- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, of course. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable enough. JMartin44 (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep: Frivolous nomination. Chris (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep and suggest deleting JMartin44 instead, perhaps... Peridon (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep: This article contains enough non-trivial information about houses cross-culturally that it certainly is not frivolous. For JMartin, I would ask where you would put the informative content in this article? In addition, WikiProject Architecture and WikiProject Home Living have ranked it as Top-Importance. Given that this delete template seems to be placed solely on one user's judgment, it seems that the template should never have been placed, certainly since JMartin44 has absolutely no editing history in Wikipedia outside of posting this deletion template. Unless there is something else going on, this seems to be a simple case of trolling and the template should be deleted post haste. I'm starting to agree with Peridon... -Fenevad (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by Materialscientist per G7. –MuZemike 00:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted per author request below and notability concerns. Materialscientist (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Danny de Warren (edit | talk | 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 CSD-A7 by SPA (not article creator). Fails notability, is based solely on family's lineage, see notability is not inherited. No reliable sources - all either self-published or not independent or related to the family lineage. GregJackP (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - article creator is also subject of article, violating autobiography and has removed AfD tag from page (since restored). (GregJackP (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete The claimed basis of notability seems to be his relations. Notability is not inherited. Reading his bio at his website indicates no significant accomplishments. --Bejnar (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Thanks for your time guys - I am quite willing for the article to be deleted. This exercise was purely for short-term research purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannydewarren (talk • contribs) 00:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fresh concepts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Definitely not notable. The only source is the school's website. bender235 (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If even the local school considers it the 18th thing you should do, there's no chance of it passing WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. It already has a mention at the Macalester College article, and that's all it deserves. --MelanieN (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I'll buy Silverseren's argument. Hopefully cleanup and expansion will commence. Shimeru (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Powwow Water (edit | talk | 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 and badly-sourced subject. Google News search reveals only company results, nothing to establish notability. Parrot of Doom 22:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete GNews reveals trivial coverage, only thing of note appears to be that they are or were purchased by Nestle. Nothing to confer notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 04:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 04:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added a number of sources to the article. The Nestle thing is not the only thing they are notable for, there are other things, which I have put in as EL's. The company appears notable. SilverserenC 04:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article can be improved, and now contains several external links that can be used as references. snigbrook (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable enough to rate an article in the New York Times - as well as mentions in other RS. Good work, SilverSeren. --MelanieN (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Writing process phase 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As I said in my prod, which was removed by the article's creator: "Nonnotable detail of a system set forth in an individual nonnotable book. Material of this sort (although probably not this particular material) belongs in the Writing process article." See also the related Articles for deletion/Writing Process Phase 3: Revise, Proofread, Evaluate. Deor (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Writing Process Phase 1: Analyze, Anticipate, Adapt Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete obviously inappropriate, and probably copypaste. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete WP:HOWTO etc. Author seems to be doing their coursework on Wikipedia. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bitches and hoes (edit | talk | 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 dicdef. Definition given also pretty disputable (I'm thinking of the "ruined someone's plans" part). Anything remotely valid in here is already covered in Bitch. Declined prod. Hairhorn (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per WP:NOTDIC. It's not even a dictionary definition...more like a Urban Dictionary definition. The same IP that dePRODed it also removed a speedy tag. PDCook (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Actually is combination of two different slang terms. At best, WP:NOTDIC. --DizFreak talk Contributions 08:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per nom. Author of the article deleted the original csd tags himself, otherwise this would have been speedily deleted. SnottyWong talk 17:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Belongs in Urban Dictionary, not Wikipedia.Dinosaur Dan1 (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jucket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Likely taken from Urban Dictionary [1]. —Airplaneman ✈— 21:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - doesn't appear to be the subject of any reliable sources (which would allow it to become something more than a dictionary definition). Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per WP:NOTDICTIONARYDinosaur Dan1 (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of television guest stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unmaintainable, orphaned, indiscriminate list. RadioFan (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't think that trying to reiterate 60+ years' worth of television cast listings in a single article is a good idea. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I wonder why most of these guest stars are from Modern Family? Str8cash (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as indescriminate and unmaintainable... not to even mention it being entirely unsourced... specially as it could eventually include every actor who ever guested on any show anywhere at anytime. It could end up being hundreds of kilobytes in length. If it's important to know who guested on which show, such information would be far more encyclopedic if included in the articles for those individual shows or in the articles of the individual actors. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:04, 29 March 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. Withdrawn. I obviously didn't realise that he was the writer as well - given a one line stub that doesn't mention The Onion at all, I think it's grossly unfair to assume I'm psychic. The reason I didn't read the one Google result that *did* mention The Onion is because it was a blog and therefore not an RS. Black Kite 14:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Todd Hanson (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)
Unsourced BLP, can't find any significant coverage for this voice actor bar listings etc. Black Kite 21:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm assuming this isn't about the same Todd Hanson who is head writer for The Onion? SilverserenC 23:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actally.... it's the same Todd Hanson... and the man who also wrote The Onion Movie. Someone forgot WP:BEFORE. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as this individual is known for far more than simply being an actor/voice artist on Squidbillies or Aqua Teen Hunger Force.... but of course a little BEFORE might have determined this. Strongly suggest moving this title to Todd Hanson (writer), for THAT is where he has the greater sourcable notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 05:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 05:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to Todd Hanson (writer) I have added some sources to the article, though there are many more besides that can be put in. As the head writer of The Onion, he gets a large amount of notability from that. SilverserenC 05:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reginald L. Austin, Ph.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)
No G News and only trivial G search results CTJF83 chat 20:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable. (GregJackP (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete Has apparently written three or four papers, with low citation rates, according to google scholar, adn one short monograph, probably an MA thesis. Most professors in the physical sciences have done at least as much. (BTW, titles such as "PhD" are not usually used in article names. Would reconsider if additional sources are presented that seem to indicate greater notability. DES (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, sources provided do not establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable as a scientist (the number of papers correspond to the typical requirements for a Swedish Ph.D. in sciences - and in biomedicine people tend to publish a lot...), and you don't get notable by starting your own PR agency. Tomas e (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ruth Elkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined a speedy here, but I can't find much more than about 5 minutes of fame. Ruth has written several articles about herself as the "Babe of Berlin", but interest in other sources appears to have died out quickly. Best I can find is this (is it reliable?), this (in German) and this (also in German). Seems like a case of WP:ONEEVENT, but because language issues are hindering my search, I'm bringing to AfD. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree that this appears to be a case of WP:ONEEVENT. Deutsche Welle is, I think, a reliable source. The two articles in German cover the same ground as the one in English, and in a quick google new archive search I didn't find any articles mentioning her as a subject. I'm sure she's a decent reporter, but does not appear noteworty --Nuujinn (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 23:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue and added some more sources. You guys should learn to use Google Translate. I went ahead and translated all of the German articles for you guys. SilverserenC 23:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm at a little bit of a loss as to why you think those of us who don't read German didn't use Google Translate. Unfortunately, machine translation is not perfect (I've seen some spectacular google fails in the two foreign languages I speak), and searching with Google translate is never as good as searching in a language one is fluent in.
- Also, could you do us the favor of pointing out which source(s) you added shows more than just 15 minutes of fame over a single comment? Perhaps I'm dense, but I'm not seeing it. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Silver seren, I admire your enthusiam, but I didn't need Google translate since I speak German rather well. Also, I don't think adding links of her own work helps establish notability, can you clarify? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:31, 30 March 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 Closed as speedy keep, nom withdrawn. Dlohcierekim 19:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Barely Blind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Band that doesn't pass WP:MUSIC and I cannot find any reliable sources. Clubmarx (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Oops. Google search doesn't find anything reliable but there are google news sources. I think I'd like to withdraw this AfD. Clubmarx (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kip Madsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced since 2007, and deprodded today, this article does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. I can find no WP:RS indicating notability for Mr. Madsen, and the fact that he has worked as part of a writing team on notable shows is not enough. He has won no major awards and does not appear to be independently notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I was the original PRODder, this article fails WP:ARTIST as well as WP:GNG. No sources could be found to establish notability. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 23:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He is a writer for television, but has no significant coverage. Assertion of notability is also unclear. --Bejnar (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wow... a prolific fellow... affiliated with so many projects without himself receiving any coverage past Guardian, Los Angeles Times, and TV By The Numbers. What a pity. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My thoughts as well. I'm always annoyed when I come across an article like this, and I think "Oh, this should be easy to source", and then 20 minutes later I've found nothing but passing mentions. I would think that there is something out there, just maybe not online, or buried down in the web search results. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 03:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Strange lack of coverage if he really has been involved in this much, but it seems to fail WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure there's anything strange about it. IMDB, I remind you, is user generated. Take a look at the LA Times article above, where he's identified as merely a production assistant. As for the Guardian quote, one of my closest friends was a late night talk show writer in LA it's pretty low on the totem pole, notability-wise. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second best thing (edit | talk | 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 cannot find any sources on Google search. December21st2012Freak Talk to me at 18:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - seems like a speedy A7 to me. Clubmarx (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with Clubmarx: No references. Although there's a lot of content, it still fits CSD-A7. Minimac (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This page is based on FACTS! It wont let me reference, but he information used is from their twitter, websites and blogs etc! I think we should keep the page as it has been popular so far x —Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanVoase (talk • contribs) 18:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One released single and an album that is "TBR" would not qualify even if supported by independent reliable sources. Twitter is generally not reliable, at best is it s self-published source. The same is true of blogs and the band's own website. In fact this is, as suggested above, an A7 speedy deletion candidate, and I have so tagged it. DES (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete without prejudice for when/if they achieve notability with references other than twitter etc. Good luck... Peridon (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete I Think the creator of the page is very likely a member of this band. Str8cash (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Haselfrë Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't not meet notability requirements (WP:NOTABILITY). ZacBowling (user|talk) 18:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Almost makes it as notable for their work for the Karnataka tourism board, but really doesn't seem to have attracted any RS coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of Digimon. Shimeru (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Zurumon (edit | talk | 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 entirely in-universe. No content on real-world impact. No references at all. A Google search reveals no news or scholar hits, and the two book hits are utterly trivial mentions. A web search gets lots of hits, but most seem to be fansites, fora, or blogs, i.e. not reliable sources. The few that might be RS seem to have only trivial, entry-in-a-directory level mentions. As per WP:FICT not every plot element of a fiction need have a separate page. DES (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC) DES (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per my nom unless multiple reliable sources with significant discussion and analysis, and info on real-world impact is found. Note this has been tagged as having notability problems for 6 months. DES (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to an appropriate list. Edward321 (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Number 1 Love Songs (edit | talk | 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 volume from a Time/Life album series. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Not notable at all.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: If we list this, we'd have to have a page for every compilation album put out by the Reader's Digest. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete. This is an obvious hoax. Nick-D (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rumspringa (Music Festival) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am 90% sure this article is a hoax John of Reading (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can see no evidence in google or google news that this exists. If it does, it doesn't seem to have received any coverage. Given the drug controversy and supposed death, I'm sure this would have been covered by local media. Probable hoax.--BelovedFreak 16:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 16:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 16:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nonsense from start to finish. The article provides no evidence of the events existence whatsoever. If (and that is a big if) the event actually exists then the article should be deleted immediately as an uncited attack page. Can an administrator please just do us all a favour ... -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:47, 27 March 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 all, per WP:N. Insufficient independent/secondary sources about the organization/awards. Jayjg (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Central Ohio Film Critics Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously deleted as no claim of notability. I still see no claim and more importantly I can't find reliable sources that discuss these awards. Delete as non-notable local film awards. Tassedethe (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also nominating the following related pages:
- Central Ohio Film Critics Association Award for Best Actress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Central Ohio Film Critics Association Award for Best Actor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Central Ohio Film Critics Association Awards 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Central Ohio Film Critics Association Awards 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Central Ohio Film Critics Association Award for Best Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 16:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 16:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this critics' organization yields over 154000 ghits, is carried by the Los Angeles Times in their ongoing summary of awards [2], in other newspapers [3], and is comprised of members of the area press [4]. It is an award listed on scores of articles on Wikipedia. Because the article itself doesn't appear to meet notability does not mean that is the case. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The LA Times link is a blog post listing every film critic award and doesn't show notability of this award. The Columbus Dispatch link is the local newspaper that supplies 2 of the members of the Central Ohio Film Critics Association. The article was written by one of them, Frank Gabrenya, and as such is not independent of the subject. Tassedethe (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A Google search reveals quite a few references to this article. If someone adds some reliable inline citations, I would say keep this article. I do have some doubts about all those additional articles with individual awards, though. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all, unless better sources are found. All of the listed articles are unsourced. The mentioned references are completely inadmissible (forum post and two primary sources) and largely irrelevant (no significant coverage). The raw Google numbers are not indicative of notability, see WP:GHITS. Filtered searches like [5] (189 unique hits) don't seem to contain any WP:RS sources with nontrivial coverage of the subject. — Rankiri (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all There's an ocean of trivial coverage from non-reliable sourcing available, and the only two things I can find that look better at first blush (the Dispatch and LA Times bits) are problematic per comment above from nominator -- the LA Times post is an unverifiable blog, the Dispatch article is written by a member of the association which arguably makes it a primary source (although I think this is open for debate). That said, even if we accept the Dispatch article, it's literally the only reliable source I can find for this. I will happily change my vote to keep if anybody else has more success -- there really are a number of GHits for this topic, much of which could be used to supply verifiable citations, but I can't find anything to confer notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the main article: COFCA and its awards clearly have an importance, if only in Ohio. The lists of its awards for each category and year could surely be done by links to the COFCA website. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the main article and merge the rest into the main article The main one is notable, but the rest are certainly not. SilverserenC 20:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I still don't see significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. Where does this claim of notability come from? — Rankiri (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom and Ginsengbomb. There still isn't enough significant independent coverage to satisfy WP:N.4meter4 (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. The only sources I am finding are written by the critics in the association and are therefore not independent, as required by the WP:PSTS policy. Furthermore, these sources are not about the association itself, and therefore there are no secondary sources on the topic. Abductive (reasoning) 03:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Estate_of_Jack_Slee_v._Werner_Erhard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lack of notability Spacefarer (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Significant coverage in 34 reliable sources feels like enough notability to justify an article. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Actually has 37 sources, of which several show ongoing coverage by the New York Times, for a Second Circuit Court of Appeals case, is much better than most at WP:LAW. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Forgive me, but the simple statement "lack of notability" seems particularly weak considering how well written and well sourced this article is. It smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Hunter Kahn 01:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep I think there is clearly sufficient news and book coverage for it to be notable, but the articles is drastic POV and prejudicial overcoverage. That almost all of us here might agree with the POV is not relevant. An extremely expansive article--judge's picture, seal of the court where the appellate decision was rendered, long description, excessive background, pathetic quote and the end, etc. I'm almost tempted to say G10, "Attack page", because the way it is written, that might well the purpose. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Bearian, while sharing some of DGG's concerns about the POV. I made one edit to address this - others will be needed, but it isn't a reason to delete. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for nobility. Well sourced. Agreed that not liking a POV is not reason to delete.--DizFreak talk Contributions 08:44, 28 March 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. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ney_v._Landmark_Education_Corporation_and_Werner_Erhard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lack of notability Spacefarer (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - 25 sources, of which several show ongoing coverage by the Washington Post, for a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case, is much better than most at WP:LAW. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I saw this user has nominated for AFD two other similar articles (here and here) that share the same primary author. Considering how well written and well sourced these articles are, it's hard to assume good faith here at first glance... — Hunter Kahn 01:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as above, in spite of my inclination to delete this also via G10. I consider this very close to an attack page, however much my own views might align with the attackers. But the excessive and prejudicial article can be shortened and rewritten in a more encyclopedic fashion. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. References establish notability. POV concerns can be taken up on the article talk page. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep References establish notability. agree with Ka, hard to assume good faith at first glance, especially when all three articles are well sourced. --DizFreak talk Contributions 08:48, 28 March 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. Article is overflowing with reliable sources. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Werner_Erhard_and_Associates_v._Christopher_Cox_for_Congress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lack of notability Spacefarer (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - 66 sources is much better than most at WP:LAW. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think we need more of an argument for deletion than "lack of notability" if you're arguing against a well-written article with more than sixty sources. (See also my vote here). — Hunter Kahn 01:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are obviously issues with the article, but no question of notability. Take up other concerns at the talk page. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Um...what? Is this just a joke nomination or something? SilverserenC 08:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Well written with over 60 sources. No question of notability. --DizFreak talk Contributions 08:52, 28 March 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. Nomination withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dree Hemingway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hemingway does not meet the notability requirements of [[[WP:BIO]]. To be notable, she would have to be the subject of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. She features in only a few news articles in a Google news search, and most general Google hits are trivial (blogs, advertising, etc) or articles mention her in passing, rather than having her as the subject of the coverage, as required by the guideline. Incidently, being the great-grandaughter of Ernest Hemingway is not relevant, as notability is not inherited. Further (and importantly) a biography of a living person requires strict verification (this article has only two references). Wikipeterproject (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 08:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 08:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I suppose you must have been using some other Google news search, as I found a number of articles from primary sources that were entirely about her. I added them into the article. SilverserenC 08:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Over a hundred results in Google news search. [6] One news source calls her the model of the moment. Dream Focus 16:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep GNews establishes notability for me -- there's fairly substantial coverage in a number of reliable publications. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There seems to be significant coverage. Someone just needs to take the time to put what's in the coverage into the article. Dismas|(talk) 21:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw. The article needs a huge amount of work, but I think notability has been established with some of the additional sources. As nominator, I withdraw the nomination for deletion. Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:43, 31 March 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 Thurrock#Education. After a couple of well-thought-out notes on my talkpage, and a reconsideration of both the !votes here and the sources in the article, I agree that a merge is probably the correct outcome here. Black Kite 00:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Woodside Primary School, Grays (edit | talk | 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 on an elementary school for which there does not seem to me to exist the substantive coverage in reliable secondary sources required by WP:ORG. My redirection to Grays#Education (where the school was mentioned, although that section has since been moved to Thurrock#Education) per the usual practice was reverted, so here we are. Deor (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Deor (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Despite the effort that has gone into this article, it does not meet the notability requirements set out in WP:ORG. This guideline states that the "organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." It further adds that "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.". In this case, most of the sources available online (and those included in the article) are either incidental or not independent of the organisation (i.e. not a secondary source). I have to conclude that, on the evidence, the subject does not meet the notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. A short reference to the school in the Grays and Thurrock articles would be appropriate. Wikipeterproject (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are numerous references to the school in reliable secondary sources which are neither trivial nor incidental. There is coverage of current pupils, former pupils and teachers. For example:-
- The process of inspection by Ofsted routinely generates independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. For example:-
- The awards earned by the school have given rise to independent coverage in reliable secondary sources, For example:-
- (The article lists a number of other awards, including Investors in People, Ormiston Education's Every Child Matters Quality Mark, Quality in Study Support, the Financial Management Standard in Schools and Healthy Schools,)
- The various categories related to primary schools seems to suggest that there is no policy against articles about primary schools - for example, primary schools in Essex or primary schools in England. This school is at least as notable (if not more so) than the numerous primary schools that already exist - for example John Ball Primary School and Grange Primary School among a host of others.
- Incidentally, I was the person who reverted the redirection mentioned above. The problem was that (a) the redirection did nothing with the existing content which consequently disapeared and (b) the redirection went to an innapropriate page (although Deor was not to know that). Rjm at sleepers (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, they are secondary sources, but the school is not the subject of the coverage. The subjects are the current and former student and the teacher. The database of school scores is a reliable source, but doesn't support the notability of the school as such. It's a reporting tool on a evaluation scheme, which is different if someone writes a independent article or review. Remember that the guideline specifically says that ""trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." That there are other similar articles is not a valid argument for notability - we need to base our discussion on the guidelines (see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are quite mistaken as the school is clearly the specific subject of the BBC coverage, say. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I beleve a school is more than the bricks and mortar that make up its building. Pupils, teachers and other staff are part of the school. Former pupils are less clearly part of the school, but many educational institutions continue to regard former pupils as part of their community. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Grays, since there does not seem to be a "school district" as such, which is the usual merge target for articles about elementary schools. The two school articles mentioned above have apparently not been through AFD, and are just an "other stuff exists" weak argument to avoid at AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education which says "Most, but not all, schools for younger children don't meet this standard and are therefore frequently merged or redirected." See WP:ORG which says "Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or local chapter of a club) may be notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead." The refs seem to be either local news coverage or directory type routine listings of test scores. Edison (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Speedily The Ofsted inspections such as this are independent and detailed sources of the highest quality which demonstrate the obvious notability of this academic establishment. As the nomination states that this nomination was a response to a reverted edit, it appears to be disruptive per WP:SK: "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion or merger, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". Colonel Warden (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But, aren't these inspections carried out at all schools? If that is the case, then every (English) school is defacto notable (and given that there are similar such reviews in many other countries, it is by extension so) ... meaning that any school that had nothing more than a similar annual report would meet notability threshold. I think the Wikipedia community has historically asked for more than that to establish notability, at least for schools. This may be a secondary source that is clearly independent of the school, but I don't think it would meet any definition of "substantial". LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, all schools and nurseries are inspected every 3 years or so. The BBC page similarly reports test results published for all schools by the government department each year. Kanguole 20:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also fail to see how an editor who attempted a redirect, had it reverted, and then, rather than edit war, took this forward for community discussion, is somehow "disruptive". This appears to be following a fairly logical procedure that is in no way interfering with the improvement o the article, if it can be improved, or a hunt for confirmation of notability, provided such information can be found. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination seems to be bad faith per WP:GAME because the nominator's action indicates that he wishes to redirect the article name and this action is not performed by deletion. Rather than engage in discussion at the article's talk page, as the other editor did and engage in proper dispute resolution such as calling for a third opinion or starting an RfC, he has taken the matter to an inappropriate forum. This is forum shopping which is disruptive because it is uncivil and complicates the issue by spreading it across multiple venues. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or Merge. Sources that equally cover every single school/street/politician/business/etc generally don't count towards notability, and articles about people who went to the school once certainly don't count. Common practice is that primary schools generally aren't notable unless there's more coverage than you average run-of-the-mill school would get. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Our notability guideline does not say this or anything like it. It is often the case that we cover all members of a category - all asteroids, all professional sportsmen, all living species, &c - even though most entries will be run-of-the-mill. This is because we are an encyclopedia and so cover all significant knowledge, not just selected highlights. The general principle of notability is that a topic is worthy of coverege if it has been noticed by the world. This school has been noticed by reputable, national organisations such as the BBC and Ofsted who have written about it in detail and this is prima facie evidence that the topic is notable per the guideline. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Query Could you point out where in policy it states It is often the case that we cover all members of a category ... because I couldn't find it anywhere. You note that a topic is worthy of coverege if it has been noticed by the world. .... The GNG presumption stipulation notes that even if a subject meets all of the criteria of the GNG, the community still has the final word on whether a standalone article is warranted. Given that elementary schools have not had a perfect track record at AfD, I think it was a warranted posting. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comprehensive coverage is a matter of fact which may be verified by clicking the random article link. For example, I did that and my first hit was Outes. That topic is not special in any way - it is just another place like any other. And you'll find that most of our topics are like that - we don't restrict ourselves to just the most important members of each category. Now it is a common fallacy to suppose that we require some degree of importance in a topic but this is explicitly refuted by WP:N which says "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic...". All that is required is some good sources. We have that for this topic and so we're good. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, comprehensive coverage depends on what the category is. It's well-established practice that we cover every settlement and MP and station and professional athlete and so on, but that's because consensus was that every item is this category should be considered notable. We do not write about every film ever made just because IMDB covers them all, nor do we write about every single Parliamentary candidate because papers issued by the returning officer covers them all (or even that this data is reproduced online by the BBC, Guardian etc.), nor do we write about every amateur sports team just because their results are routinely liested in a local paper. If you want to argue that the long-standing practice on notability of Primary Schools became wrong the moment the BBC chose to reproduce individual Osted results, fair enough, consensus can change, but I don't see any reason why this primary school should be treated differently from any other.
- No, there is no notability guideline for schools as there is no well-established consensus for this class of topics. Please see WP:SCH which is clearly marked as a failed proposal. We must therefore fall back upon the WP:GNG and this topic clearly passes this as there are independent, detailed and reliable sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You left out "significant" in your list of notability requirements. To be notable under WP:GNG, a subject must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The definition of significant goes on to say that no original research is necessary to extract content. If you believe that the Osted results published by the BBC provide support for the whole article, then you are right. But the Osted results don't support 99% of the article's content as it stands. It says nothing about Arts, links, Neighbours, History, Ecology or any other aspect of the school, its community or curriculum. So if you rely on Osted as a source, you have one sentence of the article supported. And that one sentence, if read in isolation, would never pass a notability test. Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated explicitly by WP:N, notability applies at the level of the article, not every sentence or paragraph. If the content currently seems unbalanced then we may improve the article by ordinary editing to increase the education-related content, as one would expect for an educational establishment. As and when I find time, I may improve the article myself but it is unpleasant having to work when the article is threatened by editors who do nothing but criticise and urge that the work be destroyed. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove through WP:SCH, because failed proposals can means anything from outright opposition to lack of support that an extra policy is necessary to disagreements over the details of the policy. It most certainly does not mean that established practice should be instantly disregarded the moment the policy fails. If you don't mind me saying so, it is not helpful to insinuate, intentionally or not, that anyone arguing in favour of deletion is someone who does "nothing but criticise and urge that the work be destroyed". I certainly don't. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And just to add I see nothing bad faith about this AfD. Taking an article to an AfD after a contested redirect seems no different than taking it to AfD after a contested prod. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AFDs following PRODs are often bad faith too - a reflex, hostile escalation per WP:GAME and WP:BATTLEGROUND rather than a civil, thoughtful engagement with the topic and the editor who has opposed the PROD. That seems to be what we have in this case - a drive-by action based upon reflex and erroneous ideas about policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But your interpretation of bad faith nominations puts every deletion nomination as a bad faith one. Yes, proposing deletion in response to a content dispute of a notable article is a definite speedy keep, but when the dispute is over whether there should be an article at all, surely AfD is the logical place to make a decision. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this bad faith is that the nominator first tried to edit the article. Only when he was thwarted did he decide that it should be deleted instead. This seems to be disruption contrary to WP:POINT - invoking a process for tactical reasons, not sincere ones. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only edit the nominator attempted was a redirect, which seems very little different from proposing a deletion, wait to see if anyone objects, and taking it to AfD if you don't agree with the reasons. You may or may not consider that a reasonable procedure, but I do, and so, presumably, did the nominator of the AfD. WP:AGF please. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My point was made in support of my procedural motion that we speedily close this discussion rather than to cast aspersions upon the nominator's character, about which I have no particular opinion. Per WP:SAUCE, if articles are open to criticism and deletion, then nominations are likewise open to criticism and peremptory closure. AGF does not require us to accept everything that is put before us. You are likewise free to criticise my motion and so we risk an infinite regress but so it goes... :) Colonel Warden (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. The school is not notable enough to warrant an article in its own right. If someone has the time or inclination the best solution would be to create a new article "Primary schools in the Thurrock Unitary Authority". We have a number of such articles along these lines such as Primary schools in Dacorum. If not the content should be merged with Grays or Thurrock Unitary Authority. Some of the content is trivial in nature and some is duplicated in other articles. Dahliarose (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your proposed article would not be notable as independent media organisations such as the BBC prefer to cover this field at the level of the school rather than some other invented level. Presumably they do this because that is what the readership wants - it is the natural basis of reporting and search. The Grays article is not appropriate as that is a ragbag of local detail - X-factor, football, shopping centres and the like. By filling that up with a perfunctory listing of every feature of the area, we would violate WP:NOTDIR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs) 08:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to locality article, per consensus in this subject area. The only non-local secondary sources are the Ofsted inspection and the KS2 results, which are not enough to build an article from. The last three sections overlap substantially with the Terrel's Heath article. Kanguole 09:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'merge; per above, wikipedia tends to not have articles on primary schools, only high schools. Okip 12:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Originally they didn't allow articles on high schools. Things change. No shortage of space, nor reason to limit encyclopedic coverage of educational facilities. Dream Focus 16:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google news search for "woodside Primary School" AND "Grays" brings up this http://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/news/4517518.Woodside_wins_gold_and_silver_awards/ which indicates notability. That and other coverage found is enough to convince me. A book search shows one result, and no way to read it, it not available for preview, so I can't judge that. Dream Focus 16:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this was nominated for deletion while the page was in the process of being expanded which is bad practice. It is now a nicely written page with sufficient sources to meet notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect -- so far, it looks like this school has been rated by a school rating agency, and mentioned in the town paper. Setting aside the comments above -- "I assume bad faith on the nominator's part!", "There's room for everything!", etc. -- what we have is a well-written article about what appears to be a completely average nursery/primary school. I don't see anything amounting to significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and I can't imagine that this school's achievements (winning "the South Essex Girls' 7 a side football competition," "described at 'good' by Ofsted in 2004 and 2008," and so on) somehow make it inherently notable. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My understanding is that notability guidelines ask for "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources ... not trivial or incidental" - (plural sources not multiple sources). Both the BBC and Ofsted provide significant coverage and they are reliable, independent secondary sources. The coverage in these sources is neither trivial nor incidental. My understanding is that the sources that establish notability do not necessarily have to be used in the article. Similarly, the references used to support text in the article do not all have to establish notability. There are many articles about "completely average" subjects that meet notabilty gudelines - for example minor MPs, small villages, lower league football players. No one is claiming that this school is world famous; merely that it meets notability guidelines. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But two of the examples you quote are unambiguous piece of Wikipedia policy, and the other isn't policy as such but is long-established practice. On the other end of the scale, Parliamentary candidates and elected Councillors have official documents written about them that get reproduced in secondary sources, as do any amateur sports teams whose local paper happens to write up their results, but policy is clear that they are not automatically notable. If your view is that Ofsted coverage makes all schools in the UK notable, go ahead and say so, but I think there's better arguments than that one. For what it's worth, I would consider Ofsted reports a primary source and the BBC a mere reproduction of a primary source. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The primary sources in such cases would be the work of the staff and pupils and the inspectors' notes on same. The inspection reports are written for distribution and publication and so seem to be a secondary source. The BBC summaries and other reporting are then tertiary sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The closest precedent I can find in Wikipedia policy is footnote 2 of WP:OR. That lists official records as a primary source, are are census results, which most certainly are analysed prior to public release. Secondary sources are meant to interpret or analyse primary sources, so I wouldn't count a reproduction of Ofsted results as primary to secondary. (If the BBC was to start writing about the results, that would be a different matter.) However, I think this discussion isn't helpful. It is going way beyond using common sense and into dogmatic application of policy into areas that were almost certainly never considered when written. Any decision to include or not include primary schools should be based on whether it is in the interests of Wikipedia to do so, not who can out-do who on interpretations of notability guidelines. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Census results have been used as the basis for creating many thousands of articles about places and so are clearly well-accepted and adequate for our purposes. Inspection reports are superior as sources because they contain professional analysis and judgements, not just raw statistics. They are published to be read because there is considerable interest in such material from parents, the teaching profession, the education bureaucracy, politicians, the press, &c. In summarising these reports, we perform a valuable public service which is directly supportive of Wikipedia's educational mission. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong way round, with respect. Whereas WP policy is that inhabited settlements are inherently notable, the census results are merely verification of that fact. The converse is not necessarily so, as to make sources confer inherent notability. As for "providing a valuable public service", there are arguably many cases in which we might do so, but WP:NOT tells us otherwise. Rodhullandemu 23:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NOT is not applicable as it nowhere states that we should not cover educational establishments. As we routinely cover colleges and secondary schools, we should cover primary schools too so that all tiers of education are properly documented here. To arbitrarily exclude one tier is not policy and defies common sense. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But two of the examples you quote are unambiguous piece of Wikipedia policy, and the other isn't policy as such but is long-established practice. On the other end of the scale, Parliamentary candidates and elected Councillors have official documents written about them that get reproduced in secondary sources, as do any amateur sports teams whose local paper happens to write up their results, but policy is clear that they are not automatically notable. If your view is that Ofsted coverage makes all schools in the UK notable, go ahead and say so, but I think there's better arguments than that one. For what it's worth, I would consider Ofsted reports a primary source and the BBC a mere reproduction of a primary source. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: May I
reminddraw editors' attention toofthe WP:BLUDGEONpolicy guidelineessay? Although it's not policy, it's a good idea to make your point and let the debate go its course. That's what collaboration is about. Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, and is not Wikipedia policy. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Grays. This is the best solution for NN primary schools. The article is unusually informative, but the school is still NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge appropriate referenced material to Grays. Based on those articles about elementary school which the community has previously accepted, IMO, I do not believe that this school rises to the level of notability that the community has come to accept.LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are a lot of contributions suggesting a merge with Grays. It is possible that editors suggesting this are being misled by the article's title. The school is not in Grays, but in Little Thurrock. If it survives this AfD, I will suggest a change of title. Grays is the post town in the school's address, but as the article on post towns points out a post town is for the convenience of the Post Office in sorting letters and can bring together otherwise unrelated places. Among existing articles, possible targets for a merge are Thurrock and Little Thurrock, although (IMO) there are issues with merging with either of these. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unremarkable primary school. Basically every school gets rewards, and obviously every school is inspected. There is just nothing to suggest this school meets notability criteria. A few brief mentions in the local press != notable. Aiken ♫ 23:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Grays. I start from the viewpoint that a primary school has to be really special to climb the hill of notability, and this one has no outstanding features that take it beyond the foothills. The article mentions little or nothing that could not be said of any other such school. Shame, because it's a well-constructed article, but notable it is not. Rodhullandemu 22:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you believe a primary school should be judged differently than a high school? And merge in this case means delete, there no way you are going to have any reasonable amount of the information here moved over there, and most likely nothing at all. Dream Focus 03:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect or delete and redirect, as per WP:MILL, Coverage seems basically trivial, does not seem to me to establish notability. DES (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources = notable = article. Simple equation. This isn't a paper encylopaedia so we lose absolutely nothing by having a properly verified page here. Well-sourced content is so hard to find on this encyclopaedia. Please lets not delete what little of it there is. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Infolona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recreated CSD-A7 deleted article, fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. No reliable sources. Creator has been informed on how to prepare the article in userspace, get peer suggestions, etc, but has not done so. Recommend that the article be salted. GregJackP (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Iv heard how multiple people can edit an article on infolona. Can any of you admins or some other user fix my article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanmayajain (talk • contribs) 14:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but the subject does not meet our standards for inclusion. As you've been told several times, you need to read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). — Satori Son 20:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. WP:A7: no indication of notability. No coverage in reliable secondary sources[7]. Promotional. — Rankiri (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:CORP#Primary criteria. — Satori Son 20:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no reliable sources as needed to establish notability. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no evidence of notability, no independent reliable sources. Note that the creator has a COI, as admitted on my talkpage, and appears to have recruited IP editors to chime in on the talk page or edit. Acroterion (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There appears to be no strong source showing notability, and it seems extremely unlikely (without sources to the contrary) that a website created a few weeks ago warrants an article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. Website is still in Beta. --DizFreak talk Contributions 08:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CORP#Primary criteria and Wikipedia:Notability (web) -- MaenK.A.Talk 14:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 28 March 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 Sandra Brown (campaigner). Shimeru (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Moira Anderson Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced stub since May 2008. That's long enough to fix it if anyone cared, I think. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment BBC News story here regarding an OBE awarded to the organisation's founder. She was also the Glasgow Evening Times "Scotswoman of the Year" in 2005: [8]AllyD (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article now has 3rd party references. AllyD (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge to Sandra Brown (campaigner). Notability is the issue, not how long the article has been here. Coverage exists, but a lot of it is more about Brown: [9], [10], [11], [12]. Little detailed coverage of the foundation found. A section in the Sandra Brown article (this already exists) may be the best approach.--Michig (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge to Sandra Brown (campaigner). 3rd party references show a directory link (ref #1) - not a reliable source and a BBC article (ref #2) on Brown. For WP:ORG, the organization itself must be notable, not just mentioned in passing in a story about the founder. (GregJackP (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Sandra Brown (campaigner). I can't find any coverage that is neither a directory listing nor about its founder (who most certainly does meet notability), and I can't see any scope to expand this beyond the current stub. Should someone find more encyclopaedic information to put into the article, then there might be a case for a stand-alone article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 07:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 07:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I found some other sources that dealt more firmly with the organization rather than the organizer. I think there's enough here for the article to be notable apart from Sandra Brown. SilverserenC 07:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. The sources don't amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. With that bar not crossed, there is not enough here to support a verified article. Merge what can be verified to Sandra Brown (campaigner). --Mkativerata (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rock n Roll Worship Circus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an unsourced article on a Christian band that once placed somewhere in a Christian chart (as opposed ot the Billboard Hot 100 or some other significant chart). I don't think it's ever had a reliable independent source other than a single link to the chart page, which does not count. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Substantial Billboard article here, New York Times here, further coverage in Christian sources: [13], [14], [15], [16]. Allmusic reviews of Welcome to the Rock 'N' Roll Worship Circus, and A Beautiful Glow. These sources were easy to find.--Michig (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any chance of, you know, fixing the article? It's been in this dismal unsourced state for literally years. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really relevant to the AFD. If the band is notable, it's notable whatever the state of the article here. The article appears not to have had any maintenance flags on it or discussion on the talk page regarding its quality since you last nominated it 2 years ago, which doesn't help if you're looking for someone to improve it - perhaps withdrawing the AFD and tagging it appropriately for improvement would be a good start.--Michig (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There, I added them in. We good to go? SilverserenC 07:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 07:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 07:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Michig. SilverserenC 07:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Michig et al. Substantial articles/reviews in Billboard and New York Times are clear indicators of reliable sources to reach notability for a band. Rescue, clean up, and close. Bearian (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted per the author's deletion request. No other participating users objected to deletion, and also, respecting ShrinkWrap212's request is the right thing to do. JamieS93❤ 13:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Christopher K. Stone, M.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)
Flowery biography of someone who edited a volume of poetry by their mother. Mother's article created by same editor. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable. (GregJackP (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete Editing a book of someone else's poetry is not the same as writing poetry. The late Donna J. Stone appears notable enough for her own article. Mandsford (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm Christopher Stone, the subject (but not the author) of the article in question, and I also request that the article be deleted. I appreciate the author's gesture, but I agree: I'm not the notable one, my mother is. I'm a fairly private person, not that comfortable having a Wikipedia page. I would appreciate it if my mother's page could stay up. She would have liked that...and her public contributions are deserving of the honor. But please delete my page. Thanks. ShrinkWrap212 (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I created this article about Dr. Stone and, at his request, I now ask that it be deleted. However, please do not delete the article I wrote about his mother, Donna J. Stone. As a literary historian, I agree with the above comments that Ms. Stone meets the notability criteria for Wikipedia. My apologies to Dr. Stone and to the Wikipedia community for any inconvenience caused by the Christopher K. Stone, M.D. article. I'll check for any links to the article and remove them now. --Mah 03:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dark Intervals (edit | talk | 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 orphan article on an album, no indication of significance. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While the article itself is as yet insubstantial, it sits inside Category:Keith Jarrett albums and is also specifically discussed in the Keith Jarrett biographical article. The album itself is not non-notable and sources exist for improving the article, for example this Allmusic review. AllyD (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The previous AfD for a "Dark Intervals" article is nothing to do with this album, but seems to have related to an entirely distinct film. AllyD (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Bringing albums by clearly notable artists that have received significant coverage to AFD simply wastes time of others. a Google search quickly found an Allmusic review and a Spokane Chronicle article. A Google Books search shows further coverage.--Michig (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets the notability criteria as an officially released album of a notable artist, and as Michig points out coverage is indeed available. Being unsourced and orphaned are surmountable problems, not reasons for deletion. Jafeluv (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 07:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 07:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I had added the sources given above, along with some other German and Italian ones. Almost all of Jarrett's works become instantly notable, just with the coverage they each get. He's just that famous. SilverserenC 07:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I've added a reception section and some in text references DISEman (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as others have stated, the article needs (needed) expansion, not deletion. There must be a better process than this for drawing attention to a needy article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Always try to use Google news BEFORE nominating anything. The New York Times article at the top of the search proves it notable enough for an article. Dream Focus 08:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Keith Jarrett is notable. This sort of detail about one of his albums is one of the reasons people value Wikipedia. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Black Kite 23:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CINTAX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Still unsourced after two years and two AfDs. I think we should call time, unless those who want the article are actually going to make it compliant with policy. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No significant coverage appears to exist.--Michig (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Added a ref. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 06:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 06:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless better references are found. So far, there are I believe two from the vendor and the rest are pages from universities and colleges who appear to be customers. I do not believe this are sufficient to establish notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nuujinn and nom.4meter4 (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Charles Pierre (edit | talk | 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 WP:BLP, no claim of notability - being a professional in something is not inherently notable. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment someone competing at the fully professional level at a sport (i.e. the CFL) meets the threshold of notability for WP:ATHLETE, so there is a "claim of notability", although some sources are needed. kelapstick (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (creator) At the time of creating Pierre was fighting for a spot on the BC Lions' roster but ultimately got cut. Both the sources I used (both are linked in the external links and infobox) are now redirects so those are unavailable. Unless sources appear then I believe it should be deleted since he's never played professionally.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 13:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH. Userfy if Giants27 wants a copy. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:ATH and WP:Verifiability as he never played professionally. --DizFreak talk Contributions 10:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice to re-create. A quick search of google news shows a lot of references to his college career and--at first glance--the subject may well be notable under WP:GNG (general notability guidelines). While I'm not personally enthusiastic about fixing this article, someone else might. As the article stands now, it may as well be deleted. Were it to be improved, I would likely change my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete maybe notable when he dose play pro. But for now since he is just a free agent that has not played on a CFL team yet he fails WP:ATHLETE. But like the above comment no prejudice to re-create when he is more notable.Kyle1278 23:13, 29 March 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 00:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Justin Etzin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP without independent reliable sources, the article is mainly the work of WP:SPAs, it has been deleted once after userfication but was moved back without being improved as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 05:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 05:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Those SPA's are good at what they do then. I have gone in and added a bunch of sources, most of which are articles expressly about him. He's been doing his multiple entrepreneurial business thing for over ten years and gone through a ton of companies in the process until he hit onto something that worked. Must be nice to be the son of a rich family so you can just keep trying when your businesses fail. SilverserenC 05:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Score another rescue for SilverSeren. The guy doesn't actually seem all that accomplishful, but he IS famous, judging by all the coverage on numerous different occasions in major sources like the Mirror, the Telegraph, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1st Lt Harry Sutton (edit | talk | 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 WP:BIO requirements. A Google search confirms that Sutton's notability rests on an isolated incident that had no particular impact on a larger military conflict. Warrah (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - for a military bio to be notable based on awards, it would have to be for the award of the Medal of Honor or multiple awards of the Distinguished Service Cross (United States). See WP:MILPEOPLE. (GregJackP (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I had a search around and the best I could find was this [17]. I don't believe that this satisfies WP:GNG or WP:N. In terms of military personnel it doesn't satisfy WP:MILPEOPLE. If the creator can provide a few more sources and provide a positive statement as to what sets this officer apart, then I would consider changing my opinion but as it stands I don't believe the subject meets the current requirements for an article. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A Ghost Story of Joseon Dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Two sources cited, both effectively directories and neither reliable. The text gives no indication of significance. We already A7'd this once. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep A film directed by Shin Sang-ok is not "significant"? You've got to be kidding me. The KMdB "not reliable"? It's run by the South Korean government. Speedy close and nominator needs to learn something about Korean cinema before making such reckless AfDs. Article needs work. Dekkappai (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here is an article on the film at Cine21, KMdB lists a 2000 article in The Dong-a Ilbo related to the film (근대성의 유령들'/영화는 시대를 말한다 / 동아일보), and, obviously, there would have been press coverage in Korean papers in 1970 on a film by such a major director, but we don't have access to them... I'd do something on the article, but I'm busy on other projects, and, in a way, I'd almost like to see this go through as a delete so I can use it as a perfect example of the cultural myopia and bias with which the AfD process all too often helps infect Wikipedia... Dekkappai (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Keep A film by notable Korean filmmaker Shin Sang-ok is an assertion of notability for the film in this instance. Language difficulties underscore the systemic bias inherant in our trying to English-source a pre-internet Korean film directed by a notable Korean filmmaker. Searches are further confounded due to the film title having several different English translations, both "literal" and "phonetic". I note that even then, it does have a few genre English-reviews under Ghosts of Chosun and quite a bit more in the Korean language under 이조괴담. Best to get input from those able to translate those many results, rather that tossing the article becuase of WP:UNKNOWNHERE. The current title is the 1970 "informal title". I suggest the article be moved back to its original Ghosts of Chosun... the official (and somewhat more English-searchable) international title. Of further note, while the film had theatrical release in 1970, it had a television premiere in 2003... 33 years later. Someone in South Korea must have thought well enough of it to bring it back to life. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cherie Gil (edit | talk | 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 WP:BLP has two sources: a tabloid story about her separation, which is not biographical, and an IMDB profile, which is not a reliable source. The extent of coverage is exemplified by the sentence: "She performed the song "boy (i love you)". Year was forgotten." It either needs substantially more sources, or removal per policy on unsourced biographies. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for most Filipino Wikipedians, she is notable here in the Philippines and one of the best actresses of that country. She appeared many movies and TV shows of 40-year career. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 04:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —ApprenticeFan talk contribs 04:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep she is an actress who is somewhat popular and notable. Just improve the article and it will be just fine. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 05:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 05:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added a bunch of sources. That good enough? She is a rather popular actress both on screen and on stage and has starred in a number of roles, as her IMDB profile shows. SilverserenC 05:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep! More sources for the article, but she is the strong actress! - Gabby 13:22, 28 March 2010 (PST)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability in the Philippines is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. WP:UNKNOWNHERE is not a reason to delete. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She is a veteran Filipino actress. Mageclansoftheeast (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — plenty of references. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep Spending just a moment to click Google news search, I find 314 mentions of this person, and the summaries are clearly about her, she mentioned in the Filipino press a lot. Dream Focus 08:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CTA International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original nominator did not specify reason for deletion
- This article was under development when it was flagged for deletion. CTA International is a multi-national joint venture company that is supplying a new weapon technology to both UK and French armed forces. The article was flagged for deletion without any indication of the reason, which is unhelpful. I have been adding to the article and believe that we should keep, as I beleive it is notable, and is now linked to several other significant articles. welsh (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There is enough notible information here and the sources are also notible. ~ Joker264 (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - plenty of evidence of notability in GHits - the article does need to be worked on to show it however. (GregJackP (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 04:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 04:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added in a number of sources from my Google search. They seem to easily point to notability, from their coverage of the company. SilverserenC 04:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chaubunagungamaug Reservation (edit | talk | 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 seems there does no such reservation exist. A search in the Geographic Names Information System did not return any results, even when searching Chaubunagungamaug only. The first weblink does not consist of a reliable source, the second returns that the page does not exist. Therefor it might or might not be original research or whatsoever, however the article should be deleted. Matthiasb (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems that the reservation exists: see the mention in the Boston Globe. Do they write about a non-existent place? --Vejvančický (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...see also page 10 of this document, published by the U.S. National Park Service. The keyword is Nipmuc. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep see here, Indian Country Today, and articles in the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Worcester Telegram Gazette, Providence Journal, Hartford Courant, etc. (GregJackP (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep - It appears to be small, but several reliable newspapers have had articles about the place. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{subst:afdrescue}}
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 04:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added in the sources given here, along with others. The amount of coverage I found in a Google News Search] proved the notability of the subject. SilverserenC 04:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, [t]he keyword is Nipmuc does not qualify for an article Chaubunagungamaug Reservation. It might or might not be included in to the Nipmuc article, but as Chaubunagungamaug Reservation it qualifies as original research. Again: try to research the term in the GNIS. There does not exist such a geographical name, neither as a reserve nor as a political division formed for administrative purposes. The question isn't wether the name was mentioned in the press neither if it is notable, the article claims that such a reservation does exist. The GNIS does not know such a reservation – therefor it does not exist. The GNIS is mandatory concerning US geographic names, not what some activists told the press. --Matthiasb (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: Neither Indian Country Today claims that there exists a Chaubunagungamaug Reservation. --Matthiasb (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sources as follow:
- here "The Chaubunagungamaug (Webster, Massachusetts) have a privately owned ten acre reservation in northeast Connecticut."
- "in and around the Chaubunagungamaug Reservation of Webster, Massachusetts" Reservations:Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases. San Diego: ICON Group International. 2008. p. 173. ISBN 0-546-66259-5.
{{cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - "Chaubunagungamaug Reservation in Thompson, Connecticut and the Hassanamesit in Webster, Massachusetts" Ricky, Donald B. (1998). Encyclopedia of Pennsylvania Indians: A-Z. Somerset Publishers. p. 203.
{{cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - "on the Chaubunagungamaug reservation" "Indian 'Love' of the Land Still Florishes". Worcester Telegram Gazette. April 27, 1992.
- "during an outdoor rehearsal at the Chaubunagungamaug Reservation" "Members of Nipmuc Tribe Look to Keep Their Culture Alive". Boston Globe. June 6, 2009.
Obviously it exists, and is notable enough for inclusion. (GregJackP (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- It is needed to understand what an Indian reservation is. Since it the BIA did not recognize it, it does not exist whatever the Nipmuc are feeling it should be. If so the relevant information can be included into the Nipmuc article but there should not exist an article about a not existing reservation which is also wrongly categorized as a reservation. The article and it's categorization does imply for the reader that such a reservation does officially exists. It does not. (Needless to point out that Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases mentioned above is a self reference to wikipedia.) --Matthiasb (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- State may also have reservations - your reference is to a self-reference to Wikipedia - should we discount that? Or should we look at List of Indian reservations in the United States#State Designated American Indian Reservation? The later lists a dozen state recognized reservations. Just because the Federal Government does not recognize the tribe, that does not mean that the Nipmuc are no longer Indians, any more than the Menominee ceased to be Indians when the BIA terminated their tribal status in the 60's (their federal recognition was later restored). In Connecticut, state law has established Indian "reservations" for several tribes - not under federal jurisdiction, and not subject to BIA mis-management. (GregJackP (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Well, the article does not give a source that the State of Connecticut recognized th Chaubunagungamaug Reservation (not the capitalization!), this is not a discussion on the Nipmuc or the band of them which is partly described in the article. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Clearly exists. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep as per consensus, with no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ashram Chowk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prodded with the reason "Unnotable ring road junction, no evidence of notability", prod removed removed without reason so bringing here Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, there's certainly a large amount of things that happen at this intersection. SilverserenC 04:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets the general notability guideline. Even if the (now evolving) notability criteria for streets, roads and highways are considered, it meets the criteria for being a permanent place where significant news coverage is originating from. prashanthns (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - with its chronic traffic jams it gets non trivial coverage every week in Delhi media.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 17:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 17:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets the WP:GNG test of significant coverage in reliable sources. "Significant" and "reliable" are important adjectives, but they are elastic, and there is good reason to stretch them in cases of geographical landmarks where existence can easily be verified and controversial content is unlikely. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 87 results for Google news search when I click the thing at the top of this AFD. [18] Lot of traffic problems on that wicked distant road. People must be informed. Dream Focus 08:14, 31 March 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 IRC. Black Kite 22:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hostmask (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
this article, like Vhost_(IRC), makes no attempt to demonstrate notability. i don't think it ever will either. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge vhost into this - It would be quite possible to merge this and vhost (IRC), which this being I think the more relevant term. There's no reason to keep them separate, but there's enough going on here for an article. Shadowjams (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - and where is notability demonstrated? all i see are trivial mentions. this is not worthy of an article Theserialcomma (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge ... somewhere. Not standalone-article material at this point, but still useful and encyclopedic material. Technical information like this is usually easily sourced. Amalthea 08:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- i hate to be the one to wp:burden you, but where are these easily found sources? a vote with a fallacious argument isn't a very useful vote. merge somewhere? there are easily found sources but no one can find them? Theserialcomma (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Burden? What contentions material do you see in the article? That's what I meant with pure technical facts being easily sourced; I know very little about IRC concepts, but even I can vouch that most content in the article is true, and with established technical concepts there is little distance between truth and verifiability. It's not like this is a disputed or obscure topic, Wikimedia projects are directly describing hostmasks and cloaking of them at e.g. WP:IRC or meta:IRC/Cloaks, and fr-wiki, de-wiki, and it-wiki have a standalone article on the topic. Verifiability is in no way the problem here. And in any case, when you reply with WP:BURDEN, I'm not sure you tried sourcing it before nominating it, or considered a merge instead. A trivial google search would have left you with 15 books mentioning the concept.
Anyway, I've added some sources to this one. As I've said, I can agree that a standalone article is undue for this concept, and that it should be merged somewhere. I'm not sure about Vhost (IRC), personally I'd probably go up to IRC itself. But a complete deletion is overkill. Amalthea 11:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- oh, sorry. i guess you didn't see the part of wp:burden to which i was referring. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. the burden is on you to find reliable third party sources if you want this article kept. the onus is not on me to find sources that i cannot find. you've not satisfied wp:burden yet. requesting that this unnotable subject should be merged into another unnotable subject doesn't help anything. redirect it to IRC maybe. but "...merge into somewhere" - No. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again:
- Yes, you should attempt to look for sourcing before nominating an article for deletion.
- I've added four sources discussing and defining the topic. Do you require more?
- If I'm suggesting a merge, how would you place the burden on me to show notability of the topic? I haven't claimed that the topic was notable. I claim that the content is verifiable.
- Merging verifiable uncontentious content, even if it's not sourced with inline citations, is perfectly OK, while it's obviously preferable to have cited content.
- Amalthea 20:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- i don't know why you'd assume i didn't look for significant coverage in third party reliable sources. i didn't find any. neither did you. neither has anyone else. i'm not going to waste my time adding crap sources that do not demonstrate notability. this whole article should be represented in one sentence in IRC, but that's it. this is not a legitimate wikipedia article, and it never will be. all this merge talk is just filibustering to keep something that is unworthy. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you didn't look for sources because when I said that the encyclopedic material in the article was sourceable – no more, no less – you asked me to provide those sources and said that no one can find them, while they could be found by clicking on the "Books" link in your nomination.
But yet again, not once have I claimed the topic was notable, and I never sought to show it. My second sentence here began with "Not standalone-article material at this point". I'm not quite sure why you continue to argue with me of all people, a merge to IRC like I proposed will result in a redirect and a few-sentence summary of a hostmask there.
Amalthea 21:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- when i nominate something for AFD, the sole criterion is whether it passes notability. i don't care about verifiability. notability is the criterion for inclusion here. i won't waste my time adding trivial mentions to an article that will never be notable. so yes, you're right, i didn't look to add trivial mentions. i looked for widespread, third party, in depth coverage. i didn't find any. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you didn't look for sources because when I said that the encyclopedic material in the article was sourceable – no more, no less – you asked me to provide those sources and said that no one can find them, while they could be found by clicking on the "Books" link in your nomination.
- i don't know why you'd assume i didn't look for significant coverage in third party reliable sources. i didn't find any. neither did you. neither has anyone else. i'm not going to waste my time adding crap sources that do not demonstrate notability. this whole article should be represented in one sentence in IRC, but that's it. this is not a legitimate wikipedia article, and it never will be. all this merge talk is just filibustering to keep something that is unworthy. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again:
- oh, sorry. i guess you didn't see the part of wp:burden to which i was referring. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. the burden is on you to find reliable third party sources if you want this article kept. the onus is not on me to find sources that i cannot find. you've not satisfied wp:burden yet. requesting that this unnotable subject should be merged into another unnotable subject doesn't help anything. redirect it to IRC maybe. but "...merge into somewhere" - No. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Burden? What contentions material do you see in the article? That's what I meant with pure technical facts being easily sourced; I know very little about IRC concepts, but even I can vouch that most content in the article is true, and with established technical concepts there is little distance between truth and verifiability. It's not like this is a disputed or obscure topic, Wikimedia projects are directly describing hostmasks and cloaking of them at e.g. WP:IRC or meta:IRC/Cloaks, and fr-wiki, de-wiki, and it-wiki have a standalone article on the topic. Verifiability is in no way the problem here. And in any case, when you reply with WP:BURDEN, I'm not sure you tried sourcing it before nominating it, or considered a merge instead. A trivial google search would have left you with 15 books mentioning the concept.
- i hate to be the one to wp:burden you, but where are these easily found sources? a vote with a fallacious argument isn't a very useful vote. merge somewhere? there are easily found sources but no one can find them? Theserialcomma (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not notable unless good sources are found. If this technical information is easily sourced, please provide sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. Amalthea 11:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- merge as we customarily do. The idea that every concept or thing mentioned in a merged article must be notable is absurd, as long as it meets WP:V. WP:N is very explicitly not about content of articles, and it is hard to see how an encyclopedia could be written otherwise. It's like saying every word in a sentence must be a complete sentence by itself. I am a little surprised anyone could say it in good faith, if they've thought about it. It would imply that we could not say in the bio of a notable person what department of a college he majored in, because very few college departments are not notable, or that he served in X company in the army, because most such companies are not notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the idea that every article subject must be notable is not absurd. this article subject is not notable. if something is to be salvaged from this article which is verifiable, then do so. the article itself is not notable, so a merge vote without saying where to merge it is absurd Theserialcomma (talk) 02:23, 31 March 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 IRC. Black Kite 22:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Vhost (IRC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
this article makes no attempt to demonstrate notability, nor do i think the article topic ever could demonstrate notability through significant third party coverage in reliable sources Theserialcomma (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into hostmask. Shadowjams (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge ... somewhere. Not standalone-article material at this point, but still useful and encyclopedic material. Technical information like this is usually easily sourced. Amalthea 08:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into hostmask. TrbleClef ♮ (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not notable unless good sources are found. If this technical information is easily sourced, please provide sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you're referring to me I'll say it here for a third time: Verifiability of the concept or the material in this article is, I believe, not the problem. See google books for several hits on the topic (I haven't tested the quality of the hits though). Notability of this rather trivial concept on the other hand is, which is why a merge should at least be considered. IRC already has a few words on the concept though, so maybe this is enough. Amalthea 12:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. no one is doubting verifiability. this is about notability. the problem is that it's an non notable subject, and just like every non notable subject, it should be deleted. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is simply incorrect. Encyclopedic material is of course appropriate and desirable as part of notable articles. For some random example, we *encourage* editors to merge material of non-notable songs into the parent album articles, in WP:NSONGS. Nobody enforces deletion of material just because it fails the community's notability criteria for standalone articles. Amalthea 20:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- sorry, but on wikipedia we delete articles that aren't notable. this is policy. you can add the material you believe should be merged to a parent article now if you wish, but i'm concerned with deleting a non notable article. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If material from a non-notable topic is nonetheless noteworthy and improves another article on a notable topic then we merge, not delete. And what actually is policy (and copyright law) is that if anyone were to directly merge material from the article under discussion then that would prevent the revisions of this article from being deleted.
But this debate on principles is getting quite off-topic, I would suggest we continue this elsewhere, if you want. Amalthea 22:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If material from a non-notable topic is nonetheless noteworthy and improves another article on a notable topic then we merge, not delete. And what actually is policy (and copyright law) is that if anyone were to directly merge material from the article under discussion then that would prevent the revisions of this article from being deleted.
- sorry, but on wikipedia we delete articles that aren't notable. this is policy. you can add the material you believe should be merged to a parent article now if you wish, but i'm concerned with deleting a non notable article. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is simply incorrect. Encyclopedic material is of course appropriate and desirable as part of notable articles. For some random example, we *encourage* editors to merge material of non-notable songs into the parent album articles, in WP:NSONGS. Nobody enforces deletion of material just because it fails the community's notability criteria for standalone articles. Amalthea 20:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. no one is doubting verifiability. this is about notability. the problem is that it's an non notable subject, and just like every non notable subject, it should be deleted. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you're referring to me I'll say it here for a third time: Verifiability of the concept or the material in this article is, I believe, not the problem. See google books for several hits on the topic (I haven't tested the quality of the hits though). Notability of this rather trivial concept on the other hand is, which is why a merge should at least be considered. IRC already has a few words on the concept though, so maybe this is enough. Amalthea 12:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- merge as we customarily do. The idea that every concept or thing mentioned in a merged article must be notable is absurd, as long as it meets WP:V. WP:N is very explicitly not about content of articles, and it is hard to see how an encyclopedia could be written otherwise. It's like saying every word in a sentence must be a complete sentence by itself. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem is, virtual host is a general term, like virtual machine and virtual ip, and the merge proposal is to merge this into an article that is also proposed for deletion or merge into this article. If a merge is in order, perhaps to an article on IRC? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:30, 31 March 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 Housing at Georgetown University. Black Kite 23:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Darnall Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a building which does not contain either a claim to notability nor multiple, independent sources. An attempt was made to redirect the article to List of Georgetown University buildings, but this action was disputed. TM 18:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, User:Namiba, the action was disputed. Blanking a page and turning it into a redirect without any discussion or warning isn't the way to go about acting on Wikipedia, despite your best intentions. If its not libelous or copyvio, there's no reason to delete it without discussion. I think you should put the twenty or so articles that you've done this to back to the way they were, and take them through normal Wikipedia routes like this if you feel their topic is a problem for you. Somebody clearly wrote the article, so they probably have an opinion on it, even if you disagree.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 21:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The sort of routine local material used as references does not make the building notable--It's no more notable for having a Marriott carfteria than any Mariott cafeteria is notable. And it is being seriously proposed as being notable for not being known as the most sexually active dorm in the US? DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - If all of the material from all of the articles which Namiba has sent to AfD were to be added back to List of Georgetown University buildings, it would exceed the size guidelines. The quality of some of the content may need work, but the building is notable. Racepacket (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article is not sourced to any independent reliable sources. Thehoya.com sources are probably reliable, but not independent (not a nail in the coffin in my opinion), but they don't really feature the building, just the opening of a restaurant there. A Google search doesn't seem to turn up any independent and reliable sources. Overall, I do not see what makes this building notable. PDCook (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have added more references. This was an early women's dorm built at a time when women were not admitted into Georgetown's liberal arts programs. Hence, the building has a unique history. The Hoya is a reliable source, although some may claim it is local coverage. Racepacket (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not particularly swayed by the new refs. I'm sure The Hoya is reliable, but I'm not seeing much depth in the coverage of Darnall Hall. Maybe the building has a unique history, but until sources (preferably independent) write about it, it doesn't really warrant a page on Wikipedia. PDCook (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have added more references. This was an early women's dorm built at a time when women were not admitted into Georgetown's liberal arts programs. Hence, the building has a unique history. The Hoya is a reliable source, although some may claim it is local coverage. Racepacket (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Because of these AfDs, I've been looking into creating a "Georgetown University student housing" article, but after looking at those kind of articles from other universities, I feel that, for now, the two individual articles are best. However, User:Namiba, if this article isn't kept, I expect assistance in creating that article and merging this one into it. And a merge is not just a redirect.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong merge into a generic Georgetown housing article. There've been a lot of these coming up lately, and every residence hall at every university does not warrant an article of its own. However collectively, they do. Which is why merging into article pages specific to the university makes the most sense. Obviously there may be the odd exception, but none of the Keeps above are making that argument. They're instead arguing that this is somehow an obvious keep. That's simply not been the consensus on most residence hall articles. I'm of the opinion that merging into a university housing article (or something similar) by far is the most reasonable compromise (lots of efficiencies, usefulness to the reader; i've made this argument elsewhere if you're interested). Otherwise, we're doing this piecemeal and it turns out to be whoever looks at the AfD first... and we get inconsistent decisions. Shadowjams (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree wholeheartedly, Shadowjams. Consider List of University of Massachusetts Amherst residence halls; it is a well written and well maintained article encompassing all of the residence halls at a large university. Not only does it save time by not having to maintain multiple articles, but it follows the guidelines for Wikipedia. Ofcourse, notable dorms should have their own articles, but this is the exception and not the rule. I've merged (and not just redirected as some have contended) a good number of articles to their proper places. We should continue doing this after these AfDs have run their courses.--TM 12:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Aren't we over-reacting to User:Namiba? A logical path would be for Wikiproject Universities to establish some consensus on how to treat college residence halls. If a university has a responsible wikiproject working for comprehensive, well-sourced coverage and it results in individual articles on dorms by groups or individual buildings, we should welcome that. Just as some TV series have articles on individual episodes or characters. I think that the essay which discourages articles about college dorms was prompted by the fact that a lot of wikipedia contributors are college students and their first impulse is to create an article about something familiar to them (e.g., their dorm.) We need to distinguish between the poorly-researched impulsive dorm article and articles that result in an effort to cover a university in a comprehensive manner. If User:Namiba had not unilaterally launched this crusade (only a small portion of which was brought to AfD), we would not be in this mode. I have no problem with the current level of coverage of the Georgetown dormitories and do not see any benefit in regrouping them into a single "generic Georgetown housing article." Racepacket (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still a matter of coverage in reliable and independent sources. If a dorm is only briefly mentioned in school newspapers, I can't see how it warrants its own article. Grouping them together is a reasonable alternative to deletion. PDCook (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be very amenable to taking that issue to the University project. I actually thought of doing that earlier myself but hesitated because I wasn't sure the right place. Shadowjams (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A thread was already started about this. Input from others is most welcome. PDCook (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be very amenable to taking that issue to the University project. I actually thought of doing that earlier myself but hesitated because I wasn't sure the right place. Shadowjams (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still a matter of coverage in reliable and independent sources. If a dorm is only briefly mentioned in school newspapers, I can't see how it warrants its own article. Grouping them together is a reasonable alternative to deletion. PDCook (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Aren't we over-reacting to User:Namiba? A logical path would be for Wikiproject Universities to establish some consensus on how to treat college residence halls. If a university has a responsible wikiproject working for comprehensive, well-sourced coverage and it results in individual articles on dorms by groups or individual buildings, we should welcome that. Just as some TV series have articles on individual episodes or characters. I think that the essay which discourages articles about college dorms was prompted by the fact that a lot of wikipedia contributors are college students and their first impulse is to create an article about something familiar to them (e.g., their dorm.) We need to distinguish between the poorly-researched impulsive dorm article and articles that result in an effort to cover a university in a comprehensive manner. If User:Namiba had not unilaterally launched this crusade (only a small portion of which was brought to AfD), we would not be in this mode. I have no problem with the current level of coverage of the Georgetown dormitories and do not see any benefit in regrouping them into a single "generic Georgetown housing article." Racepacket (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, back to the topic of merging. The point I'd like to make is that we'd be "merging" this article into a currently non-existent article named something like "List of Georgetown University residence halls". Until that article is created, I feel its better to keep this one around. Otherwise its more like just renaming this article, which isn't actually the worst option.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No claim to notability, let alone evidence of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No arguments to keep. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Amber in Her Eyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsigned band that fails WP:BAND. They seem to have a large following, but the only links I can find are MySpace, Facebook and YouTube pages. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN band, no G News hits. CTJF83 chat 19:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Flush Absolutely no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom (GregJackP (talk) 01:44, 27 March 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) 10:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yuva School of Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable organization fails criteria for WP:ORG. No independent references provided and none found on search. "Success Story" section suggesting significant recognition and coverage would appear disingenuous, if not entirely false. — CactusWriter | needles 17:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | needles 17:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | needles 17:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hasn't this same article been deleted before? In any event, not notable. (GregJackP (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete, blatant and meaningless spam: The institute's bold identity is defined by giving a new dimension to the existing stereotyped teaching style.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the page is a terrible mess but that is a matter for sourcing and editing. Plenty of sources are available to verify the college's existence and status. As a degree awarding institution it should be kept. TerriersFan (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Stubbed the article. It was an infodump from the official website. No coverage in RS except in directories and self published facebook and linkedin pages. Proof for existence is barely there.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I verified it by searches online, but the online sources are quite skimpy and of the directory or mirror variety. I'll change my mind if better paper sources are added. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It exists, but is not notable. --Bejnar (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I love their address:
- YSM - Paradise Plaza, 2nd Floor
- Kadbi Chowk, Kamptee Road
- Besides HP Petrol pump
- Mecosabagh Nagpur,India
- I love their address:
- delete I would normally say, a degree granting college and therefore intrinsically notable. But I cannot find any actual information. Furthermore, the wikimapia link from google [wikimapia.org/12708366/Yuva-School-Of-MAnagement ] says "This place was deleted, it will be removed from all search engines in few weeks." I conclude there is no evidence of its real existence as an actual institution of higher education that actually grants degrees. TerriersFan, what evidence do you have that it has student & faculty? DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 28 March 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 02:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- J.A.T.D.Nishantha (edit | talk | 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 any evidence of notability for this supposed university professor. Fails WP:GNG test. No citations found on google scholar, so fails WP:ACADEMIC as well. PROD contested. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 15:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No references in article, no citations found on GS, fails WP:PROF, WP:BLP. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 09:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence presented that he meets WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Article cannot be kept in its present state, but he has appeared on the cover of Newsweek [19]. Abductive (reasoning) 09:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There does seem to be a lack of evidence. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:17, 31 March 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) 10:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe Hahn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Member of a notable music group who has not achieved his own notability outside of that group. While he has worked professionally outside of the group, taken on its own it is not enough to pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy redirect to Linkin Park. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my experience, redirects of this group's members' articles are promptly reverted until there's been an AFD. TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, school them on WP:EW. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It takes two to edit war! ;) Zagalejo^^^ 08:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, school them on WP:EW. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my experience, redirects of this group's members' articles are promptly reverted until there's been an AFD. TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to pass the GNG. There's this, this, this, and this. He also has a profile here. And if this article is correct, he was on the cover of KoreAm Journal in 2003. (Can anyone confirm?) The page does need some serious cleanup; I'll try to do some of that soon. Zagalejo^^^ 08:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Every instance is "Linkin Park DJ..." and in many cases it's about his aspirations to work in film, not about something he's actually done. In the 2nd link, despite the headline, less than a quarter of the article is about Hahn directing, and even then most of that is about a music video he directed for the band. Any of those links would be a great reference to add to the Linkin Park article but I don't see that it shows Hahn's notability outside of the group. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, his short film The Seed is a finished product. You can watch it online. But anyway, I don't see why he has to have notability outside of the band, as long as we have enough to say about him. Details about his early years and education (such as those available here and elsewhere) are difficult to incorporate into an article on the band. Factoring in the info on his short film work, toy designs, and Hollywood aspirations, I think an independent article, even if it's only a couple of paragraphs, may be the best route here. Zagalejo^^^ 03:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Every instance is "Linkin Park DJ..." and in many cases it's about his aspirations to work in film, not about something he's actually done. In the 2nd link, despite the headline, less than a quarter of the article is about Hahn directing, and even then most of that is about a music video he directed for the band. Any of those links would be a great reference to add to the Linkin Park article but I don't see that it shows Hahn's notability outside of the group. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sources exist, per above. fetchcomms☛ 02:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 04:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 04:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Zagalejo's points above, it is quite obvious that he is notable independent of the band. He has accomplished enough outside deeds that are noted in the references. SilverserenC 04:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of coverage from MTV. Str8cash (talk) 05:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep I added his IMDB. I know some idiots will discredit IMDB, but he does have credits outside of the band. I also sourced that he has directed videos for bands other than Linkin Park. He also has appeared in multiple bands--side project bands that themselves have been successful and notable, another passage of WP:MUSICBIO. This is a no-brainer.Trackinfo (talk) 20:45, 28 March 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 Larry Page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lucinda Southworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Why should Southworth have an article based on the reasoning that she is the wife of a billionaire(Larry Page)? Un-notable. She hasn't even done anything 'important', other than marry Larry Page, of course. BejinhanTalk 12:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Larry Page. She is clearly a remarkable woman (Stanford Ph.D.), but she has not achieved notability for anything other than marrying Page. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 03:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue and also added in two new EL's. SilverserenC 03:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Larry Page per MelanieN. I see no sign that she passes WP:PROF or has any other independent notability, and notability is not inherited. But a merge and a redirect are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Redirect to Larry Page. Deletion would inconvenience the thousands of readers who look at her article each month. Abductive (reasoning) 09:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Concur with the above reasoned arguments. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge. As above. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Farewell (band). Black Kite 22:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't This Supposed to Be Fun!? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Already deleted twice (AfD, then db-spam) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: So apparently it keeps being recreated because people don't understand why it doesn't exist? Suggests to me that its better to keep the article, or simply include the track listing for the band's releases on the band page.--Milowent (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Début album by a notable band. IJA (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with band or delete. (GregJackP (talk) 01:50, 27 March 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) 10:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- GoMyPlace (edit | talk | 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. DimaG (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete latest version came out 3+ years ago and that version has under 1000 downloads. Total downloads is under 3,000.[20] Far from notable. --ZacBowling (user|talk) 22:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable per ZacBowling Acebulf (talk) 20:28, 27 March 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) 10:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sirius Backstage (edit | talk | 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 online forum. Ridernyc (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete insufficient evidence of notability. Mukadderat (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No one can care enough to argue for a keep. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:03, 27 March 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) 10:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tom Woolard (edit | talk | 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:ATH and WP:GNG - no evidence of having played in fully professional league Steve-Ho (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Fails inclusion criteria for athletes (WP:ATH) and the general inclusion criteria (WP:N). --217.43.246.210 (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails ATHLETE having not played at required level, fails GNG with no in depth coverage, merely passing mention in routine sports coverage--ClubOranjeT 10:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Altan concert tours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is pure WP:FANCRUFT. It cites no sources and therefore fails WP:RS. Wiki is neither an indiscriminate collection of information nor a directory, and something merely being true - in this case that Altan put on these shows - is not enough to warrant inclusion. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the wikipedia article Altan concert tours is a relevant and useful article such as Rolling Stones concerts, List of The Beatles' live performances or Paul McCartney's concert tours articles and many other articles about other artists' concert tours ! Altan is a famous irish traditional music band who deserves such article! I spent hours to build this Altan concert tours article: it would be unfair to delete it! Lurulu (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This isn't a fan site. We have criteria for what should and should not be included. As a side note, I see that you also created Capercaillie concert tours, which was deleted. It's the same thing here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Info can easily be found elsewhere. Airplaneman talk 19:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No : Info CANNOT easily be found elsewhere! Lurulu (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Save it for the fanwank. I mean, fansites. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per "Thou shalt not tolerate an Inclusionist to include worthless screed, lest we become a Uncyclopedia." (GregJackP (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- This is not helpful at all, I suggest you refactor your comments. It is inappropriate to disparage those that have a different view than you personally do. Okip 03:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it help if I linked to the site I pulled the quote from? It is from a humorous article on Wikimedia about deletionists. It was not intended to offend, I thought it was humorous. In any event, the article should go. (GregJackP (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- This is not helpful at all, I suggest you refactor your comments. It is inappropriate to disparage those that have a different view than you personally do. Okip 03:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Altan is a major band. This article is a spinoff from the main article section Altan (band)#Tours and so the worst case is that we'd just merge back into that section. But this would not be sensible as their extensive touring makes the schedule somewhat lengthy and it seems reasoble to have it as an appendix. The tours are covered in numerous sources and referencing these is just a matter of routine article improvement in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: But just because the band is notable doesn't mean that all of their tours are also inherently notable. And just because it's verifiable that they went on tour doesn't necessarily mean it gets included. Why do we need a listing of every single show the band ever played? Isn't that what the band's website - or some other third party website - is for? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All our content is based upon material found elsewhere - this is an essential consequence of our core policy WP:NOR. Your argument is therefore contrary to this core policy and so is invalid. Moeover, touring is a fundamental part of the work of such a band as it consumes much of their effort and provides much of their revenue. The composition of the band and their repertoire during these tours will naturally be a significant part of their history and so deleting this completely is not sensible. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A band this notable has its tours get mentioned in the news media, obviously. The Google News search at the top of the AFD, will show over a thousand results for "Altan" and "tour". [21] These articles talk about various tours they have been on. You can search for the country "Japan" to learn about their Japanese tours, and so on. This is perfectly encyclopedic content, and it wouldn't all fit in the main article for the band, so best to put it in a side article here. Once more we have rude deletionists not bothering to take a few moments to even look for reliable sources, just declaring at a glance something is worthless, stating it should be deleted, and then rampaging off to another article to do the same. Dream Focus 02:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: On WP:NMG, it says that "Concert tours are notable if they have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources which merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability." Just because there are sources to show that the band went on tour a bunch of times does not mean that there should be a list article that lists every single show the band ever played. This isn't a fansite, it's an encyclopedia. But you're right that there are sources, but their tours would be better summarized on the Altan article in the Tours section. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the Washington Post article titled "At Wolf Trap, Altan Wraps U.S. Tour With a Flourish". A major newspaper calling it a flourish [22] would certainly make it notable. They played at Harvard university to great reviews. If you only mention the tours that got great reviews, and that was a fair number of them, too much to fit well on the main page, would you be against this page existing? Dream Focus 04:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In the ideal world, this article would really just be a top-level list of tours, and each tour would have its own article complete with background, development, response, reception, that sort of thing. In that way, the articles themselves assert their notability, and this page is a wrapper for all of them. But assuming an unideal world, I would want this article to be more than just a set of tour dates. Merely being a list of tour dates is just unacceptable to me, as I think it violates WP:NOTDIR. And again, I'm not saying that there isn't valuable information out there, and I would definitely want to include it where it's appropriate. The article you mentioned above would be more at home as a paragraph in Altan (band)#Tours. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the Washington Post article titled "At Wolf Trap, Altan Wraps U.S. Tour With a Flourish". A major newspaper calling it a flourish [22] would certainly make it notable. They played at Harvard university to great reviews. If you only mention the tours that got great reviews, and that was a fair number of them, too much to fit well on the main page, would you be against this page existing? Dream Focus 04:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: On WP:NMG, it says that "Concert tours are notable if they have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources which merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability." Just because there are sources to show that the band went on tour a bunch of times does not mean that there should be a list article that lists every single show the band ever played. This isn't a fansite, it's an encyclopedia. But you're right that there are sources, but their tours would be better summarized on the Altan article in the Tours section. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete: the only real source so far is http://www.mfyi.com/a/altantourography.html which either means the page is redundant to that (in which case, yes the information can be found elsewhere) or it fails WP:V. Cites or it didn't happen (i.e., either fix it, or scrap it). --Geoff Capp (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the list is not the subject of any reliable, third party sources in accordance with WP:BURDEN. There needs to be reliable form of external validation to provide a rationale for inclusion, otherwise this list fails WP:NOT#DIR. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The aforementioned page http://www.mfyi.com/a/altantourography.html may disappear some day ! Besides, it's not complete: it doesn't list all Altan tours dates!!! Lurulu (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Lurulu (talk · contribs) previously left a comment at 21:56 on 12 March 2010. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- David Saintloth (edit | talk | 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) 01:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I work in the IT industry in NYC and I saw this person actually speak at several start up events, the references and external links point to a compliment of activity as well related to software and the startup he runs. It thus stands up to wikipedia publishing policy. I think for those reasons it should stay...if all new entries are deleted so early in their create stage how do they ever get to grow? 24.189.131.99 (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC) — 24.189.131.99 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment – Please review WP:BIO and reliable sources and advise how this article meets the criteria for notability and is supported by reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with the other poster, I have read many of the blog posts on software design and signed up for beta of the startup. He is notable enough to me, I don't think this profile violates wikipedia rules so it should stay.Imomeena (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC) — Imomeena (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment – Please review WP:BIO and reliable sources and advise how this article meets the criteria for notability and is supported by reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The gist of his claim seems to be that he has a blog (like perhaps tens of millions of people worldwide) and that is an officer at a business and a think tank. Those entities don't seem to be notable (they lack their own articles and lack significant coverage), so it's hard to see notability deriving from that. We don't have anything here from independent sources of awards, accomplishments, remarkable financial success. Merely being an officer in a business is not enough. And speaking at some identified event doesn't confer notability either. --JamesAM (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete What I see by searching is someone who is active in blogs and web communities, but the only possibly notable reference I can find is one patent, and that alone isn't really enough -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I didn't comment on this first time round because it was such an obvious "delete". I don't understand why this had to be relisted, as the "keep" opinions above say nothing about how this might meet Wikipedia standards. Since when was being seen to "actually speak" a reason for anyone to have an encyclopedia article written about them? I have also "actually spoken" at IT industry events, but that doesn't make me notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 28 March 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) 10:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Paper Tree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reads like an advertisement. Makes numerous claims which are not backed up with references. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. No indication that it's anything other than just another office supply store. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not a lot to indicate notability, in my opinion. The only reference is a very close to the company line article. If this is to survive, it will need more, and more independent sounding. Peridon (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as no changes made to establish notability (see Comment above). Peridon (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete though it may be improved with additional references, the company itself doesn't seem to be notable. If it is kept, it should be written from a neutral point of view. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:23, 29 March 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. definitely a consensus now, especiailly based on notability and sources JForget 02:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Susie Frazier Mueller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet notability guidelines. Written by a single purpose account who appears to be the person (see copyright claim on images). Written like an advertisement so I believe there is a COI. I couldn't find any source looking around on any of this material in this article except the civic contributions. Husband's page was created shortly after this by another single purpose account, which was quickly speedy deleted. ZacBowling (user|talk) 20:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 01:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have listed the article for rescue. I have also added a number of notable external links that now need to be worked into the article. There were many more besides just these on Google. She appears to be rather notable, per WP:BLP. SilverserenC 01:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't able to find all but just a few sources, but if you can find anything, great! I've been watching this page since it was created when I was new page patrol and seen the her husbands page get created shortly after of this one. I spent a good deal of time attempting to find sources and I only found one reference in major magazine, her web page, and some random mentions of her name in google and I've seen get BLP articles die for having 3x as much. Might be wrong but following the process. --ZacBowling (user|talk) 21:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also most of it like I said above can only sourced by self published content. Per WP:SELFPUB the only thing that I could leave if I tried to source everything would be civic contributions maybe. --ZacBowling (user|talk) 21:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Life" section will probably need to end up being removed, unless sources are found to verify some of it. But the Backstage reference goes a long way toward confirming her other stuff. SilverserenC 21:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough :-) --ZacBowling (user|talk) 23:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Check out http://www.susiefrazierart.com/media.html for some sources. Ty 03:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough :-) --ZacBowling (user|talk) 23:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Life" section will probably need to end up being removed, unless sources are found to verify some of it. But the Backstage reference goes a long way toward confirming her other stuff. SilverserenC 21:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep per council of mayors award, i added some refs, but it's hard to find good refs, in the marketing material. Pohick2 (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The award was not to her but to the city oif Cleveland, and was given to the mayor, and was not even a first place in the competition. The article given for documentation does not mention her. [23]. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, okay, so you explained how the award doesn't count. What about all of the other sources? SilverserenC 05:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The number of reliable sources points to her notability. SilverserenC 05:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — As per Silver above, there are a good number of inline independent references indicating notability. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sufficient sources for WP:N. Ty 15:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems viable ...Modernist (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see more sources on Altavista and Compuserve. Google isn't the only search engine and we shouldn't rely on it alone. She may be local to Cleveland but she is definitely notable as an artist. If it looks like an ad or from the person involved, fix it instead of deleting it. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 05:25, 30 March 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) 10:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Beckett 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)
Created this article in January 2008. While it has some content, almost all of the sourcing is from press releases, showing little actual verifiable notability for the company, despite its claim at being a "leading authority on sports memorabilia cards". It was tagged for CSD as spam/advertisement, which was addressed on the talk page and a notability tag added instead. Since that time, all the coverage I've been able to find continues to be press releases and random quotes from Beckett employees in articles about sports card. As such, it continues to fails WP:COMPANY and I am prodding it as it is not CSD eligible as author deletion as others have done at least some minor edits to it. Was prodded but an IP that likely heralds from Beckett Media itself, considering it geolocates to them,[24] requested it be undeleted at WP:UNDELETE and so an admin restored. Their reason was "Anyone who knows anything about sports cards and memorabilia knows the place that Beckett holds in the hobby -- and that's just one part of Beckett Media's publishing scope. While the page was out of date, it is a privately owned company so much of the information sought wouldn't be public knowledge, anyway. Today, beckett publishes countless magazines every month, all of which can be seen at store.beckett.com" - which is of course no reason to undelete it. The company still has no actual notability beyond its own publicity from press releases and its employees occasionally being quoted during interviews about sports stuff. If all primary sources were removed, it would have no real content at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A discussion about deleting this entry because of irrelevance is preposterous. The company publishes nearly 40 magazine issues a year on trading cards alone -- as well as several books every year, too. You can walk into any card shop or Walmart in America and find a Beckett magazine (or two or three) and those facts say more than any link from any source would. There is NO other company that covers sports cards and memorabilia to that degree and Beckett has been around for 30-plus years. If you read what is on the Beckett Media entry, what is outlandish that it's credibility is questioned? Facts are stated -- not sales pitch. This wreaks of some wanting to have fun with the image of a company by suggesting deletion based on press release mongering and irrelevance that aren't seen in that entry. The fact that a blog with just a dozen followers is writing a "story" about it -- http://www.sportscardreport.info/2010/03/award-winning-wikipedia-contributor.html -- just reinforces this. Just because some story can't be found online doesn't mean something doesn't exist or isn't relevant. If Beckett is a privately owned company, a LOT of the info about it will never be made public.
- Better yet, ok, so you can only find quotes from editors or whomever talking about sports content in stories. Why would they call them? Why would the NY Times call for this story? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/technology/09topps.html They call them because they're the leading media publisher on the subject. Why would ESPN have their editorial director writing items about cards for it? http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hackler/100317
- In addition, the founder of the company has a wikipedia page which has plenty of known information -- but only a pair of citations. If it were all irrelevant why would Beckett -- and its founder -- have had wiki pages for years? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Beckett
- It's also worth noting that Beckett's only competition in the card publishing area, a monthly magazine called Tuff Stuff (which is actually out of date) has a page as well. And it's got a whopping two citations -- both of which are self-generated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuff_Stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.59.30 (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you appear to be a newer editor, I'd recommend reading Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD, as your current argument appears to primarily consist of your liking the company. Might I also recommend you actually make yourself knowledgeable about the events around this article's deletion before making such (hopefully unintentionally) insulting statements? I am not some "blogger", I'm the one who created and wrote the Beckett Media article originally, and I am the one who prodded it. It has nothing to do with "having fun" with Beckett, nor is a company's "image" at all relevant to a Wikipedia notability discussion. The number of magazines it publishes also does not make it notable, nor does its years in business. Wikipedia requires verifiability and notability for its articles on companies. Basically, there MUST be significant coverage of this company reliable, third-party sources, not just its own press releases, backing up any claims of notability. Beckett being a private company is irrelevant. Many private companies are notable and have coverage in third-party sources. As for some random blog posting about its being deleted, considering the incorrect statements made in the post( and that it is someone's personal blog, I fail to see how it is relevant. (I also note you failed to mention the post that was its source, which called the Beckett article spammy...even if he incorrectly stated that the article was Beckett spam). As the article creator, I'm the one who originally prodded it after two years of trying to establish real notability for the company, not just repeating its press releases. It was deleted per Wikipedia guidelines as no one objected. That you came after it was deleted and then objected, meant it was restored and now must go through AfD where, obviously I hope it will be deleted again. Also, considering where your IP resolves to, I'd ask that you please honestly disclose any connection you yourself have to Beckett. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a really difficult one to decide, because at face value it seems like a straightforward keep. WP:COMPANY, however, states that for an organization to be notable, it must "be the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." I have looked at the sources in the article and other sources online, and it is clear that Beckett Media is very, very rarely the subject of the articles. It is certainly mentioned from time to time and some of its employees are quoted, but the sources themselves are almost always about some other subject. I can't, based on this evidence conclude that the article is notable if the guideline is applied as it currently defines notability for organizations. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Searched for this on Google News, and though a lot of press releases and such showed up, I found some interesting hits nonetheless: [25] (already used as a source, but it appears to be a useful one), [26] (looks like reasonably substantial coverage to me), [27] (not as substantial as the above two, but proof that their sale was mentioned in something other than a press release), [28] (not sure of the reliablity or how much is on Beckett's, but worth throwing out there), [29] (little something on the demise of a magazine of theirs). Overall, I think these links are just enough to get the article over the notability hump, though the number of primary sources and press releases used should be lowered. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Giants2008 has it, I think - there appear to be sources that show notability. I do find the lack of coverage surprising, though, given the importance of the beckett lists in the industry, but there's enough to pass notability - barely. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As luck would have it, I ran into this excerpt of a recently published book on the history of baseball cards after commenting above. While perhaps not substantial coverage, the book (which I purchased) does have some info on Beckett's background and place in the industry, not all of which is in the excerpt; the relevant part is 2+ pages. I'll add some bits from it later, but more importantly for AfD purposes, the book lists its sources, and among them is an August 5, 1991 Sporting News article titled "Beckett helping guide sports card industry". If someone could find this, it may further strengthen the case for this article; unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be freely avaliable online. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There seem to be enough sources to justify keeping this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Housing at the University of Chicago. That should satisfy most people here. Can be spun off again per WP:SS if more sources are found that allow writing a separate article. Sandstein 14:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Woodward Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a building which does not contain either a claim to notability nor multiple, independent sources. TM 21:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination; no evidence given that this dorm was special to anyone but its residents. --Closeapple (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete The article seems a little WP:CRUFTy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's an y Eero Saarinen building. all of his major buildings are notable, as for the major works or anyone famous in the arts, and can be documented fully from sources about his work. (Note that I said famous, not just any notable architect). ` DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every work of a famous person meets Wikipedia:Notability "significant coverage" merely for being listed or mentioned in passing repeatedly. Is Woodward Court discussed in detail in multiple publications? Or are there reliable sources that this work substantially added to Saarinen's notability or featured some innovation in Saarinsen's career? --Closeapple (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - added reference to "Chicago's Famous Buildings: Fifth Edition by Franz Schulze and Kevin Harrington" Racepacket (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So notability of buildings is inherited through the architect and WP:GNG no longer applies to all buildings by famous architects?--TM 14:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- However, Chicago's Famous Buildings (at least the cited part) appears to mention Woodward only in passing in a section about the University of Chicago itself in a University of Chicago Press book. WP:LOCAL may be applicable here. --Closeapple (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only a weak claim to notability, and no evidence of it. If the building has some architectural merit, give it a brief mention in a broader article on the university. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm not sure this dorm, which I think the university viewed as a mistake, deserves a standalone article. I don't recall any complaints when they tore it down. And I'm not finding anything substantive to base an article on in Google News or Scholar. Speciate (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is a building by a famous architect that the university nonetheless decided t tear down--and I rather agree with them, based on the information in the article==this make it more, not less notable. Every major work of a famous artist is notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At the risk of starting a circular argument, how is a "major work of a famous artist? defined, apart from reliable sources saying it is? (GNG?). Nuttah (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is a building by a famous architect that the university nonetheless decided t tear down--and I rather agree with them, based on the information in the article==this make it more, not less notable. Every major work of a famous artist is notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I've incorporated this content into Housing at the University of Chicago, and along with many of the others, I think Redirect (merge completed) is the most sensible action. Shadowjams (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect I like that solution for this borderline case. There's not much here to indicate notability other than DGG's argument that this is a major (six buildings should qualify) work by a notable architect.--Chaser (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rod (cryptozoology and ufology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Questionable sourcing at best — self published "sightings" and nothing more, except an opinion piece from About.com, an episode of a TV show, and a bunch of otherwise SPSes. Has this crap really hung around since way the heck back in 2002? That's the stone age in Wikipedia terms. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This bit of cryptozoology has become relevant through its coverage on TV and on the Internet. The SPSes here are used not as a source of true information about "rods", rather, they are used as sources of information about themselves, in accordance with WP:SELFPUB. The descriptions of the attempts at debunking of interpretations of rods as something other than camera artifacts is useful and is a good example of criticism of extraordinary claims. Gary (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep- I'm actually pretty amazed that this would get nominated. This is a well known "phenomena" covered in newspapers, magazines, books, tv and just about every other source you could imagine. It's not exactly a poorly written article as it is better than the majority of wikipedia articles and it even has a relevant picture that I assume was uploaded just for this page. The sourcing, which could use improvement, is still better than the majority of short Wikipedia articles. So yeah, I have no idea where the nominating editor is coming from. BrendanFrye (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, maybe that it's been tagged for having inappropriate sources since 2008, and I couldn't find any decent ones on my own? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, by 2008 do you mean September 2009, that's quite a ways away from 2008? Also, it's not like there are no sources, it's just that the sources aren't as good as they are in other articles. Well this is an article about cryptozoology, the sources aren't going to be as well respected as say, an article on the Large Hadron Collider. I could point you to a dozen articles on my watchlist that are much, much worse than this. BrendanFrye (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is basically what you're saying. The fact that "worse articles exist" is totally immaterial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that wasn't everything I said and it certainly wasn't the crux of my argument. Also, where did you get that quote from? I'll try again, it's not like there are no sources, it's just that the sources aren't as good as they are in other articles. Well this is an article about cryptozoology, the sources aren't going to be as well respected as say, an article on the Large Hadron Collider. BrendanFrye (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll cite policy as well, "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. For example, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. By parity of sources critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability policy is not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory.
- Ok, that wasn't everything I said and it certainly wasn't the crux of my argument. Also, where did you get that quote from? I'll try again, it's not like there are no sources, it's just that the sources aren't as good as they are in other articles. Well this is an article about cryptozoology, the sources aren't going to be as well respected as say, an article on the Large Hadron Collider. BrendanFrye (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is basically what you're saying. The fact that "worse articles exist" is totally immaterial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia." BrendanFrye (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly a notable topic since it has been covered in mainstream sources. Article could be improved but even as it is it gives good information. Borock (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Trim - The Straight Dope is a WP:RS, if I recall correctly. Parity yes, but so many unreliable sources saying the same thing aren't needed. Trim it down to one or two, at most. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - yes, it's crap, but it's notable crap. The Straight Dope is reliable, as is The Sun. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of whether The Sun is reliable, I have rewritten that sentence and changed the source to the original video from the BBC. Gary (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Bearian said it: it's crap, but it's notable crap. Antichris (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notability is substantial, and more than enough to justify keeping. Dyanega (talk) 16:46, 31 March 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) 10:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ConFuzzled (edit | talk | 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 cannot find any reliable, independent sources about this convention and none are given in the article. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." and the general notability guideline" states that a to have a stand alone article a topic should have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". Without third party sources it will not be possible to write a high quality, neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia article on the topic. Guest9999 (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no coverage about this convention in reliable sources to establish ntoability -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Poorly formatted, no non-trivial sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been improved since this AfD began. -- Soir (say hi) 19:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. ConFuzzled is a small event which has to date only attracted brief news articles in fandom-specific news sources – and a sidebar mention (p3) in a feature in Sugar. While not primary sources, these contain little more than attendance figures, location and a summary of events and guests; insufficient material for a full article. The event is appropriately covered in List of furry conventions, for now. GreenReaper (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if Flayrah is a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy but all the articles that you link to above that they host are taken directly from WikiFur News an open to edit wiki. Looking at the Wiki articles themselves all the information is taken from primary sources such as the official website and unreliable sources such as forums. Guest9999 (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, and that's what secondary sources do: draw from primary sources that they have evaluated for reliability. Unlike Wikipedia editors, they have the ability to do so - and I trust both more than Sugar, given that that they made up some of their quotes. Print isn't always the gold standard. But in this particular case neither is a useful source to base an article on, because they just don't contain sufficient information about the topic. GreenReaper (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In this instance the secondary source (WikiFur News) is an open wiki like Wikipedia - anyone can edit it without evaluating the reliability of their sources. If a website published a word for word reprint of a Wikipedia article it probably wouldn't be considered a reliable source. Guest9999 (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WikiFur News articles had higher levels of scrutiny and were reviewed before publication, similar to Wikinews. It was actually one up on Wikinews with respect to its use of inline citations. You're welcome to review the archives for yourself (click "Read more" for full details and citations). ConFuzzled's relatively brief coverage compared to articles WikiFur News editors contributed to Wikinews for Further Confusion and Anthrocon might indicate its perceived importance. GreenReaper (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no doubt that WikiFur News is has dedicated editors who are capable of producing high quality content. So does Wikipedia but even the best featured article would not be considered a reliable source. WikiNews is also a wiki that anyone can contribute to and is also not a reliable source. Guest9999 (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WikiFur News articles had higher levels of scrutiny and were reviewed before publication, similar to Wikinews. It was actually one up on Wikinews with respect to its use of inline citations. You're welcome to review the archives for yourself (click "Read more" for full details and citations). ConFuzzled's relatively brief coverage compared to articles WikiFur News editors contributed to Wikinews for Further Confusion and Anthrocon might indicate its perceived importance. GreenReaper (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In this instance the secondary source (WikiFur News) is an open wiki like Wikipedia - anyone can edit it without evaluating the reliability of their sources. If a website published a word for word reprint of a Wikipedia article it probably wouldn't be considered a reliable source. Guest9999 (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It has a third-party primary source outside its interest group ([30]), several unaffiliated secondary sources within (WikiFur News/Flayrah, as per GreenReaper; also Furtean Times [31]), and some natural WP:SELFPUB if any is needed [32]. Hardly a mainstream press selection, but certainly enough for an article in the area of furry conventions outside the US. Compare with RBW UK. As far as general notability (WP:GNG) is concerned, secondary sources are enough; even preferred. Additionally, verifiability is article content policy, rather than a single basis for deletion. Improvement would be nice, though - but then no Wikipedia article is a final draft. -- Soir (say hi) 23:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again WikiFur News is an open to edit wiki. It should not be considered a reliable source. The general notability guideline requires significant coverage by independent, reliable sources, the article in the Manchester Confidential - if that can be considered a reliable source - does not even mention the name "ConFuzzled" and heavily quotes a Wikipedia article. The Furtean Times is a former fanzine and current open to edit fan network - again unlikely to reliable, even if the link you provided gave any information about the convention which it doesn't. Guest9999 (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking up, Wikipedia articles are not usable due to their encyclopedic (tertiary source) and self-referential nature. Flayrah is not Wikipedia, giving news as a secondary source with appropriate editorial oversight. Wikis are not per WP:RS, but a Flayrah article that began on WikiFur News is not necessarily unreliable just because of where it began. As for the Furtean Times link, the entire issue is focused on ConFuzzled with specific articles like so: [33] [34]. (Here, opinion comes with reported facts; dates, events, attendance figures are noted and can likely be corroborated by other sources. There is scope to write about critical reception that year, from in and out of furry interest.) Indeed, furry news and events are niche, but Wikipedia is not paper and quite free to accommodate. Again, cleanup and improve to accompany RBW UK as informative, with contextual sources. -- Soir (say hi) 03:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for providing the further links to the Furtean Times, however it still advertises itself as "an open to edit fan network" and I cannot find anything to suggest it has the reputation for fact checking and accuracy that would make it a reliable source. The same could be said of Flayrah which seems to effectively be a personal website. I don't think the status of RBW UK is really relevant to this discussion - it is a different article for a different event - but for what it's worth the current article only gives an open wiki (WikiFur) and a blog post (LiveJournal) as sources. Guest9999 (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Furtean Times links show an editorial issue, not freely editable. Flayrah is a news site, not a personal web page, and has furry interest news articles on it [35] - again, it is not mainstream press, nor does it require to be. RBW UK is a similar event in the same interest group, with a similar article and Wikiproject Furry notice, and a year of silent consensus. Since this AfD, the article has received improvement updates already, and it is still quite new; before-AfD guidelines reinforce my suggestion to tag and fix. Let the editing process work. -- Soir (say hi) 16:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry if my comment was a mischaracterisation, what I meant by "seems to be effectively a personal website" was that most of the content (around 90% of the last 200 posts based on a quick look) is contributed by one person who also runs the site. The latter being based on information from an unreliable source. Sources do not have to be mainstream but they do have to meet standards of reliability in order to verify information within an article. Guest9999 (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources are "third-party, published ... with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The dispute is in this last statement; as an editor I would consider Flayrah to have such a reputation within its interest group, and naturally "the appropriateness of any source depends on the context", as per WP:SOURCES. I agree, there is certainly room for more reliable sources to enrich the article content, but unless the ConFuzzled article makes exceptional claims requiring the highest quality sources to substantiate, it still fulfills the intent of policy in respect of the content there is. -- Soir (say hi) 19:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - In looking at the Flayrah postings, they are attributed to GreenReaper. Is this the same GreenReaper as the Wikipedia editor in this discussion? -- Whpq (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, that's me. I can't claim authorship of all WikiFur News articles (which were imported into Flayrah under CC-BY-SA), but in this case they are largely my work as well.
- This is why I feel secure in saying the particular news posts I linked do not justify inclusion of ConFuzzled in Wikipedia. They contain only bare details obtained mainly from official sources, as compared to in-person coverage of events like Anthrocon. Furtean Times may not be much better for Wikipedia's purposes, but at least they went there. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps not by themselves. But there are a range of sources of varying kinds, and the article is new and has potential. I think it's a fair start. ;) -- Soir (say hi) 16:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if the con grows and attracts more coverage then perhaps an article would be jsutifiable, but I just don't see it based on the sources put forth so far. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand my by delete !vote especially after seeing GreenReaper's breakdown of the sources. Clearly the few sources added aren't enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Another furry convention that isn't notable outside of it's specific fandom. As mentioned above, there are no reliable sources. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 05:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant reliable third-party coverage of this event is provided anywhere. Acebulf (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pesag Watch Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mentioned in the article itself that there are no hits online, but might be a notable watch company, so nominating. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Watchmakers. It appears the author of the article didn't even intend to create an article - merely to suggest that the information be put in the Watchmakers article. I'll drop them a note encouraging them to be bold and do it themselves. --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought the Watchmakers article doesn't seem to be the place to talk about individual watchmakers. I'll do a little more looking, I have a feeling (from the number of watches being sold online as collectors items) that this company may have been notable. --MelanieN (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it was, but I can't find the evidence in Google or Google Books. Changing my vote to Delete but would gladly change back if anyone can find anything to base it on. --MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (a7) This is pure advertising, no doubt about it. It is advancing the cause of a non-notable small company, and may possibly have been authored by someone affiliated with the company. Account that created the article is a single purpose account that has only two edits: the creation and one other to this article. Dew Kane (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's hard to see how it can be advertising, or created by "someone affiliated with the company," since the company appears to have been out of business for decades. All online references are to the sale of used watches, often treated as collector's items. --MelanieN (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete no coverage. [36]. LibStar (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ben Hansbrough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Oh look, another redlinked afd that NO ONE ELSE ON THE WHOLE WIKI CAN BE ARSED TO FIX. Seems thin on sources, so I'll go with it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - procedurally this should probably be speedy-closed because the original nominator (User:BLGM5) did not provide a reason. Also, maybe Mr. Hammer should consider that most WP users are volunteers who are not here every single minute because we have jobs and stuff. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Nom: Original reasoning was as follows. Not sure why it didn't come through. Blatantly fails WP:ATHLETE. Being the brother of Tyler Hansbrough does not make one notable. BLGM5 (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ATH and lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 27 March 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) 10:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aerotoxic Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This organization is not notable, it is a political advocacy group which is seeking to get recognition for the bogus "Aerotoxic Syndrome." It is a spam page for that political advocacy group, it violates WP NPOV, and WP RS. There is no valid scientific evidence to support their claims or agenda. They have tried to use this page, as well as Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines, and Aerotoxic Syndrome and Bleed air to support and advance their political agenda. EditorASC (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 03:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 03:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I have added sources that establish notability. There were a number of them from mainstream newspapers. I do not see any NPOV violation whatsoever in the content of this article. From your wording of this nomination, you strongly suggest to having a personal vendetta on getting these articles deleted. SilverserenC 03:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? I have listed the ways that this article and its promoters violate Wiki Policies. How is calling attention to those violations a PERSONAL VENDETTA? Please address the policy violation issues I have raised, and cease making personal attacks on the messenger.
"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on the content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter editors."
- There are two primary editors that have created Wiki articles for the sole purpose of promoting the alleged Aerotoxic syndrome. Their contribution records, with few exceptions, are almost all in these articles, or in articles about the organizations that support this agenda:
- The Aerotoxic Association article.
- The Aerotoxic syndrome article.
- The British Air Line Pilots Association article.
- The Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines article.
- The GCAQE article. (This one was started by Wiki Editor "GCAQE". That was such an obvious and blatant violation of using Wiki for spamming for that organization, that the user name was [blocked]. I suspect that one of the two editors I have mentioned, used that nic, until the block forced a new selection.
- They also inserted passages in the articles on Bleed air and Cabin pressurization, with the same unsupported claims about that alleged syndrome. None of which is supported by conclusions from scientific research. It is obvious they are members of those organizations and/or the Labor Unions that are behind it all.
- In the Aerotoxic Syndrome article, those WP:COI editors repeatedly cited sources that did not in fact provide any scientific support for the claims they were making. They even used quotations (with the quotation marks around the statements), that were not in the articles that they used as citations for those bogus quotations. In short, they used bogus citation "sources" (my quotes) repeatedly. To me, that indicates both bad faith editing and a violation of WP:COI.
- In the first paragraph of the Wikipedia:Five pillars, it is stated that "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform,..." In Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, it is clearly stated that Wikipedia is not to be used for "...a soapbox or means of promotion...Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise." Yet, that is precisely what is going on with the articles that exist for the promoting of the alleged Aerotoxic Syndrome. That is why I see those articles, promoted by those two WP:COI editors, as a direct and blatant violation of the policy which says Wiki cannot be used as a place for spam advertising and promotion by other organizations.
- Whether or not other editors agree with me on this issue, that is how this debate should be framed: It should be a thorough discussion on this and the other issues I have raised, which I see as Wiki policy violations. Please explain why I am wrong, if you disagree, but don't make any more personal attacks on the messenger. None of us should have to be reminded why that is always an improper response. Thank you, EditorASC (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- TL;DR. I did skim though. First off, from your nomination, you used language such as "bogus", "no valid scientific evidence", and "claims and agenda", all of which is language that has nothing to do with nominating an article for deletion and only seems to show that you have a personal interest in this article. And the others as well.
- Now, to tackle your response paragraph by paragraph. I apologize if you feel my use of "personal vendetta" was an attack, it was not meant to be. I was merely trying to point out that you have a conflict of interest in this article.
- As for the rest of your paragraphs, from looking at the articles, I do not see any POV like you claim. Perhaps a small amount, but that is all and should be fixed through editing. Articles for Deletion is not for things you feel violate NPOV. These articles are clearly notable from their valid sourcing, which means that they should be cleaned up, not sent here. This nomination is already against AfD policy as it it.
- Let me remind you that you should not misrepresent Wikipedia policy for your own aims, as that can be seen as gaming the system. Have a nice day. SilverserenC 21:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not other editors agree with me on this issue, that is how this debate should be framed: It should be a thorough discussion on this and the other issues I have raised, which I see as Wiki policy violations. Please explain why I am wrong, if you disagree, but don't make any more personal attacks on the messenger. None of us should have to be reminded why that is always an improper response. Thank you, EditorASC (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm normally skeptical of ARS-sourcing, but this organisation is clearly notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We love you too. :) SilverserenC 03:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I still have my card: [37] :) --Mkativerata (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems notable to me. I am not sure whether the pilots are correct or not, but there is a controversy that is documented. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:23, 28 March 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lee (River City) (edit | talk | 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. Ironholds (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- merge to an appropriate combination article. there needs to be something intermediate between this and the bare list at List of characters in River City. There has to be enough information to indicate the episodes and something of the role. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Violeta Violeta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Largely OR; only one source which barely confirms anything. Wait a while. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose. Ridiculous. Senseless biased minimalism. --Kaizer13 (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Comment: Kaizers Orchestra is the name of the band, so this user would appear to be an interested party. --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Userfy per WP:Crystal. The albums won't even be released until 2011 and 2012. Google search finds almost nothing except this wikipedia article, so there is no anticipatory buzz to make them notable now. The albums are mentioned at Kaizers Orchestra, the article about the group, and for now that's all the coverage they deserve. Since someone has done a lot of work on this article, it could be userfied back to them for reposting at the appropriate time (i.e., when the albums are released). --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Drum Channel (edit | talk | 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 sources in the article. No independent reliable sources found. Sole Soul (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a guide to the Internet. The article fails notability guidelines for Websites. dissolvetalk 02:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 27 March 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) 10:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Heavy String (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Looks like a neologism. DimaG (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Recommend delete. No references. Concept doesn't seem to show up on Google, except this article. Cullen328 (talk) 00:57, 27 March 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) 10:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stan Romanek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural AfD. This article was recreated some months after it was deleted without undergoing a proper WP:DRV. There is evidence that the article is self-promoting, but there is also evidence of a lot of original research debunking of this guy's equations. In short, not a lot of evidence that Romanek is particularly notable outside the community of UFO-believers. A few news-of-the-weird pieces does not meet our threshhold here at Wikipedia, normally. See WP:FRINGE#Independent sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The articles for creation group has confirmed that the article was recreated out-of-process and inappropriately: Please see the discussion here. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently I created the article for AfC. It's been over 5 months and I really don't remember this one. For that part of the dicussion, see the link above I guess. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable. (GregJackP (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Strong keep Clearly notable. Romanek is a frequently mentioned name in ufological lore. I also strongly contend that the references are quite sufficient to provide notability. __meco (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Independent sources are required, not just those associated with "ufological lore". ScienceApologist (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Don't ABCNews and Rocky Mountain News count as reliable sources? Also if its true that he appeared on Larry King (coverage), I think we can presume he's notable. That said, we shouldn't have an article that mirrors his web site. A factual stub is probably appropriate. I don't think the reliable sources support anything too much longer than that. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 02:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 02:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added some more sources, though there were a bunch from a Google news search. More than enough to easily establish notability. SilverserenC 02:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep the ABC stories show he is considered notable to the general public, total nonsense though it sounds. Even if they did the story on the basis of his being the most absurd of his genre, still he's notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why is your keep "weak"? That seems to me like a taint of irrationality from the usually very sensible DGG? __meco (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I use "weak" keep or delete to indicate that I don;t propose to argue about it if anyone thinks the opposite. In this case, I almost said weak delete because it would equally well be seen as a violation of NOT TABLOID. Not everything that a tv station or a newspaper chooses to fill up time or space with is notable, sometimes it can be merely curious. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why is your keep "weak"? That seems to me like a taint of irrationality from the usually very sensible DGG? __meco (talk) 07:05, 28 March 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) 10:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reservoirs and dams in the Commonwealth of Independent States (edit | talk | 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 page duplicates List of power stations in Russia, List of hydroelectric power stations, List of largest hydroelectric power stations, and others such as List of pumped-storage hydroelectric power stations, and probably List of reservoirs. Additionally, the page is also orphaned and almost ignored. Rehman(+) 03:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is probably nothing wrong about deleting this aritcle; but if one deletes it, one should make sure that all non-trivial information has been transferred to appropriate country-specific articles, e.g. List of power stations in Tajikistan, List of power stations in Georgia, etc; when one does not exist, it probably should be created. Also, the development of hydroelectric power industry in the USSR 1922-1991 is certainly an encyclopedic topic, and may deserve its own narrative line (so that stations in different ex-USSR states can be discussed along a single timeline), but the current article is not a particular good example of covering that topic. Vmenkov (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The CIS still exists as an organization, but one might as well write an article called "Reservoirs and dams in the Organization of American States". Rather than trying to figure out which of the former Soviet republics is represented in the CIS (Russia, yes, Georgia, no, Belarus, yes, Estonia, no) one could write an article called Reservoirs and dams in the Soviet Union (which is, appropriately, a "red" link. Mandsford (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- HSS-114D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fictional(!) scanner from the TV series. Maybe merge somewhere in the Andromeda article, if needed. DimaG (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - fictional technobabble item without a grain of notability. Theoprakt (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ghana Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable band. DimaG (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nomDRosin (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 27 March 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) 10:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Woman in Love (Van Halen song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable, unsourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unreleased song doesn't meet GNG or WP:NSONG CTJF83 chat 04:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per CTJF83. Here it is briefly mentioned, but I can't find any significant coverage for this unreleased demo recording. The song this evolved into ("Women in Love") is a redirect, and this demo does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Gongshow Talk 01:10, 27 March 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 Sluggy Freelance. Tim Song (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Get Nifty (edit | talk | 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 card game. DimaG (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom DRosin (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Sluggy Freelance. No reason to delete when there is an obvious merge target. Hobit (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Hobit. Tisane (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was BOLD and merged the article. Acebulf (talk) 18:40, 27 March 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 2002 Tampa plane crash. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Charles J. Bishop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
per WP:NOT#NEWS this is no more notable than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Orlando shooting Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect (do not merge) to 2002 Tampa plane crash as a valid search term for that crash. 65.94.252.177 (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (maintaining edit history) to 2002 Tampa plane crash. While that article is up for deletion now too, it is much more likely to be kept. Per WP:ONEEVENT, people notable for just one event should have their names redirected to articles on the events in which they were involved. Dew Kane (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Dew Kane. Tisane (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per WP:ONEEVENT and comments above. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:44, 27 March 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. Article hasn't been touched since March 11. If the book and magazine references do exist, the article can be recreated. Will be happy to userfy if requested. Shimeru (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel O'Hara (edit | talk | 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:BIO. Those sources that do discuss him are either 1) unreliable or 2) and more commonly, intimately associated with him. The remaining sources do not discuss him, but instead his company; while this may be notable, notability is not inherited. Ironholds (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your objections since I had a great deal of trouble finding verifiable resources - which is partly why I am trying to write some articles. I've noticed that there is very little information in Wikipedia or on the web that I could find that in any way attempted to preserve the knowledge and information relative to the Life Insurance industry and evolution of the various systems and companies, I had hoped to author some. It would be a shame if this information was lost. The article on Mr. O'Hara was a manageable test case. He is a pioneer in this industry and prominent figure in the data migration circles which accounts for 100s of millions of dollars in annual revenues. I do have partial information from a book and several magazine articles I could cite but I have no way of linking them to anything online and so I view them as not verifiable. Should I add them? I was encouraged when I compared what I had to other bios (the one for my brother Tim Commerford, for example). I noticed that many contained few references and that often the ones that were provided were hardly authoritative. Before this article is deleted, can you give me some advice and an opportunity to improve it? Lcommerford (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The books and magazines would be helpful, but such things have to be about O'Hara. Showing the notability of say, his company, would not be helpful. Ironholds (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will add the book and magazine references when I return after next week. I will also try to massage the content maybe to separate Daniel O'Hara from UCT. Thank you for your patience. Lcommerford (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 02:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Hopefully we can get rid of the unnecessary sources and be left with things that do matter, though he does appear to be notable. SilverserenC 02:25, 28 March 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 02:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Genomatica (edit | talk | 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 film. DimaG (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. I had begun a cleanup to the article, but stopped when I was unable to find any reliable sources that might show notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above. Unless someone can find sources demonstrating notability (and if MQS can't they probably don't exist at least in an easily accessible form) the article should be deleted. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:50, 30 March 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. While it's not my field, those look like reliable sources. Shimeru (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just another Gibbs sampler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability not established, despite years passing, and now an unregistered user removed the banner I added suggesting deletion. I'm new to this deletion process, not sure if the banner should be put back or not. --mcld (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment nomination was malformed (missing step 1). Now fixed - I remain neutral. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This software is an important part of the software toolkit of Bayesian statisticians (admittedly a niche topic). The prod notice was removed by an anonymous editor after they added an explanation of its points of difference from the dominant alternative, WinBUGS and its offshoot OpenBUGS.
I could understand a request for better references for this, and I will go work on that now, but this deletion request seems unjustified to me.(Struck my last point - I see citations were requested on the articles's talk page several days ago. I have added a couple.) -- Avenue (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 March 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. Chaser (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of pro snow boarders (edit | talk | 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 list with only three items in it. It is also completely unsourced, and it has no lead section. It's nothing but a table with three snowboarders, their sponsor, their gender, and their nickname. The three snowboarders are notable themselves and in fact they're already in the project. The way the information is presented is odd and the information itself is redundant. The information it contains can easily be found elsewhere on Wikipedia. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 21:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment I'd encourage the author to move this to his/her own user page and work on it. It's always a bad idea to post a "work in progress" as a new article. I'm assuming that the author intended to have more than three names on the list, but the third one might as well have been sponsored by "Nominate this". So far as I can tell, we don't have an article (or even a category) for professional snow boarders, although I figure that all of the notable ones are sponsored. I like the way that the list is organized, but it needs to be sourced (look at that magazine over on your desk, underneath the newspaper). Mandsford (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nomination doesn't give a legitimate reason for deletion. Lists are an appropriate, useful and widely used means of organising information for readers. The relevant category - Category:Snowboarders - indicates that this list can be populated. SilkTork *YES! 22:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. SilkTork is exactly right. No valid reason for deletion has been offered, and one does not seem readily apparent. This is a matter for editing, although there is no reason it couldn't be userified as Mandsford mentions. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to List of snowboarders, as our threshold is notability, not being paid. Jujutacular T · C 02:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bezalel Raviv (edit | talk | 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, obsolete (entries from 2007 are treated as current), self promotion (initially written in first person) Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe he would satisfy the notability requirements if the claim that he had a song on the Italian Top 20 in January 2007 is true and can be verified, but I havent had any luck even finding a site that lists the history of what songs made it on the Italian Top 20. —Soap— 15:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No search results for "Bezalel Raviv" on italiancharts.com or acharts.us. I removed the inaccurate claim of charting. There are also no hits at all on Gnews for the name, nor any evidence that he was ever involved with EMI. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take your word for it as I was not able to find any evidence he ever charted either, but the sites I was looking at didnt seem very official. —Soap— 00:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I may have found the source of the claim that his song made it to the Top 20. This web board seems to be an unofficial chart of various songs and his song is on there ... but it's not "the" Italian Top 20, it's just a single radio station. So I agree that he almost certainly isnt notable, and will place my delete !vote below. —Soap— 16:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take your word for it as I was not able to find any evidence he ever charted either, but the sites I was looking at didnt seem very official. —Soap— 00:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above conversation (see? Inclusionists can !vote delete too, we just have to be really really sure about it.) —Soap— 16:13, 28 March 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. It seems no sources have emerged. Shimeru (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ICapella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of how this software is notable. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Contested prod RadioFan (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 26 March 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.