another commenting on a specific Billboard. Those were the first two links I clicked on after a Google news search revealed them among many others. Dream Focus 15:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A google search shows plenty of news coverage of the billboard, even referring to it as iconic. Adding references to the article now. Dream Focus 15:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Time to move this one to The Simpsons wiki. Although Wikipedia was top-heavy on articles about The Simpsons in its early days, even to the point that serious articles would be tainted with moronic references to the classic television show, it isn't 2005 anymore. This is, essentially, a list of jokes. Mandsford (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This is just as notable as the couch gag list, and editor has provided three secondary sources. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for badgering, but WP:GNG says "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". These three sources contain one-sentence mentions of the billboards. Theleftorium 19:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still waiting for that AFD nomination of the couch gags article (which was all but SNOW kept the last time it was nominated), as you have yet to identify any difference between the two, since it currently has fewer sources of no more moment than the billboard sources. Why are you taking this so personally that you've had to make ten comments on this AFD when the article isn't even six hours old? THF (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said before, the couch gag concept has received significant coverage in reliable sources ([58], for example), the billboard concept hasn't. But it doesn't matter if the couch gags article exists or not. Theleftorium 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your sole example of a difference is that a primary source mentions the couch gag? How does that confer notability? And if it does, do you really doubt that that same primary source won't also document the billboard gag? But more importantly, this isn't a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this is WP:THESAMESTUFFEXISTS and was just !voted on three months ago. THF (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said before, the couch gag concept has received significant coverage in reliable sources ([58], for example), the billboard concept hasn't. But it doesn't matter if the couch gags article exists or not. Theleftorium 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still waiting for that AFD nomination of the couch gags article (which was all but SNOW kept the last time it was nominated), as you have yet to identify any difference between the two, since it currently has fewer sources of no more moment than the billboard sources. Why are you taking this so personally that you've had to make ten comments on this AFD when the article isn't even six hours old? THF (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: first update to Simpsons opening in 20 years is notable. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? The change to the credits receives more than enough coverage in The Simpsons opening sequence, and this article is not about the change, it's a list of one-liners that appear for all of two seconds. -- Scorpion0422 00:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep there's plenty of coverage in reliable secondary news sources, and books also. ¨¨ victor falk 08:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, none of those sources are about the billboard gags. They are about the chalkboard gags. Theleftorium 09:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry to have confused blackboard and billboard and will never do so again.
- I am sorry to have confused blackboard and billboard and will never do so again.
- I am sorry to have confused blackboard and billboard and will never do so again.
- I am sorry to have confused blackboard and billboard and will never do so again.
- I am sorry to have confused blackboard and billboard and will never do so again.
- I am sorry to have confused blackboard and billboard and will never do so again.
- I am sorry to have confused blackboard and billboard and will never do so again.
- I am sorry to have confused blackboard and billboard and will never do so again.
- I am sorry to have confused blackboard and billboard and will never do so again.¨¨ victor falk 10:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mandsford. 2005 called, it wants its Wikipedia back. This whole article violates WP:NOR policy, by the way. JBsupreme (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the WP:NOR violation? THF (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's a book on the market that has tonight's billboard gag on it, it's not original research. Most of these are based on someone watching TV at home and "Hey, where are you going, The Simpsons is coming on..." "I've got to get to edit a Wikipedia article before anyone else does!" Mandsford (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying it appeared on the show is not a OR violation. It's simply a primary source that can be verified by anyone watching the episode in question. Most, if not all, plot details on fictional subjects are from primary sources and that is within policy - it would only be a WP:NOR violation if the article contained conclusions derived from those primary sources - which there aren't. This article is possibly about a non-notable subject but it's not original research. Regards SoWhy 21:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's a book on the market that has tonight's billboard gag on it, it's not original research. Most of these are based on someone watching TV at home and "Hey, where are you going, The Simpsons is coming on..." "I've got to get to edit a Wikipedia article before anyone else does!" Mandsford (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the WP:NOR violation? THF (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unnotable, pointless trivia list from the series. If the best that can be said is that TV.com, a user-edited site, is "listing" it with the episode summaries, that's not notability nor relevance. Agree with JBsupreme, way time Simpsons stuff came in line with actual Wikipedia guidelines and policies instead of constantly skating around with content that would be unacceptable for any other series. Transwiki to the Simpsons wiki for the fans. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the Simpson's opening scene article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, and also per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons chalkboard gags (in that case, it was because of copyright issues). Users keep pointing to the list of couch gags, but there is a huge difference. For starters, it's been around 20 years longer, and has received coverage in tonnes of sources, which makes it a lot more notable. Yes, the billboard gags are part of an iconic show, but notability is not inherited. -- Scorpion0422 00:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is repeating a bunch of jokes from the show not an obvious WP:COPYVIO? Delete already. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Left, as he says, this isn't nearly as notable as the couch gags. CTJF83 chat 03:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not an iconic part of the show. Too new to be in the class with the counch gags. At this point, it's fan trivia.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolute Keep. Its a developing iconic gag within the longest running prime time TV series. The list already self- demonstrates its notability. It has been going on for two seasons and there is no apparent end to the gag. Even by going on so long, it is a significant footnote and worthy of an article.Trackinfo (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter if its part of the "longest running prime time TV series". Notability is not inherited, and no sources cover this topic in detail. Articles shouldn't be written on speculation that the topic may meet the criteria in the future either. Theleftorium 14:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Mandsford. Minimac94 (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because notability is not inherited. Reyk YO! 22:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Billboard's notability is not directly inherited. Not wanting to bring the cough gags to the discussion (but it's rather inevitable), but the billboards are, since they were introduced, an integral part of the opening sequence. True, the couch gags have featured in (nearly) every episode for more than 20 years, but that does not defeat the fact that the billboards have been there for more than a season, since the move to HD (the episodes that did not feature on can be compared to repeated couch gags).
Furthermore (and more blantatly), the article was created shortly ago (fastest afd I've ever seen, really) and flagged for rescue.
If the consensus determines deletion, very well, but it is not necessary to make it into a stillbirth... BrickBreak (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- How exactly are the billboard gags "an integral part of the opening sequence"? They are on screen for a few seconds and it never changes (unlike the couch gag, which can be anywhere from a few seconds to a minute and a half), and they don't even occupy the entire screen, just a portion of it (unlike the chalkboard gag). I don't see how it is any more notable or integral than any of the other variables in the credits like Lisa's sax solo, Ralph's one-liner, what flies across the screen, etc. -- Scorpion0422 03:27, 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 15:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vanessa Perroncel
- Vanessa Perroncel (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)
Flunks WP:BIO and WP:PERSISTENCE. Main claim to fame is a love triangle with two football players, one of whom is already married: BLP1E written all over that. THF (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Everything notable can be included in the John Terry and Wayne Bridge articles. JACOPLANE • 2010-01-30 14:17
- Delete fails notability due to WP:ONEEVENT and her acting career hardly passes WP:ENT. --Jimbo[online] 15:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - With regard to WP:BLP1E I don't think that this is applicable. She had plenty of publicity in the 2006 FIFA World Cup as one of the England WAGs and there has been other coverage. I would add that this is not someone who has been dragged unwillingly into the public eye. She actively courted publicity, for example as a lingerie model and in her attempts to launch a film career. In the court case, the high court judge described her as "famous", and British judges are not given to hyperbole. Obviously her acting career doesn't make her notable but the question is whether the coverage, taken together, is sufficient to constitute notability? We have plenty of people on here who are 'famous for being famous'. It is a close call, and I am willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I currently think that she just about gets over the bar. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By this argument, Rachel Uchitel is notable, as is the mistress of Wade Boggs, whose name I forget twenty years after she was the center of the sports scandal world. Maybe we need WP:GROUPIE standards for determining notability of women who make a career of sleeping with famous people, since the general consensus in the journalism community is that there's going to be a lot more of this type of story post-Tiger Woods scandal. But, me, for now, I'm happy to say that none of them meet WP:EFFECT until they get famous for other reasons. THF (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, that WAGs story has precisely a quarter of a sentence about Perrocel; she's mentioned going shopping with three other WAGs and buying 500-pound sunglasses. THF (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, she wouldn’t have passed the notability threshold before the current wave of publicity, I think that makes it a BLP1E. For someone being famous for being famous, I think this has to be sustained for a time (don’t think there’s been any coverage between 2006 and recently?) before we can say they definitely are. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:Bridgeplayer Francium12 19:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in addiotion to Bridegeplayer's comments, which I endorse, I note that even the High Court of England has described her as "famous", which is far more than many people with Wikipedia articles can say. As the article states, she has modelled in some leading UK magazines, plus she is going to get much much more notable in the nest few days - see, for example, tomorrow's edition of the News of the World. She definitely merits an article in her own right. Hibbertson (talk)| —Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete-Totally agree with Jimbo, she would like to be notable but she isn't. This one recent event is her attempt to become famous, I say let max clifford and the tabloids do their own work. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - she's not notable in her own right 129.11.76.229 (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. StAnselm (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Take away the 'news' that she is reported to have had sex with John Terry and there is not much you can say about her apart from her shopping and a baby with Wayne Bridge. Of course you can find references to her, she is the current flavour of the month but memorable - no; notable - very much no. --Egghead06 (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the News of the World publishes a lascivious story about some stupid girl who's slept with a famous bloke pretty much every Sunday, and I don't see this one as any different -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN in her own right. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - totally in agreement with Jimbo. Not notable before on many Wiki-scales, one affair and an abortion with the England football captain doesn't push her into being "famous." Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable in her own right. Shouldn't be merged either, as it's not clear what article it should be merged to - just leave her as a redlink. Robofish (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Nothing seems to have emerged which establishes any real notability outside this one event involving John Terry. There only seems to be trivial mentions outside of the context of that situation. Therefore, delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Adambro (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Wayne Bridge#Personal life. NN in her own right, but useful redirect for navigational purposes. Any useful information turned up by ARS can be moved there as well. RayTalk 18:00, 31 January 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. JForget 02:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doof (musician)
- Doof (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Coverage appears to be well-hidden, but he has an entry in The Virgin Encyclopedia of Dance Music (entry confirmed but not visible on Google Books [59]), which itself is based on the mutli-volume The Encyclopedia of Popular Music (Oxford University Press, 10 volumes) and other coverage found: [60].--Michig (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I've got hold of a copy of The Encyclopedia of Dance Music, and it includes on pages 95-96 a bio taking up approx half a page of the book, which describes his album as "one of the most coherent and enduring releases in the 'Goa' trance style." An entry in a specialist print encyclopedia is generally sufficient to establish notability in my experience.--Michig (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I know there's a blitz on biographies of living people at the moment, but there's nothing contentious on the page, and nothing that could be seen as invading his privacy. There are several good sources confirming his existence, and he passes the google test.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughcharlesparker (talk • contribs)
- Keep in view of the new references provided (thank you Michig!), the artist does appear to be notable in his genre. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 19:58, 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) 15:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Journal of Vaishnava Studies
Does not appear to be a notable publication. Wikidas© 13:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - well cited academic journal. Please see; [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], and [71] for a few of the text that cite this journal. Many prominent scholars use this journal to publish. Some examples are; Edwin Bryant [72]. Julius J. Lipner, Francis Xavier Clooney, Kenneth R. Valpey, Ravi Gupta, and Tamala Krishna Goswami [73]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not impressed by the Google Books links provided by Ism schism: any journal will rack up some citations. However, an academic journal only becomes notable if it gets cited significantly, and that has not been shown. Neither is it conclusive that prominent scholars publish in the journal, although if it were complete garbage, these people would stay away from it, so I agree that it is a sign that there may be some notability here. The publisher's website is not very useful and does not indicate whether the journal is included in any significant indexing services. --Crusio (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-- the reason "Many prominent scholars use this journal to publish" -- is not quite true, none of the people listed are 'prominent' -- Edwin Bryant, Kenneth R. Valpey, Ravi Gupta, and Tamala Krishna Goswami are all Hare Krishna and not 'prominent'. Francis Xavier Clooney is associated with their Oxford Centre and whatever he published there was a copy of what was published before. Again not 'prominent' but well known religious scholar, he is an ecumenically minded Catholic. I would say it is for the most part work of one man -- Satyaraja Dasa aka Steven J. Rosen who incidently is the creator of the article. Wikidas© 16:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Clooney has a named chair at Harvard, Lipner is a full professor at Cambridge, that's pretty "prominent". If they publish in this journal, that doesn't mean it is notable, but it does indicate that there may be something here. I agree about the relative prominence of the others. --Crusio (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still in terms of Notability and inclusion, Clooney is for example on the board of International Journal of Hindu Studies and a good dozen other respectable journals, he has published once or twice in this Journal of Steven J. Rosen, but that hardly makes this Journal notable for inclusion. Do we have articles on European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Journal of Hinduism? Why would we start having articles for what was a private journal? Lipner published here only because his PhD student died and Steven J. Rosen dedicated one issue to this person. Now does an obituary by notable person for Tamala Krishna Goswami makes this publication notable for inclusion? Will you turn Wiki into an advertisement board for all minor Journals? Wikidas© 19:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Jonah Blank has also written for the Journal of Vaishnava Studies. Please see, [74]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Please note the School of Oriental and African Studies usage of the Journal of Vaishnava Studies at their website [75]. This, along with the other sources and information provided above, proves the journal's notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And how exactly does this satisfy any of the criteria of WP:N or WP:Notability (academic journals)? --Crusio (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The School of Oriental and African Studies's usage of this journal, and especially its scholars participation as editors, does meet - "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note These two editors are Dr Simon Brodbeck [76] and Dr Brian Black [77] of the religion department at the School of Oriental and African Studies. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply This journal also meets the requirement, "frequently cited by other reliable sources," as shown by the links provided above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Please see; Francis Xavier Clooney and [78], Edwin Bryant [79] and [80], Ravi Gupta [81], Tripurari Swami [82], and Hector Avalos [83] for some examples. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're wrong. The school's referring to some issue of the journal does not mean that reliable sources consider it to be influential in its subject area, it's just a reference, nothing else. Neither is the journal "frequently cited". The number of citations that you list would not be enough to show notability for one single researcher, let alone a whole journal. What you need here is hundreds if not thousands of citations, not a handful. --Crusio (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're wrong. The School of Oriental and African Studies's is a reliable source. The fact that two of their religion scholars edited a volume of the Journal of Vaishnava Studies shows that, "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Going through all the Google Books returns, I could find no analysis of this topic in secondary sources. I did find this and this which are trivial mentions. The Google Scholar returns are paltry, with next to no citations for any of the pitiful 61 articles. Abductive (reasoning) 21:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No convincing arguments to keep the article on this journal are being brought forward, so: DeleteChanging to Weak keep per DGG below. --Crusio (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Delete. Not notable. MiRroar (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to expand on your reasons? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment Please note that there is also a different spelling Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. But I don't know if it changes anything.--Gaura79 (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That does help. There is a Danish secondary source that says "Mest signifikant er måske det relativt nye tidsskrift Journal of Vaisnava Studies, som udkommer fire gange årligt. Bidragyderne såvel som redaktionen tæller traditionelle akademiske forskere og ISKCON-folk..." which translates as "Most significant perhaps is the relatively new journal the Journal of Vaisnava Studies, which is published four times a year. Contributors as well as the editors include both traditional academic researchers and ISKCON-people...". Unfortunately, this seems a bit weak, as it is in a footnote and uses the word "perhaps". If one more such source could only be found... Abductive (reasoning) 05:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note per Gaura's new info - please see; Arvind Sharma and [84], David Haberman [85], Deepak Sharma [86], Guy Beck [87], Klaus K. Klostermaier [88], and Wendy Doniger [89] as some more examples. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that none of the indexes list this journal among tens of thousands of others (Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scopus do not list it). According to the policy a "few simple mentions in passing" (what to speak in footnotes with perhaps in Dannish etc., can not be taken as evidence that "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential". Web of Knowledge -- no mention. No evidence of notability in the form of impact factor assigned by the Institute for Scientific Information's Journal Citation Reports. No evidence from the Karlsruhe Virtual Catalog, or at the Zeitschriftendatenbank. In other words -- it does not satisfy the criteria in ether spelling of the name. 26991 Journals listed by Scopus include International Journal of Hindu Studies, but not this one. Wikidas© 09:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable --Defender of torch (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to expand on your reasons? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep on several grounds: first, that the SOAS actually seems to have sponsored a special issue in it, which they would not have done had it not been the leading journal. Second, that Danish ref. above. Third, this is apparently the leading Western-language journal in the subject. There seem to be 2 such: this is in about 4 times as many libraries as the other, Journal of Śrīmanta Śaṅkaradeva Research Institute. WoS & Scopus are so disgracefully light on the humanities that a humanities journal not being in them is meaningless--this is different from the natural sciences. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG. Sufficient evidence of notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on basis of opinion of DGG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
-
- Same reasons as DGG. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Then I suppose everybody else's reason is "not notable", as explained in Notability in Wikipedia? :) Abductive (reasoning) 06:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Same reasons as DGG. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment -- the last few votes seems to be an example of one member of Article Rescue Squadron vote followed by a few yesman votes. "It seems" and the guess that this journal is leading -- is nothing but the guess. But what can you do if Article Rescue Squadron instead of improving article itself, just doing mass voting. However it is not about vote, it is about consensus based on policy. At present still NN. DGG does not seem to know, but it seems everyone just votes based on his guess. Wikidas© 17:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google news shows two results, the first one from a news site that doesn't have the article still on it, but entering the article name into Google you can find it hosted on many other sites, all crediting it as the original source. Odd. Plenty of book coverage, and DGG seems to know what he is talking about, so I'd say its a keeper. Dream Focus 06:09, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Observer's space
- Observer's space (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 related to another recently AfDed page by the same contributor, Quantized spacetime, a similar page of OR which makes little sense, with the same general references which do not support it. Perhaps someone else reading it will be able to better see what part of QM or GR it possibly could be merged with. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Inertial frame of reference 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unsourced, OR and probably nonsense. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:29, 2 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) 15:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Short-lived recurring characters on Saturday Night Live
- Short-lived recurring characters on Saturday Night Live (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)
Fancruft, virtually unsourced. The name is virtually contradictory to WP:NOTABLE. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Too many entries to be useful, no information about when the character appeared in the last 35 seasons, no sourcing -- and worst of all, 100+ humorless and boring descriptions of the 100+ items on the list. This dates from the early days of Wikipedia when every article was a big wall that each passerby would write some graffiti upon, kind of like "Hey, remember Dana Carvey as 'Lyle, the Effeminate Heterosexual'? I can remember the theme song even-- 'He walks like a girl, he throws like a girl, he talks on the phone like a girl... but he's just as straight as me, and probably as you...'" etc. etc. This type of information makes more sense as a section in each individual season article, where one can be more detailed about recurring sketches and characters. Mandsford (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unreferenced fancruft. Warrah (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think this list needs to go, but since we're on the topic, these three articles probably should go with it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_Saturday_Night_Live_characters_and_sketches ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_Saturday_Night_Live_characters_and_sketches_%28listed_chronologically%29 ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_Saturday_Night_Live_characters_and_sketches_%28listed_by_cast_member%29 Tyrenon (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For an extremely notable show, this is not inappropriate. In fact, I think one of the delete !votes is saying it should be deleted because of the lack of detail, which I think is somewhat odd, as that is a prime example of what can be fixed by editing. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 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, Scott Mac (Doc) 11:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A few sketches, such as "Lothar of the Hill People" do have secondary sources, but they can be or already are covered in other articles. Otherwise this article is a refuge for non-notable material. Abductive (reasoning) 12:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete, although I agree with virtually every comment made by the editors above. However, the show is notable, and parts of this content can be salvaged or merged. I just don't see the need for the delete button here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:35, 30 January 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. JForget 02:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abby Marshall
- Abby Marshall (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)
Having 2200 Elo points at 18 and being a a Woman FIDE Master is nothing notable, even for a female. Once she becomes a Woman Grandmaster she could become notable, but for the moment she is not. SyG (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not quite decided yet on this one. In most cases when a chess player winds up on AFD it is someone I've never heard about, but in this case we are dealing with a Chess Cafe columnist who writes The Openings Explained [90]. While I agree that a WFM title by itself is not much grounds for notability as a player, being a columnist means that this is not a clear cut case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having Googled for some more sources, it appears that Ms. Marshall has been covered in international chess publications [91] and local non-chess publications [92]. I'm calling this sufficient for the general WP:BIO and WP:N and saying keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All of the other chess players that have been AfD are people I had never heard of either. I have heard of this person from a few sources. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 03:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And for what it is worth, in the Feb. 2010 Chess Life, she is pictured on page 27 (playing in the 2009 World Youth Championship) and on page 29 is half a page she wrote about new female players. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 19:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep she has accomplished so much as a young adult and for female chess players. Even if you do not think she is the greatest chess player she is still a writer and authors need a wikipedia page lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.170.55 (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree that Marshall's rating and title do not in themselves make her notable, but her being the first female to win the Denker is a major accomplishment. Also, she is sufficiently covered in both international press and national, as shown by Sjakkalle. GrandMattster 15:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNeutral - This article fails notability of a person WP:BIO and as a chess player WP:ATH. The columnist aspect as it's not in the article and so has no source. So unless some reliable source for a columnist is forthcoming then it is a delete. SunCreator (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. But Sjakkalle has just provided a link above that shows she is a columnist for ChessCafe.com, a respected chess website. If I go and add it to the article now will you change your mind?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, should be been clearer. I was looking for a source to show a notable columnist, something to meet the notability of WP:BIO of say a writer or WP:ANYBIO but found nothing of significance. I take it from your comment you believe a columnist at ChessCafe.com can be notable just for being a columnist at ChessCafe? SunCreator (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn my delete on the grounds of the new information about playing in the U-18 World Youth Chess Championship. SunCreator (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The Denker Tournament of High School Champions is a national championship, a prestigious, invitation-only event, and being the first girl to win it is a notable achievement. Plus she has some published work as a chess author, albeit mainly online so far.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I believe the idea was notabilty was from representing your country at a national level. So we(me at least) are looking to find something comparable to representing your country at the Olympic Games or World Championships. I don't think a High School Champions counts. If she took part in a Women's Chess Olympiad or achieved something in a World Junior Chess Championship or World Youth Chess Championship that would be notable, but there is no sign she has. SunCreator (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We're at one delete, one neutral, and four keeps. Are we done? 205.122.213.2 (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is clear that there will be no consensus to delete. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:56, 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 g3, hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2010 Fibis Hard's Open
- 2010 Fibis Hard's Open (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. WP:HOAX. WWGB (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a hoax. --Vejvančický (talk) 13:16, 30 January 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 g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2010 Fibis Hard's Oprn – Women's Singles
- 2010 Fibis Hard's Oprn – Women's Singles (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. WP:HOAX. WWGB (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a hoax, zero sources for both "2010 Fibis Hard's Oprn" and "2010 Fibis Hard's Open". --Vejvančický (talk) 13:12, 30 January 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 g3, part of walled garden of hoaxes. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roxana Hoza
- Roxana Hoza (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. WP:HOAX. WWGB (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:58, 30 January 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 per WP:HEY. Skomorokh 17:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brian Smyth
- Brian Smyth (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 has been tagged for notability concerns since 2008; still doesn't seem to have been established. Boleyn2 (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I haven't a clue how to search for sources for Irish painters, but enough galleries far and wide have exhibited him, and a lot of his artwork pops up here and there. Several galleries profile him. Article quality and current article state are no reason to delete - I am commenting on potential. Hopefully someone more familiar than me can source something more concrete. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Couldn't find any significant independent coverage. Has been included in several exhibitions, but I'm not sure WP:ARTIST is met here. A few examples of significant coverage would help.--Michig (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is no apparent significant coverage available and his exhibition record does not satisfy WP:ARTIST. This also fails WP:BIO due to the lack of non-trivial sources. freshacconci talktalk 13:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - or else he will become a struggling artist, and we don't want that on our consciences, do we?Red Hurley (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As you've been on Wikipedia for 3 years, I can only hope that's a joke. It is, isn't it? freshacconci talktalk 15:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see where he passes WP:CREATIVE. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not ready for an encyclopedia, non-notable painter...Modernist (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now extra sources added. Ty 15:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (as article creator) - as sourcing has now been provided by Tyrenius. Ceoil sláinte 15:24, 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 delete, G3. Obvious hoax. Blueboy96 19:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sonny samuela
- Sonny samuela (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)
Hoax biography by bored schoolkid. Grahame (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 11:24, 30 January 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 17:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Stone (R&B/Jazz/House Producer, Composer, & Arranger)
- Mike Stone (R&B/Jazz/House Producer, Composer, & Arranger) (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 doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. Prod and prod 2 removed by creator Mike Stone. Boleyn2 (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: "Born Dec. 27, 1969 as Mike Woods, Mike Stone is a new upcoming producer, composer, and arranger in the R&B, Jazz, and House music categories." Joe Chill (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Replaced the incorrect prod with the correct one, and re-structured the sentence about Mike Stone's professional status.--Mikestone05 (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence that he passes WP:MUSICBIO. Looks very promotional. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:28, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zishan Engineers
- Zishan Engineers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article was previously nominated for deletion here and shortly after the article was deleted it was re-created. That would be fine if the reasons for deletion were addressed, which they appear not to be. A company is considered notable if there is significant coverage in secondary sources, which this appears not to be the case. Company listings as in buisness directories which appear to be the bulk of the referencing and secondary sources are considered trivial coverage at best. Without significant coverage in secondary sources the article appears to be failing Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:17, 30 January 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, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aziz Elbayeh
- Aziz Elbayeh (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 soucre indicated he is a professional footballer Matthew_hk tc 10:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ATH by a long way as he hasn't come anywhere near a fully professional league. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Victoria state league is too low to confer notability for players. Fails ATHLETE and GNG. no claim to fame.--ClubOranjeT 06:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable athlete with insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 22:17, 31 January 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 17:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Friederich
- Peter Friederich (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 just not notable - and amounts to a BLP1E
Someone will say "ambassadors are notable" - but consider, Switzerland is a very small country and Luxembourg is tiny. Switzerland's ambassador to Luxembourg will be no more than a medium grade civil servant with no real status.
The crime and conviction are then all we have. So we've got "medium grade diplomat convicted of money laundering and smuggling" and given a moderate sentence. Not enough for a biography. Scott Mac (Doc) 10:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, being ambassador is enough to merit an article, with or without his criminal convictions. I'd disturbed and offended by the argument "X is an unimportant country anyways". The Minister of Finance for Togo is as deserving of an article as the Minister of Finance for the United Kingdom. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument would mean that someone who played for the Vatican's national football team would be as important as someone who played for Brazil. In a large nation someone achieving ambassadorial status has acheived something significant - thousands of other diplomats of that nation will never reach that. With a small nation, an ambassador may be just about the only diplomat it has in a country, and being one is simply not as much as an acheivement. Plus an ambassador of a powerful nation will have more of an impact on world affairs than one from a small nation. There are 6.7 million Swiss and less than 0.5 million citizens of Luxembourg - an Ambassador to lux is not in the same league as the one to China, and a being the Swiss ambassador is not as significant as being that of Russia.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An ambassador would be a local un-elected public official, and lacking notability in the normal manner, fails Wikipedia:POLITICIAN#Politicians. MBisanz talk 21:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I disagree that an ambassador is automatically notable. No guideline says that; and nor should it. We must look at WP:GNG. The coverage of his legal troubles is quite substantial. There could be an argument that WP:BLP1E applies, but I think the coverage is persistent enough to warrant inclusion and he was a reasonably significant (if not notable) person otherwise. Can be convinced to switch to delete, though. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage all seems to be news coverage in 2002 (arrest) and 2005 (sentenced). So, it isn't really "persistent"? See this [94] and you'll find the hits since 2005 are false positives.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ambassadors are notable , as high level national officials. One might conceivably quibble over the level, but how can one call it local? I am also not quite willing to write off the Swiss as having no significant influence in world affairs--for about 700 years they have had an influence very disproportionate to their population. I'll admit that Luxembourg is another matter, but the subject was also ambassador to Cuba--another player in world affairs to a extent disproportionate to its size, and to Vietman-- the same can be said about there. The sources are sufficient, including for the less reputable parts of his career, which are the problematic ones in terms of BLP. DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 2 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, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reda Jaadi
- Reda Jaadi (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 reliable source the player really exist and he did not made his professional debut, fails WP:athlete. Matthew_hk tc 10:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete only coverage is on sites such as football-talent.com which is user posted self promo type forum with no criteria for posting. Appears to be a youth player at SL, but no notability --ClubOranjeT 09:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Playing for a youth team doesn't confer notability. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:36, 2 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, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ali Mosleh
- Ali Mosleh (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 source he played in professional level Matthew_hk tc 10:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Im not fammmilar with International Soccer but; [95] clearly shows him to be a member of SV Wilhelmshaven. Pending if this team is considered professional than Id towards notability and be inclined to keep under WP: Athlete, however I am uncertain of this league and its play so if the integrity of the league isnt really professional id say delete. Any thoughts out there by someone famillar with this league? Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The Regionalliga in which SV Wilhelmshaven play is a semi-professional league, and so he fail's WP:ATHLETE. There's no indication he would pass any other notability criteria neither. Bettia (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentRegionalliga was the 3rd level which may notable. But Ali Mosleh played at Regionalliga AFTER it became the 4th level, which is sem-pro level. Matthew_hk tc 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per previous comments. SV Wilhelmshaven isn't fully pro, and there's no evidence he played in a fully pro league before joining them. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:35, 2 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, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Hamid
- Adam Hamid (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 soucre he played at professional league Matthew_hk tc 10:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - FSV Oggersheim doesn't play in a fully porfesional league, and there are no sources to support that he ever played proffessionally elsewhere. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:32, 2 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) 00:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mazan Moslehe
- Mazan Moslehe (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 source he made his professional debut as of this season Matthew_hk tc 09:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Having not made his pro debut, he fails WP:ATHLETE. He also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:31, 2 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) 00:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahmad El Jammal
- Ahmad El Jammal (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 soucre indicate he was played at a fully-pro level, google hit only a echo of wiki, tried different spelling like Ahmed El Jamaal but no result. Matthew_hk tc 09:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As far as I understand the 72 football clubs of Swedish Division 2 are not fully professional, which is the requirement of WP:ATHLETE, so players of those clubs are not automatically notable. And there is nothing else in the article to indicate that he's done anything else to be considered notable. Tomas e (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the creator Smkaram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) claimed he is part of the senior football team and even added him to squad list with no.25. But it is false. Matthew_hk tc 03:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per previous comments. He fails both WP:ATHLETE, and WP:GNG, meaning there is no grounds for keeping this article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:29, 2 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) 00:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahmed Boussi
- Ahmed Boussi (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)
He never played fully-professional league, fails wP:athlete Matthew_hk tc 09:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Delete - per nom. Never played professionally and therefore fail WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:12, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mounier Raychouni
- Mounier Raychouni (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)
He never played a professional match, fails WP:athlete. Matthew_hk tc 09:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. He's hery clearly a non notable player. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:11, 30 January 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 17:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Skillstrain
- Skillstrain (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 was speedy deleted as A7 - company with no indication of notability. DRV overturned, holding that the controversies section constituted a claim to notability. [96], the version that was chached by Google, looks to show notability better than the version that was stubbed and deleted. Concern is Notability as defined by WP:CORP. This nomination is neutral. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This needs either to be deleted or to be edited into a version that addresses the controversies through independent sources without violating undue weight (the old version was pretty good; it just weighted the negative stuff a little too heavily). If you look at the news stories for this company, its primary notability seems to stem from the controversies, so as it stands it's both inaccurate and non-neutral. Chick Bowen 22:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A small point, A7 actually calls for a credable claim of importance not notibility. That is specifically stated to be a lower threashold than notibility so a rejection of A7 is not an endorsement of the notibility of the article or even evidence that the article passes notibility guidelines.--76.69.167.214 (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GedUK 08:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User Tesug has repeatedly removed entire sections of information from this article that are backed by valid sources such as the BBC. At the moment I am having to repeatedly undo Tesug's deletions of info every other day. If there are positive media reports relating to the company in questions then those should be added to the article rather than verisiable existing info being deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invest-agator (talk • contribs) 17:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User Invest-agator clearly has an agenda. Whilst old references are sometims of value, aged links to entries that no longer apply (the same could be said of various quality companies that have crossed paths with the BBC in the past) should be replaced to keep the article of practical value to readers needing up to date information. In terms of the issues raised there is a new link to a recently made video that clearly answers questions for readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesug (talk • contribs) 17:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I can't find coverage of this subject outside of press releases. Seems to fail WP:CORP. -- Atama頭 21:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 01:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 01:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 01:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but intervene to ensure neutrality. I have doen a bit of digging. This is my take:
- Skillstrain / Metropolitan International Schools Limited largely has media coverage for a single (but quite significant) event not mentioned in the article at all: a 2009 court case in which it unsuccessfully sought to sue Google because Google's search engine results included allegedly defamatory remarks about Skillstrain. Those remarks relate to the alleged scamming / conduct associated with some of the company's sales activities and operations.
- The court case is sufficiently important that it rates mention on WP, however it is almost (see below) the only context in which Skillstrain appears to receive coverage in reliable sources. The company does appear to have an efficient publicity machine resulting in non-notable coverage of its own sponsored awards etc, but not coverage of the company per se.
- The other reliable media coverage appears to be the two BBC reports that one editor persistently deletes from this article. Given that they represent the only substantive reliable coverage of the organisation, that deletion is inappropriate.
- There appear to be two webpages that might be reliable sources, that may host a document involving some sort of complaint investigation re Skillstrain, but my browser is giving error messages when trying to visit them. Someone else might like to try:
- www.asa.org.uk or www.bcap.org.uk (advertising standards authority)
- http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/132516-skillstrain-scheidegger-time-you.html (don't know what this group is)
- If the article is kept, it should primarily cover the court case and the questions raised by the BBC investigation, and the coverage of the investigation should include a summary of the company's response. I am happy to assist in ensuring neutrality at the article, but not if everyone else here has a consensus to delete. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I have now updated the article to reflect the above sources, but still haven't been able to access the Advertising Standards Authority material, which is likely to be important.hamiltonstone (talk) 02:52, 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 17:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Midnight Beast
- The Midnight Beast (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 per WP:BAND and WP:WEB, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous IP editor. MuffledThud (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because the subject is the same single by which the band claims notability, and for which neither the references given nor a web search for evidence supports there is no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources (sentence updated at 09:28, 30 Jan. 2010 by MuffledThud):
- Tik Tok (Parody) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) MuffledThud (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both are notable:
- Weak keep both - Tik Tok was a hit single (#39 in Ireland), which also makes the band notable. Possibly. There's some coverage in Google News, but not a lot. --Michig (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both The band has charted. Their parody has charted.—Iknow23 (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both In addition to charting in Ireland, the song is on Australias digital downloads chart. It's also being played on Australian commercial radio stations, meeting criteria 11 of WP:BAND. Themania (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both Should be moved to at most a mention in the article for the song being parodied. These guy's aren't the next Lonely Island or Weird Al, and while some bands who have produced parodies have been signed to major labels, band and song articles should be withheld until when and if such action occurs. JEMdev (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Per Michig.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The band are notable due to the criteria listed above by Adabow. The comments made by JEMdev are POV, don't cite any of wikipedia's rules on deletion and shouldn't be taken into consideration. Technohead1980 (talk) 14:11, 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) 00:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Raja (actor)
- Raja (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
KillerservTalk 08:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep So WHY is this article not-notable?! Keep per WP:ENT - starred in many notable films. Lugnuts (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, there is no explanation as to why this article should be deleted. From what I can see, it appears legit. --Soman (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. But needs references. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Passes WP:ENT. Has no references (yet), but they can be found relatively easily. Perhaps some WP:BEFORE work should have been done, Spizzilizounge, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (No explanation). Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 17:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 17:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment no comment.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep Notability in India per significant career and significant awards is notability enough for Wikipedia. Searches must by neccessity (the commonality of a one-sylable theatrical name) use his name AND the films or awards. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a no-brainer. No reason for nomination. Clearly notable under WP:ENT. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:25, 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) 00:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amin Fadel
- Amin Fadel (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)
Footballer who has only played youth level football, no evidence he represented his country at senior level. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Unreferenced BLP, contested PROD by creator ClubOranjeT 08:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ClubOranjeT 08:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems a hoax. Matthew_hk tc 09:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is because he is the same guy added hoax player Ali Sabra to A.C. Monza Brianza 1912, he is clever to create hoax with one account and non-notable footballers (2 or 3 notable in his creations) but seems forgot to logoff. Matthew_hk tc 11:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Regardless of whether this player exists or not, he clearly fails both WP:ATHLETE, and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:16, 2 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) 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahmed Abdul Ghafour al-Samarrai
- Ahmed Abdul Ghafour al-Samarrai (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 recent specific G-news coverage, looks like a WP:BLP1E. Creator already indef blocked for copyright violations. MBisanz talk 08:28, 30 January 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. Skomorokh 17:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michalis Zampelas
- Michalis Zampelas (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)
Mayor of a city of 50,000 people isn't inherently notable, nor is being a manager at an accounting firm with thousands of partners. MBisanz talk 08:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other mayors of Nicosia have wikipedia pages. I have yet to find a mayor of a capital who is not on wikipedia--Polysophia (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Mike Warren (mayor of Pitcairn) which has a population of under 50 is on Wikipedia.
- Keep. Being mayor of Nicosia is a far more prominent position than being mayor of an average municipality with an equivalent population, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who follows world affairs. Am I the only one who is starting to consider the deletion nominations of this editor, who has positions of trust here and has put himself forward for even more such positions, to be becoming disruptive? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 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) 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aigo MID
- Aigo MID (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 computer model, no sources to support content or any assertions of why it is a unique/important product. MBisanz talk 08:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning delete Almost all pages mentioning this are in Chinese, so unless someone wants to translate, I don't see any reliable references available. WP:GNG. Joshua Scott (talk) 02:44, 2 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) 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DSMW
- DSMW (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 software extension, possibly fails WP:SELFREF MBisanz talk 08:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:49, 1 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) 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shinji Hosoe
- Shinji Hosoe (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. This article was identified and tagged as needing sources back in May 2008. Well, that sure hasn't happened. Still lacking is non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 04:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 04:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 04:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:39, 1 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) 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feast of the Vampires
- Feast of the Vampires (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)
At first, it was a copyright-violation. Now, there's not much left. I tried to look for something that makes this notable... alas... y'know. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:42, 30 January 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 17:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brenda Jean Patrick
- Brenda Jean Patrick (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 consultant (near-advertisement) Orange Mike | Talk 02:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. There have been a lot of newspaper articles about her. See the references section of the article. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article because of the work Ms. Patrick has done within the school system of Texas (including the Pathways alternative school in Sherman/Denison, where I have been involved in a volunteer capacity for a number of years). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captaincorgi (talk • contribs) 05:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the comments of Eastman in this regard. Ms. Patrick is not a famous person (in the same sense that Tiger Woods or Britney Spears is famous), and there are not many mentions of her in the mainstream media. She has done her work as an academic in classrooms and meeting rooms where the press is not in attendance. And, if she is mentioned at all, it's in small newspapers in small Texas towns like Mexia, Prosper, etc.
That's because Ms. Patrick is working to make school systems responsive to parents and students. In years gone by, school administrators could be disdainful of parents and students because they had near absolute power over a child's life.
That is no longer true in many areas of Texas and the rest of the U. S. because of the work of Ms. Patrick--and dozens of other academics who are, likewise, largely unknown to the general public.
I believe Ms. Patrick's body of work is worthy of recognition because I have seen the results firsthand. I have also been told about them by elementary school principals where she has been involved in establishing these programs (notably the innovative and award-winning J. C. Austin Elementary in Mesquite, TX).
If given direction by others, I will be glad to edit Ms. Patrick's bio to fit Wikipedia guidelines (as I have been working to do for the past two months).
Again, I agree with Eastman's philosophy. Just because Ms. Patrick's bio has been nominated for deletion from Wikipedia doesn't mean it should be.
Captaincorgi (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources show that she is notable. The article probably could be trimmed down a bit so that it is not so much about her views. (see WP:Coatrack) Borock (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Undoubtedly a worthy and constructive person but that is not the same as notable. It is hard to find evidence of this. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Article has been trimmed to remove all Ms. Patrick's views. Captaincorgi (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Per Eastmain.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - Yes she's in several sources, but none of them seem to be major publications. Many of the references are in newspapers of cities of less than 10,000 people (Mexia Daily News and Prosper Press), others are cities of around 30,000 (Copperas Cove Leader-Press and Herlad Democrat). The article is far less promotional than it was when it was nominated for deletion. However, if it is kept I think all of the external links can be deleted, as I don't really see how they directly relate to Ms. Patrick. PDCook (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 07:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources added, including Dallas Morning News.Captaincorgi (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: More sources would not make me inclined to suggest keep. It appears to me like this individual sends out press releases to all the local papers when she speaks to a school, which dutifully run a small item. The mentions in the newspapers do not appear to me to be significant coverage, merely mentioning her. Trying to distill the article into a few words: she is a consultant to school districts, one of 10 members of a non-profit board, and a winner of a state-level prize given to school assistants. Individual teachers get mentions in newspaper articles quite often (Miss Smith's 7th grade class recently took a field trip... Mr. Jones' orchestra recently went on a trip to Disney World) but this does not make them notable either, in my opinion. Not even winners of the National Teacher of the Year have their own article (except for one who now works for the White House).
- The article began as a a copy-paste from http://brendajeanpatrick.com/about.html (compare to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brenda_Jean_Patrick&oldid=323566730), and has improved little since then. Half the articles linked to are hosted on her own website, which doesn't strike me as being too reliable. (And even were they reliable, there'd still be a notability problem.) Cheers, --BaronLarf 22:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References that were linked to Ms. Patrick's personal website have been removed from the listing.Captaincorgi (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Enough sources to show that she is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Over half of the sources in that article did not even reference Brenda Jean Patrick. Five of the linked sources that did link to her were hosted by her own website. (I have now eliminated those links and sources). --BaronLarf 22:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Why do a few of the references in the article point to other Wikipedia pages? Wikipedia is not a reliable source. PDCook (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there are circular references back to Wikipedia in the Reference section any more. If there are, please remove them--or point them out to me and I will remove them. The See Also topics do relate to Wikipedia topics and are there so that someone who is interested in the concept of customer service can find more in-depth discussions of the topic and the ways in which business organizations handle customer service/customer care issues. At one time, I had links in External Links that may have referred to Wikipedia. BaronLarf removed those. The only reason I included them in the first place was so that readers would be able to find additional discussion of the concept of customer service in education. References I located indicated that the idea of educational institutions treating students like customers dates back at least to the mid-1970s and gradually trickled down to public school districts. Please let me know what else you would like me to do to make the article acceptable.Captaincorgi (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If your question regards the blue linked references in the body of the article, I have no idea where they came from. I didn't put them. One day, I looked at the article and found that these links to certain word strings had "magically" manifested themselves overnight.Captaincorgi (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They were added here and linked internally here and here. No worries, I removed them with this edit. PDCook (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much.Captaincorgi (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add that if you want to cite those Who's Who books, you'll have to add the full citation. The cite book template is helpful. PDCook (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Who's Who books are generally not considered reliable sources anyway. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add that if you want to cite those Who's Who books, you'll have to add the full citation. The cite book template is helpful. PDCook (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much.Captaincorgi (talk) 22:14, 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 merge to Nikkatsu, without prejudice against re-splitting at a later date if sufficient reliable coverage can be found. Skomorokh 17:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kyusaku Hori
- Kyusaku Hori (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 is not clear whether he is notable. While he was president of a notable company, that does not guarantee that he was himself notable. The only "reference" is a link to a photograph, together with a caption which confirms he was president of Nikatsu [sic] Films, but nothing else. A Google search for "Kyusaku Hori" produces a few hundred hits, but I have looked at a few dozen of them, and failed to find any substantial coverage. Mostly we have a brief mention of Kyusaku Hori in an article about something else which briefly touches on him. He may be notable, but at present I can find no evidence that he comes near to satisfying WP:PEOPLE. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect if no other sources can be found. I think thats a fair outcome for this particular article. JBsupreme (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably redirect to Nikkatsu? I would settle for that. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Nikkatsu. I see no reason to delete the text that is there. Chutznik (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 07:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Prior to the relist, everyone so far agrees to a redirect / merge of sorts. Unless someone contests this, I don't see any reason not to expedite the closure of this debate rather than go another week. Consensus has been reached so far. JBsupreme (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Nikkatsu; I agree with the reasoning of JamesBWatson. And I agree with JBsupreme that it looks like consensus has been reached.--BaronLarf 08:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect It is sad that someone has not done some in-depth study on the man. per JBsupreme & Baron --Bejnar (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 04:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 05:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. There are a few independent references to him in a number of books about the Japanese film industry. I'm guessing that the difficulty in finding verification lies in the fact that he was active pre-internet (so you won't find many news articles and the like) and that anything about him will be in Japanese. I agree that it's a pity it hasn't been possible to find more about him. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:44, 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. Despite the valiant efforts of the authors, there is consensus here that the article does not display the level of independent coverage in reliable sources we demand for biographical subjects. Skomorokh 17:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rob Tillitz
- Rob Tillitz (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)
An incredibly promotional autobio on a non-notable author. The article claims that the subject is a fisherman/smuggler/writer/actor/innkeeper, but the links that would verify most of that appear to be broken, and nothing shows in google news. (Even if true, it's not clear to me that being a felon and an author makes one notable). There does appear to have been a book that was reviewed by a blogger. There's also un-substantiated claims that the book is in rewrites with a screenwriter who may or may not be notable, in which case I think WP:CRYSTAL applies. Bfigura (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable, even if statements on page were true. Appears to be a good candidate for a speedy. --BaronLarf 08:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He does not meet the WP:Bio threshold. His books are self-published and have not received any notice. The citations to the Seattle Times are incomplete and don't link. Searching turned up "10-year sentence for man convicted of smuggling hashish into Washington" which is about Falco, but mentions Tillitz's flight to Mexico and 12 year sentence in passing. So he is a felon. No mention of him was found in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer or the Seattle Weekly. --Bejnar (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*DON'T DELETE-- The information I relate in my article is indeed true, though hard to verify least with my limited Wiki knowledge. Not to mention the crime was committed in 1992, and the conviction in '98. There were many articles in dozens of newspapers, including all the major Seattle papers, but their internet-accessable archives don't go back that far. Should have worked with the material in the sandbox longer. Did not realize the standards, and thought I could simply start the article and put it together over a period of time. Thus, on the one hand I agree with the critical comments generated so far as my article is a rough draft, on the other I'm not sure that discouraging new material, or material from an ex-felon and self-published writer, is the intent of Wikipedia. I thought Wiki was here to gather knowledge. If you Google my name, you will get a ton of hits. I am someone who has accomplished many things, and many say an inspiration. Michael Keoph, who wrote the book The Fisherman's Son, an author that for some years has held the title, at least on the West Coast, as the man who best depicts fishing, said about my book "Bootlegger's Cove" that it portrays a fisherman's struggle better than any other work, and he included "The Perfect Storm," which was not at all about the big wave, but about how tough commercial fishing is on families and of course the fishermen themselves.
I've sold about 600 copies of Bootlegger's Cove since I self published in April/2009. I think that's significant. The story, if you guys would let me tell it, is one that continues to effect many, and I think at least as notable as Jeffrey R. MacDonald, a man I did time with, and who killed his wife and children. Work with me please. I'm trying to put together an informative piece. Before June Morrall passed away earlier this month, she was enthralled with my story, and posted me many places in her three blog/sites. Her article here on Wiki asks for more links to her, more support for her, and I'm trying and being chastised.
Is this forum meant mainly for criticism, or are there helpful contributors out there. I feel like the new kid at school that is not particulary good-looking, not part of the in-crown, and is thus being picked on. Nevertheless, thank you guys for your criticism, as I am trying to figure out the Wike program, and you're comments add pieces. I have a lot to offer. Few know about what commercial salmon trolling was like, as it's been closed for many years. Prison depicted in a non oh-poor-me light (i.e., the benefits I received from doing time) you'll not find on Wiki, nor many other places either. Then there's Mexico as a fugitive. Robalone (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Rob Tillitz[reply]
- Technically, this forum is to decide whether or not the article should be kept. That decision will be made on whether you would be considered a notable author as defined by this page. As a general rule, self-published authors aren't considered notable, and their articles are deleted. In general Wikipedia isn't a place to promote yourself, or raise awareness of your books. While we also like getting new information, because wikipedia works on the principle of verifiability, that information would need to based on reliable sources, not your personal experiences. -- Bfigura (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is never whether information is true, or not, as Bfigura says above, it is about the verifiability of information from reliable sources, and whether the person meets the notability guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*DON'T DELETE-Italic text I have now verified all of my pertinent information. Had many bad links because I did not set them up right, and I also found a long and detailed story in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that I did not have before. There is a great story by Seth Rosenfeld in the 7/AUG/1994 SF Examiner Magazine, and I have a copy of it, but cannot find it online in order to link--Can I scan that and use that somehow? About self publishing, Writer's Digest sent me a link last summer to an article that proclaims as of last spring sales of self published books have surpassed conventionally published books. In this world of computers, everyone is an author, and publishing houses are inundated with manuscript submissions. It is impossible to get published conventionally today unless you've history. Does not matter if one is the greatest writer ever, your manuscript does not get read. Thus, I did what it took to get published, and that I sold 600 books on my own is significant. Maybe that is the meat of my story: The journey of self-publication, and winding up on the big screen. I've been, by the way, on the Eureka NPR station, and the Brookings, Oregon, TV station, and in a handful of coastal newspapers, all interviews about the book. Everyone is not only intrigued with the book, but the journey to get it published and the contract with Ryan McKinney for the screenplay that followed. It is not about selling books. Honestly, I really could care less if this article sells me a single copy. I am taking the time out of a busy schedule to do this because many people have insisted. Maybe it's not a significant story in your world, but it is in many others.
Just the same, the article grows as I'm able to learn the Wiki process, as well as marshall more verifiable facts. Thank you guys for taking the time to comment, though I argue with you, I'm learning from your observations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.175.170 (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Two self-published books that might take off, or at least get some mainstream reviews; and a script that might someday get made into a movie. If those things happen, the author could become notable. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and this author is not yet ready for an encyclopedia article. I wish him luck with his career and hope the article can be resubmitted later when he becomes more notable. --MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - doesn't pass WP:BIO, due to a lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If additional references exist, even offline ones, they should be provided; as it is, he doesn't seem sufficiently notable for inclusion. Robofish (talk) 01:40, 2 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) 21:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glamorous Monique
- Glamorous Monique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Speedy deleted as a G10: unsourced (or in this case very poorly sourced) negative or contentious WP:BLP). This was objected to on my talk page because the homepage of the subject did describe her as the article did. I still believe a G10 is defendable, but an AfD will do as well. Apart from the problems of verifying that Governemt worker Monique Allen is really Glamorous Monique or not, the article utterly fails WP:BIO anyway: No Google News sources[102] General web sources are blogs, myspace, facebook, ..., but no apparent reliable independent sources. Fram (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Steamroller Assault (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I wouldn't expect this to get any Gnews hits and as a club/music fixture it would really be limited, but I'll have a look to see what hope may exist. That there is a documentary about her , "veil of invisibility", do in 2010 means this article may simply be too new. -- Banjeboi 02:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not the strongest source but in this interview she is identified as Monique Allen.
- Another interview here.
- The name may be part of the issue but as of yet I can't find much to support keeping this. There is little doubt that she has been discussed repeatedly as a club fixture but likely those mentions are old enough as to never made it online. Likewise I have no problem believing that she may be in at least a few or perhaps many documentaries specifically on T-girls for which she seemingly would be one of the most visible at the time. However I'm not finding any evidence of this coverage ergo it must be a delete until such sources are readily apparent. -- Banjeboi 02:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 07:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability cannot be established by verifiable sources. Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable; Google search turns up only facebook, myspace, and Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the level and reliability of coverage in secondary sources is not of the standard we usually demand from biographical articles. Feel free to request userfication or incubation either from me or another administrator. Skomorokh 17:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yosef Chaim Shwekey
- Yosef Chaim Shwekey (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 assert notability, no references provided. Should have been CSD'ed as unremarkle. Yossiea (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Yossiea (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I could not find any third-party sources. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete non-notable individual, no sig coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The HE WP is tolerating the article of this relatively new singer. His album is apparently distributed in 'Galpaz' which is the Haredi version of Tower Records. --Shuki (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He is a sensation in the jewish music world. Nerguy (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably delete. This article comes by translation, word-for-word, from Hebrew Wikipedia (see interwiki link) by user "Bagel" who is not a native English speaker. I could clean up the translation but there's no point. Regardless of how popular Jewish editors think he is, he's not achieved the WP:MUSIC standard. I'd venture that his brother Yaakov Shwekey actually is notable by this standard. Yosef is just not there yet. Aside from the one album he's released, the other info in the bio is unreferenced, and we don't like to keep unreferenced BLPs. Frankly I'm surprised that Hebrew Wikipedia has it, since their standards are usually stricter. Chutznik (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 07:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep His music was reviewed at Jewish Music Review, Life Of Rubin, Jewish Music Report, Jewish Insight.com. Check also two articles at the website matzav.com. The search in Hebrew could bring up further information. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Could someone look at following links, please? [103], [104], [105]. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Userfy. First off, in response to Shuki, the Hebrew wikipedia, from what I can tell, is not big on requiring sources and often becomes local-centric. For now, YCS has one album out on a sub-culture label. The links that Vejvančický posted do talk about the album and about him but are not really high on the list of WP:RS. If Vejvančický wants he can try rewriting the article based only on those sources but even then I don't think he passes WP:MUSIC. Joe407 (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: The question of what are the sources paying attention to him is a real one. The reviews and links mentioned here are all blogs or close to it (news aggregators etc). As a comparison I looked at another religious, Jewish musician who has only released one album and may have gotten a boost from a more famous brother. After searching around even just a little bit I was able to find four major interviews with 3 major Israeli newspapers who definitely pass WP:RS - Maariv, Yediot & Hatofeh. In light of that, I translated the article in the Hebrew WP for Yonatan Razel (see sources on the talk page).
- In contrast, the article for Yosef Chaim does not make the official cut as outlined in WP:MUSIC and IMHO he does not yet need an article here. Joe407 (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It seems that in the rather insular world of "shiney shoe music" (monikker of Hassidic pop), this Shwekey shines. His album is fairly popular, and his antics appear periodically in the gossip columns of Hassidic papers and websites (see, for example, http://www.kikarhashabat.co.il/19360.html) --Ravpapa (talk) 13:29, 2 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. Skomorokh 17:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Geaney
- Mary Geaney (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. This was one of those unsourced biographies that had been hanging around for 5 years. Well, we found some sources. Two blogs, and one other article which does mention her in passing. The problem is, I've done an extensive Google News Archives search and am not really finding anything to suggest this person passes our general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would have thought a hockey player that had represented her country, as long as this can be verified, which appears to be the case here, would be likely to pass WP:ATHLETE, but we need to know in which competitions/matches she played in. Deleting this would be a loss of 2 sentences so I can't really see an argument for keeping without further evidence of coverage. --Michig (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Armbrust (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:ATHLETE says "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport". It does not say anything about "know[ing] which competitions/matches she played in". We have a reliable source that states that Geaney played on a national team in international competition. The problem is, given her birth date, this was almost surely in the mid 1970s, and news stories from that era are generally not available online. The sources that would give details surely exist in print, but it might well take some time in a reference library, quite possibly a reference library in Ireland, to find them. Still we have a WP:RS stating that this person was a "former Irish hockey international". I contend that fulfills WP:ATHLETE, and makes the person notable. True this is less cited coverage than would be expected for a player from the internet age, but under the circumstance i think this should do. I might add that the "two blogs" (two issues of the same online publication) appear to be quoting official results, and to be serving as, in effect, a special-purpose newspaper for golf in Scotland. It accepts paid advertising, and appears to have an editorial process in place. It thus should, IMO count as a reliable source for the kind of content (specialized sports news) it contains. (seee http://scottishgolfview.com/Advertising.htm) But i grant that the mentions of this person in Kirkwoodgolf are not sufficient to provide notability on their own. DES (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can also find several references, such as http://www.sportfocus.com/newspub/story.cfm?ID=16997 to a Mary Geaney who was the captain of the winning team in the 1980 all-Ireland Camogie championship, and was "Kerry’s best known camogie player", which would IMO fulfill WP:ATHLETE. This is the right time frame and location (County Kerry, Ireland) and might well be the same person, but so far I can't establish it. DES (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Sunday Tribune reference is basically the same passing mention ("the former Irish hockey international"). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 07:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep meets all athlete guidelines. Ikip 02:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep verifiably played hockey for Ireland, so, per WP:ATHLETE and common sense, is a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 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) 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eien (Shunichi Miyamoto song)
- Eien (Shunichi Miyamoto 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)
Almost empty and content is Japanese. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stab Proof Scarecrows
- Stab Proof Scarecrows (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 book, unsourced. MBisanz talk 07:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I had {{prod}}'ed this article on the same basis -- no sources could be found in any search. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Care 'bout Nothin'
- Don't Care 'bout Nothin' (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)
Empty. Probably speedy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Violent New Breed (song)
- Violent New Breed (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)
Empty. Probably a speedy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The song never charted [106], so this wouldn't be notable even with content. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - perhaps created in innocence by someone unfamiliar with inclusion and notability precedents. It happens. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Red Hot (song)
- Red Hot (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)
Empty. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The song never charted [107], so this wouldn't be notable even with content. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - perhaps created in innocence by someone unfamiliar with inclusion and notability precedents. It happens. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Living Without You
- Living Without You (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)
Empty. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heartbreak Blvd.
- Heartbreak Blvd. (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)
Empty. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Helter Skelter (single)
- Helter Skelter (single) (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. At the very least, this should be merged into Helter Skelter (song). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. People should be directed to the informative page, not this track listing where they will meet only with bitter disappointment and no answers to their burning questions. 208.51.70.130 (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Already cited in the article on the original Beatles' song. This version is non-notable, so a redirect is not appropriate. Warrah (talk) 12:19, 30 January 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) 00:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Long Search
- The Long Search (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced, cannot find much coverage of this series on Google. fetchcomms☛ 04:23, 30 January 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) 00:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Jahra
- Battle of Jahra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced now and can't find significant coverage for this battle from Google. fetchcomms☛ 04:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This looks like it is significant in Kuwaiti history. See History of Kuwait#The Border War with Najd. The only stuff I've found online so far is here, but I'm still looking. StAnselm (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The main source of info is here, on the Kuwaiti Times website. StAnselm (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Try Google Books search result, Fetchcomms. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it is already well-sourced, and searches would have shown that more sources exist. Bearian (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sorry to pile on, but there are sources per the above. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep there are sources!! --Σύμμαχος (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hmm, don't know why I never saw those results (must've been a long day :P). Withdraw as nom. Thanks guys :) fetchcomms☛ 04:35, 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. JForget 01:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Article was also moved during the discussion to Mint (software) --JForget 01:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mint (stats)
- Mint (stats) (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 software product is not notable. It has the obligatory two minimum links but they do not measure up to any significance. This is spam posing as an article. Miami33139 (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 02:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I removed the pricing information, and I think the article is now neutral. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This appears to be some form of SEO-related spammery. JBsupreme (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems like notable software to me. I can't see how it qualifies as spam. --Hm2k (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable. The only two sources are the website and that of it's creator. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User is talking about the Mint_(stats)#External_links NOT Mint_(stats)#References. --Hm2k (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You know what? You're right I guess I was. I am still not convinced it's notable but sources help me say it is Switch to Keep. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep external sources, including a book, look solid. LotLE×talk 23:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Lots of books cover it [108] [109] [110][111] [112]. Pcap ping 05:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep popular and widely used. Mint has also inspired secondary products, both as plug-ins and iPhone apps. The comment about SEO is mistaken. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Why is it called (stats)? Shouldn't that be (software)? "Mint (stats)" gets a lot of Google news results for something totally unrelated. Adjusting the search I find an article about the software at Internet Financial News[113]. Also found a cached article [114] of www.thehostingnews.com which Google news search says is a legitimate news source. Dream Focus 06:04, 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 delete as consensus seems solid that the subject has not been shown to have had sufficient reliable coverage or to have won a significant individual award that our notability guideline in this area would seem to demand. Skomorokh 16:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ion Davidov
- Ion Davidov (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:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 05:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 05:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep His best known film "Lucky Lucas" won the GayVN best foreign film in 2000 (the film is described in Waitt, Gordon; Markwell, Kevin (2006), Gay tourism: culture and context, Routledge, p. 98, ISBN 9780789016034 due to good use of the rural landscape) and a GayVN nomination for Best Threesome in 2006. He has starred in at least 13 films including the notable cross-genre "Vampire of Budapest". There is sufficient prospect of reliable sources being added that the article should be marked for improvement rather than deleted. Ash (talk) 08:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keepper Ash, GayVN is recognised as a significant award for gay pornographic titles, see (Category:Pornographic film awards), and has had published material written about him. I fail to see how this fails per either WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 16:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- What significant independent material has been written about him? Two of the sources are photo books published by a film company he's worked for, and the other doesn't even mention him. Which significant award has he won? Epbr123 (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point on the lack of independent material, though I don't much fancy looking around for it given the topic. I also thought the award related to him; instead it relates to the film. Struck accordingly. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 19:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone had appeared in 13 horror films as a lead character and at least two of the films were winners of international awards, would we even be having this discussion? Why are you pushing special notability requirements for this genre (on a bundle of similar articles) compared to any other, perhaps gay sex is the issue here rather than notability? If you want to find better sources try looking for them, in particular there will be a plentiful supply of gay magazines that discuss him and his work (they are just not on-line) and each of the 13 films counts as a reference-able source. At the moment I see sufficient to address the notability requirements on the ground of WP:ARTIST and replace this attempt at deletion with marking the article for improvement. Ash (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to the two awards mentioned above, the following can be added: An American in Prague - Winner: Best Selling Tape of the Year - 1999 GayVN Award, The Vampire of Budapest - Winner: Best International Video - 1996 Grabby Awards. Ash (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What significant independent material has been written about him? Two of the sources are photo books published by a film company he's worked for, and the other doesn't even mention him. Which significant award has he won? Epbr123 (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Ash. Ground Zero | t 21:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Contrary to the nom's opinion, the significant career indeed meets WP:ENT and WP:PORNBIO. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Criteria 1 of PORNBIO is not satisfied when performer is part of a film that wins the award. Not enough evidence that person passes ENT. ARTIST for me is for the producers and directors of the genre. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It seems that this subject might be notable, but the article doesn't make much of a case. Absent someone finding reliable sources that talk about the subject, deletion seems the only option as it won't be demonstrated that this meets either the general notability guideline or the biographies of living persons policy. Arguing about the minutiae of guidelines means that the big picture is being missed I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 20:05, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Fat Boy Chronicles
- The Fat Boy Chronicles (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 book is not notable. I've asked for reliable sources, but all that happened was that the only reliable source available was removed! This lone source is from a local paper ([115], in Google cache as site is down at the moment). The book is supposedly being made into a film, but that fact alone does not make a book notable. Fences&Windows 01:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 01:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice. Maybe one day, some day, the film will come out and then in turn the book will receive some kind of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 05:40, 30 January 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) 00:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Motoaki Furukawa
- Motoaki Furukawa (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. There are a nice lineup of works here on the "discography" / resume, I must admit. Unfortunately though what I'm not seeing is anything to substantiate a biographical article here; there is nothing in the way of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Initially I was fooled by the "Square Enix Music Online" reference, but as it turns out the website has nothing to do with Square Enix, it is a forum community which relies upon user generated content. JBsupreme (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Gongshow Talk 02:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 02:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 03:04, 30 January 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) 00:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OrganicAthlete
- OrganicAthlete (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 footnotes, no establishment of notability, too short, and ought to be wikified. Kayau Odyssey HUCK FINN to the lighthouse BACK FROM EXAMS 01:39, 30 January 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 17:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Steam titles
- List of Steam titles (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)
At one point htis list might have been useful, but now that Steam is so popular it's become an unwieldy and unmaintainable list. EeepEeep (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a catalog. What's another word for catalog listing? Directory? Oh yeah, WP:NOTDIR. JBsupreme (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. So what if it is popular?. Is it wrong to be popular?. The list is maintainable when they are user who maintains. Currently iam maintaining it by finding sources and updating the list. Anyone can maintain it if they wanted to. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You miss the point. When Steam was a small service this list may have had a purpose by illustrating the types of games available on the service, but now it's a major service with hundreds of games. There is no encyclopedic benefit in listing every single one of them; anyone can just go to Steam and look for themselves. EeepEeep (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. When I look at the list of people who have made constructive edits to this page in the past 500 edits, I see enough variety of editor names and few enough edit wars and reverts to conclude that the page is actively maintained. Esteemed edtior EeepEeep seems to have missed this. As to the question of whether it is "unwieldy", that would be a fair avenue of criticism, but you don't improve unwieldy by deleting the thing - you improve it by forking the page into multiple smaller pages that each address a portion of the information, restructuring its contents, or otherwise refactoring. WP:BETTER. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also repeat esteemed editor Sabre's comments from the last AfD, which have not been materially changed by six months of time passing. Requiring occasional updating as time goes on doesn't mean its "barely maintainable". Some of the titles might not be notable, but most are - either way that factor is irrelevant. The analogy to a "list of DVDs available through Netflix" misses the mark considerably; its more comparable to the likes of List of Games for Windows titles, List of WiiWare games, List of Xbox Live Arcade games and other similar gaming lists, especially as the service has moved beyond mere distribution. A deficit in sources for release dates and the like is the list's only major drawback, though they are readily available online. -- Sabre (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm completely aware of the number of editors. But the question remains, what is the encyclopedic benefit of this list, even if broken down into smaller lists? EeepEeep (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not really encyclopedic and any really notable content could be mentioned on Steam (content delivery). The individual game articles dont appear to think Steam is notable as it is not mentioned on the few I looked at. MilborneOne (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a sales directory. This is different from "List of Games for Windows" in that there, Microsoft has to approve of the title and that it meets certain specifications and requiremetns before it is added to the service; same with List of XBLA games or List of WiiWare games. Here, it's just the business deals between the game owner and Steam; it is a non-distinction. Also, unlik the GfW/XBLA/WiiWare games, there are plenty of other download service companies like D2D and GOG that offer the same products, so there is nothing special about Steam here. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. User:Masem made a convincing argument. This is a list of software sold through a particular distribution channel. Are we going to have a List of iTunes Store songs? As for List of WiiWare games and List of Xbox Live Arcade games, the analogy isn't very good. Valve is not the only (or even a) PC manufacturer, so they don't have anything like the official branding those stores have. But I think those should be deleted as well per WP:NOTCATALOG. Pcap ping 16:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I disagree that Xbox Live list is the similar nature. Again, there is a list of requirements that games have to go through to be put up through Xbox Live, and you just can't add them at will. It is a vetted list of games, not arbitrary as it is with Steam. As only one or two games are released per week on it, they get noticed in gaming journalism. Thus, it is hard pressed to call that list (or the Games for Windows, or the WiiWare games) as directories since there is a very selective measure for what actually gets released on those systems. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And to add to this: Steam is not a unique distribution platform - nearly all games on it can be/were purchasable from other vendors. On the other hand, XBLA is a unique platform for most of the games on that list. It is thus comparable to our lists of games for various consoles. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree - Steam is a general distribution channel for all types of games. Equivalent articles would be List of games sold at Gamestop or List of games sold on Amazon.com. There's nothing intrinsically common to the elements of this list except that they can be bought at the same place. And it's not even the only place they're sold. EeepEeep (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Oh, I'm referred to as an "esteemed editor". I like that! In any case, having made efforts since the last AfD to cleanup and maintain this article, I eventually gave up with it: trying to keep it up to date was basically a full time job and I had better things to do. No-one really took up the mantle and as a result, what we have here is a bit shit, lets be honest. Count me neutral in the whole affair, regardless of what I said at the last AfD. If this article does stay, perhaps a better approach would be to go with Steam-only games, games specifically tied into the Steamworks system through proper business deals and deliberate programming and development in the same way a game might be linked into XBLA, etc, rather than listing every game regardless of the fact it can be acquired through other means. That sort of list would be far more useful, less directory-like and much more maintainable. -- Sabre (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I can sort-of see the WP:NOTDIR concern here. However, the large majority of items listed have their own WP articles, and this is a proper way of aggregating related items with some annotation (hence not just a cat). LotLE×talk 23:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I agree with Lulu that the delete side has a strong case. I also think it's true that it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep the list more or less complete. But I still find it a useful article, and I think there should be a little leeway in the rules for list articles that are useful. Some may argue this shouldn't be a factor, but it also appears that this article is quite well traveled (several hundred page hits per day), which makes it different from most AfDs I've seen. Were this article to be deleted, I think quite a lot of people would miss it and the function it serves, and I think Wikipedia would be a little worse off because of it. TastyCakes (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)I also don't really see the difference between this and List of Wii games and List of Xbox 360 games, if those don't classify as catalogs, why does this? Those lists are similarly sprawling and I suspect difficult to maintain, perhaps more so since some games may only be released in certain regions on those platforms. TastyCakes (talk) 06:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I can only answer for myself, but I would rather look through a Wikipedia list than the Steam site list for two main reasons: first it's all in one place so you don't have to click through dozens of screens, all taking some time to load because it's such a graphics heavy site. Second, I can click on any of the games and read the Wikipedia article on it which (should be) a more balanced view of it than the marketing spiel Steam will have. I agree though, having the list out of date and incomplete reduces the usefulness, but I think that can be fixed. Regardless, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think "it's available elsewhere on the internet" is a valid reason for deleting an article. Anyway, I'm not too choked up about this one, like I said you guys have some good points, I just don't think Wikipedia benefits from deleting this article. TastyCakes (talk) 06:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm not convinced this is under WP:NOTDIR. Although the above 'fix' would to have the list only include games that are only (or primarily) purchased through steam, which seams like a more maintainable list. MrMacMan Talk 07:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are many other online shops similar to steam, and indeed it got much more popular and features probably thousands of titles in the future. Whats next, List of titles sold at walmarkt? GBK2010 (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is not like "List of games published by X"; Steam is a distribution method, and a rapidly expanding one. It wont be long before it is comparable to something like "List of games available for sale in [insert high street retailer]", or "List of games distributed on CD-ROM". Any titles that are noteworthy because they have been distributed via Steam should be mentioned at Steam (content delivery) with an appropriate citation. Marasmusine (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Pretty much per Marasmusine, Steam is churning out far too many games every year to maintain a list on Wikipedia which is accurate. The only source relates to the Steam website. If one wishes to find information about a game, they can look there for the name and then look up the specific article on Wikipedia should they so wish. A huge list of titles is not going to be of benefit to anyone. We are not a directory of information, we are an encyclopaedia. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 16:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Lulu and TastyCakes. yes, I can see that WP:NOTDIR might apply, but as has also been mentioned, this is very similar to pages like List of Xbox 360 games. If the eventual outcome of this discussion is deletion, then a category for games sold via Steam should be created in it's place. RWJP (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's completely unusable. If anyone wants to find a list of games available they can go to steam's website Mike409 (talk) 05:25, 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) 00:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jimmy Weckl
- Jimmy Weckl (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, appears to be yet another in a large series of non-notable and poorly sourced biographies related to Bemani games. JBsupreme (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant published secondary source material. The single entry in OverClocked ReMix is not significant. I would suggest Speedy Delete. --Bejnar (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another unsourced, unmaintained blp that doesn't even assert notability. I proded earlier; an editor deprodded yet couldn't demonstratre notability or source the article either.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:52, 31 January 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. JForget 01:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Grand Theft Auto media
- List of Grand Theft Auto media (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. This page just duplicates info already in Grand Theft Auto (series). EeepEeep (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Yes it might have duplicate entries. The point of list is to put all the information in to one page. Here is a FA list for an example. I also believe there is no deadline. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - 1. the information is already on one page: Grand Theft Auto (series). 2. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Though I'd argue that List of Metal Gear media should be deleted as well. 3. How is WP:DEADLINE relevant? EeepEeep (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Has i said the point of having the list is to have all the information into one article. The article Grand Theft Auto (series) needs improvements and once that is done most of the information such has "Summary of Games" would get deleted. Sure go ahead and delete the Metal Gear media and Category:Video game lists by franchise.--SkyWalker (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Why would the list of games be removed from Grand Theft Auto (series)? No one has suggested that. I would say many of the articles in Category:Video game lists by franchise could be deleted, but many are not in the same situation as this one: they don't refer to a specific game series, or the game series doesn't have a main article, or the list of games is so long it would make the main article too long if included, etc. It's very problematic to make generalizations; every article needs to be evaluated separately. And my evaluation of this article is that it should be deleted. Your opinion differs; we'll just have to see how the discussion pans out. EeepEeep (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Has i said the point of having the list is to have all the information into one article. The article Grand Theft Auto (series) needs improvements and once that is done most of the information such has "Summary of Games" would get deleted. Sure go ahead and delete the Metal Gear media and Category:Video game lists by franchise.--SkyWalker (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - That's what the Grand Theft Auto (series) article is for. --Teancum (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. All the material is currently in one article without this. --Bejnar (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the series article. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if the GTA series article covers all infos of this article. The article even lacks GTA London for psx btw GBK2010 (talk) 08:46, 31 January 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) 00:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Derrick Operating System
- Derrick Operating System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant independent coverage for this software. Pcap ping 01:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 01:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nor can I. JBsupreme (talk) 07:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lack of significant coverage. Jujutacular T · C 22:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete No independent sources and this [116]forum post suggests content may be humorous in nature. MMS2013 17:04, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Choi Dae Hyun
- Choi Dae Hyun (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)
Failed to meet WP:Notability and WP:V. Even any single Korean source can not be found. Caspian blue 00:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Caspian blue 00:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete By listing the model's endorsements does make an assertion of notability IMO. However since the article is unsourced I lean towards deleting this article. RadManCF (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Based on the style of the article, I suspect that the original source is here [117] somewhere. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I cross-linked to the Korean language wikipedia, which has less info. Edit history shows that all of the content was created by one editor who only created that one page.
- Delete No reliable sources --Rirunmot 01:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unsourced BLP without much significant coverage. fetchcomms☛ 01:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Unsourced article which violates WP:BLP policy. Enough is enough. JBsupreme (talk) 20:41, 30 January 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.