- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 08:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arma Shahidi Fitzgerald
- Arma Shahidi Fitzgerald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable per WP:BIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, asserts only that subject was winner of competition with unspecified notability. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DustiSPEAK!! 20:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kevin (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. No relevant GBooks, GNews or GScholar results for "Arma Fitzgerald", "Arma Shahidi Fitzgerald" or "Armaiti Shahidi Fitzgerald". — Rankiri (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Rankiri, I'm not finding any hits on her, Mrs. International, or the Fight Oral Cancer Foundation. I can't see a way to justify notoriety. avs5221 (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since nobody cares. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The beauty pageant isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, and the references are exceedingly thin, such as a self-submitted item to a newspaper blog. Jim Heaphy (talk) 05:53, 5 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chimestone
- Chimestone (edit | talk | 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 subject per WP:BAND. Article seems to have been created for advertising/promotional purposes only. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing to establish notability. No references. Activity described only in the 1990s and The Killers is listed as an influence, a notable band established in 2002. It doesn't add up. Jim Heaphy (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No reliable sources covering the band. Note that Talk:Chimestone has a message asserting some local prominence, so there is the possibility of meeting citerion 7 from WP:BAND, but there's no sources that would verify that. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete - I was in the band (Ryan Schuehle) and we played for several years in Seattle back in the early 90's. We cut a CD at Bad Animals (http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/chimestone) and had a small, but loyal following. We have since reunited and wanted to get some web presence ... and Wikipedia is a great resource for any band as far as history, etc! The Killers reference should not have been put in with respect to the 90's ... so that will come out. Someone compared us to them recently and so in it went ... our bad! --209.67.107.10 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete - Forgot to add my signature! Hopefully Chimestone doesn't get deleted ... we truly are a real band and love our work! Ryan --Rschuehle (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Wikipedia might not be your way to a stronger web presence. See WP:PROMOTION. -- Whpq (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We know that! But it is one of many ways to show history of your band on the internet, yes? Chimestone was and is a real band that has history? Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? --209.67.107.10 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Existence alone is an insufficient reason for inclusion in Wikipedia. Nobody is really questioning whether Chimestone is real. What is being questioned is notability as defined generally (WP:N), and specifically for bands (WP:BAND). Where is the coverage in reliable sources about the band? If you have any, please put them forward here for evaluation. -- Whpq (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless reliable sources can be provided which show that Chimestone was considered by the press to be a significant band in at least one period of their history. Note that WP:MUSIC has very specific requirements, and there is no indication that they are met by Chimestone. For example 'two or more albums on a major label'. Chimestone has just one CD so far, and it appears to be self-published. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here are some old, yet hopefully reliable sources: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930402&slug=1693794 ... http://search.nwsource.com/search?from=ST&query=chimestone&searchtype=network. I know I'm in the minority here, but there are a lot of bands in Wikipedia that don't have 'two or more albums on a major label'? And I would argue that some bands on Indie labels are just as important as those on major? --Rschuehle (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That article is not very substantial. If there was more coverage, and outside of the local entertainment scene type articles, a stronger case could be made. The second link is just some search results. As far as I can see, they are just event listings. And please, only one !vote per customer. If you have additional commentary, use a prefix such as "comment". -- Whpq (talk) 00:58, 9 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Walters
- Chris Walters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nomination. Article was prodded by Nakon (talk · contribs) with the rationale "Fails notability." Talk page comment added by author indicates that deletion is not uncontroversial, so bringing it here for discussion.
I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article had been updated as of a couple of minutes ago. I still need to add information to the bio and include gallery information. Chris is a very notable Cleveland photographer. He has a big market appeal in a smaller market like Cleveland. This is unique in the advertising and editorial photography business. He has worked under some of the top photographers in the country. Some of his recent images of Shquille O'Neal have been used to market Mr. O'Neals first curated show early this month. He has photographed some of Clevelands VIP - Matt Fish (Owner Melt, recently on Diner and Dives) , Betty Suttion (Congress Woman), Nick Smalc (Producer Q104), Mike Polk (Comdedian, created the cleveland "Hastily made tourism videos). Lebron James, Shaquille ONeal, Gary Waters (CSU basketball Coach, Horizon League Coach of the year).
I do hope that the wiki of Chris Walters is seen as notable enough. Again, I will be adding more bio and gallery information.
Thanks --HimUpStairs (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes, I'm still waiting for that gallery information. In the meantime, I'll say that what sourcing there is is strangely obscure. An example is ""Outstanding Portfolio" Ohio Institute of Photography 2001". What is this -- a magazine article, a web page, or what? -- Hoary (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Busy week, will try to update more by friday Thanks.
--HimUpStairs (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a minimal gallery information to be added, but I doubt that information will influence a decision to keep or delete. At this point the only other information that I can contribute is a bio. I do feel the bio is enough to sway the decision. The bio is one of a rough upbringing, him in and out of legal system as a youth, death of a drug addicted brother. Learning disability, and social awkwardness. Its a person who overcame many obstacles and challenges in life. If this info will sway the decision to keep his wiki then Ill add it. Let me know to proceed. Thanks.]
--HimUpStairs (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In order for this article to be kept, you need to demonstrate that Mr. Walters meets the notability guidelines for people, which in short means that he has to have received some substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Blogs and the subject's own website are not considered reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep The article is in great need of reliable references that aren't self-published. Jim Heaphy (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, needs sources.. most of the refs listed so far simpy seem to be photo credits & bios rather than features or interviews. Hairhorn (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I might change my mind based on the awards noted (but not sourced) in the article. But even with the awards his notability is questionable. He seems to have no presence on Google except his own web page, facebook, and flickr. The Google search is hopelessly confusing because there are at least three photographers named Chris Walter (without the s), besides this guy Chris Walters. The guy under discussion, Chris Walters, is found at http://chriswaltersphoto.com/ where he is described as a "Cleveland-based advertising and editorial location portrait photographer." But Google seems much more interested in people named Chris Walter (without the s) including http://www.chriswalterphoto.com/ (a Texas-based wedding photographer), http://photobychriswalter.com/ (a Kansas City-based wedding photographer) and http://www.chriswalterphotography.com/biogallery.html (a guy from England). And I have no idea where http://www.chris-walters-photography.com/-/chris-walters-photography/ and http://www.chriswphotography.com/ fit into the picture. (BTW it should be noted that User:HimUpStairs is the author of the article and appears to be a WP:SPA.) --MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment in response to the question above, about whether it would "sway the decision" to add biographical information: no, it wouldn't. Please understand that what we are evaluating here is not the man himself, or his character, or even his work. What we are evaluating is simply whether he is "notable" according to Wikipedia's definition, namely, that outside reliable sources have taken note of him, written about him, granted him the kind of recognition that is needed to be in an encyclopedia. Without significant independent recognition of him, we cannot keep the article, no matter how meritorious he may be personally. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good googling there, MelanieN. -- Hoary (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's virtually nothing here. He may be an "emerging" photographer; if so, let's wait till he has emerged, with books and/or exhibitions and writeups of these (or at least reliable notices), and then some disinterested person would be welcome to write an article about him. -- Hoary (talk) 01:48, 11 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) 03:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jaya world
- Jaya world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
New singer with debut single, signed to Universal Records. Declined the speedy as it asserts notability. Search for subject did not turn up significant 3rd party coverage. However, search for subject plus name of debut album did produce hits that are either significant or part of viral marketing. I need the community to look at this, as while I'm happy to decline the speedy, I'm not convinced of notability. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 20:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understand your reasoning, but surely Wikipedia should allow for smaller artists, not just notable one's? Could you provide a link to why this needs to be the case? Just for the record I have no vested interest in this artist, but similar things have happened before with artists pages being deleted that I have tried to create, due to insignificant notoriety, I thought wikipedia was a platform for everyone to contribute knowledge / topics etc...so rather confused why there needs to be significant 3rd party coverage of this? (Khanrob (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
- Comment The applicable guideline, Khanrob, is WP:MUSIC. Articles about musicians must demonstrate that the musician meets the standards of notability established by that guideline -- specifically that the musician has achieved something of note that has been covered in major media.
- The problem with this artist is that her name is so generic. (The artist's name is JAYA; Jaya World is the name of her website.) A search for JAYA turns up too many unrelated results. However, her own web page has links to some coverage in the media that might be considered significant; I'll leave that assessment to others, as I'm not familiar enough with the British press to assess the significance of these publications. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For Now. She is signed to Universal Music, the world's largest music label. However, her first release isn't for a few more days. Perhaps she will achieve notability then, but not yet. Jim Heaphy (talk) 06:14, 5 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 Default to KEEP Too much of this discussion is on the fence. Article needs improvement, not deletion Mike Cline (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roblox
- Roblox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
They have not done anything, accolades, awards, charted, scandals, third party recognitions... et cetera. The sources are mostly not reliable in the way that they are not third party, known for fact checking, and so on. The article is also written like an advertisement. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Myself and another contributor to this article User:Briguy9876 are volunteer forum moderators for this website. We are not representatives of this game in any way shape or form, nor are we allowed to represent them anywhere off of the roblox website. I think I've already given that little spiel on my talk page before, but wanted to get that out of the way asap. At the end of the deletion review it was decided that the article would be restored and would be open to another AFD whenever somebody felt like tagging it. I was and am fine with the outcome of that discussion. I wish I could go through the article and wipe most of it out, as I am not of a fan of all the "references" that link back to the roblox website, however as far as I am aware those type of "references" can be used to prove that a feature exists. These links however don't establish notability, and I feel they should be used sparingly, definitely not in the large amount found in this article. I am going to probably be making major changes to the article in the coming days, but will not voice much of an opinion here until I read other editors arguments. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Not only have we very recently entered a promotional agreement with the Disney Channel, but we have reached over 7 million registered user accounts. We also have over 30,000 users online concurrently every day during peak hours. Additionally, Compete places us with more than half a million unique visitors per month. Alexa places us at the 5,468th most visited website on the ranked internet. Around 10% of our traffic comes from search engines. I'd like to think that these such statistics would denote that Roblox is in fact existent and worthy of a few kilobytes of a page on Wikipedia; but I have been quite inactive on this site for quite some time. The rules seem to have changed. I would agree that the page itself is in need of some rewriting, and if I wasn't preoccupied with getting our own WikiMedia installation functioning smoothly I would take the time to do so. I don't think that a poorly written page should be removed simply because it isn't immediately referencing reliable sources or, in the editor's fine opinion, "written like an advertisement".---Mr Doom Bringer (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so much poorly written, but more so the fact that reliable sources can't be found to support your above claims. All the statistics you just quoted are your own original research. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Last time I checked, Alexa Internet was a fairly reliable resource, what being around for 14 years and operated by Amazon and all. I could be wrong about that, so I'll just continue that as a comment. I'm simply stating these facts as references to our website's traffic, which is far greater than that of other websites that exist here. I can see how it needs more reliable sources for references. The root reason for deletion was for "not done anything, accolades, awards, charted, scandals, third party recognitions... et cetera." I fail to see how a scandal is worthy of a Wikipedia page, and it's not clear what you mean by "awards, accolades and charted." Third party recognitions are the only reasonable thing I see missing from the page, and agree with you on. Could you please make it more clear what exactly you are asking for on the page, aside from reliable sources? ---Mr Doom Bringer (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MrDoomBringer, the person you're talking to, is one of the volunteer managers of the Roblox websites. That means he doesn't need references because he has all the references in his domain statistics list. Jeremjay24 19:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 4,090,000 google hits, 8,470 youtube videos and over 2 million accounts. This article is NOT an advertisement, or even close to one thank you. Although ROBLOX is currently offline right now. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.210.122 (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All those statistics are original research by yourself. We use reliable sources to verify notability. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I will also note that as this article has fairly high traffic (being accessed 10548 times in February we will probably end up with many Single purpose accounts voicing an opinion here, as roblox users will see the page and come here more than likely screaming for keep. Not a desirable thing, maybe we could semi-protect the discussion if that begins to happen. In the time that this article has been in the mainspace I've learned that it is a strange topic, as when you go to look for sources the results you get in google are misleading. Most of the hits that come up are from the roblox site, or are roblox fan forums.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 11:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 17:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks significant independent coverage. Routine entries in BusinessWeek and product reviews in mmohut, which has been rejected as a WP:VG/RS is all that supports this article. The rest are obscure blog entries and press releases. Pcap ping 17:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ROBLOX is the #1 kids site in terms of engagement according to comscore and has millions of unique users. Let's not get crazy here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shedletsky (talk • contribs) 01:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article has exactly 17 reliable references. Roblox has been viewed 2800 times in 201003. The game also has way over 6 million (with SIX zeros) users with approximately 10 more people joining every minute. That's not very bad. Also, Roblox has been talked about on the press. I think that is way over the requirements for the Wikipedian video game article requirements. P.S. o hai telamon. Jeremjay24 19:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This page contains a plentiful amount of sources that has backed up facts about ROBLOX from people who actually played the game and are eligble to edit the page and add facts. People who edit the page(not counting people who vandalize) know what facts to add, when to add them, and knows how to seperate facts from opinions, and correct facts from incorrect facts. The page is fine and doesn't need to be deleted. --ANormalUsername1 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Yes, the article should be rewritten. Although, it has in 2009, at least done 3 important and big things that make it desirable for being an article.
One of which is Donating to Haiti [1] Securing 2.2 million in funds [2] and lastly, partnering with Rixty to buy their virtual currency and one of the builder's club which gives you extra features [3]. I believe this is reliable enough. Also, I am not related to ROBLOX at all, besides in being a user, called Foxcow. Monkey Fox Contributes! . 19:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - full of primary sources, with only a few third-party sources. Those sources are either not reliable or do not provide significant coverage on the topic. Also, please note the off site canvassing occurring. --Teancum (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the exact reason I suggested a semi-protect if that started happening. In most cases people brought over via those methods don't have a real understanding of what Wikipedia's policies are, and the closing admin will probably disregard those comments.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh huh. There are 17 third party references, which is half of the amount of references. Not that bad. Just around 5 of them are stupid references, and the rest of them are news posts, which isn't "harmful" in any way. Jeremjay24 21:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let's look at those sources then (as of the post-date above). Listo is a simple blurb and user reviews, MMOhut is considered unreliable per WP:VG/RS, KidsLike looks to be a register-and-post-info site, The Examiner is simply a blog-based site as well (see Examiner.com) and was blocked by a filter trying to post this message, TRUSTe is definitely reliable, but would need other sources to establish notability, as all that site tells us is that the game is safe for kids, the Better Business Bureau like shows nothing more than a rating and basic info so it falls under the same category as TRUSTe, BusinessWeek also falls under that category. The prior two also focus on the company and not the game itself. VentureBeat seems reliable, but the post itself is small. It could be used to cite what it already is, but couldn't hold up the whole article. Same way with The Washington Post. Two great sources, but they only source that one small fact. Earthtimes is a press release. The MidWeek article is from a published source, but seems to be from a local Hawaiian newspaper - could be used as a secondary source if something larger covered the article I suppose. Free Online Games is nothing more than a repository of files with basic info - it offers no significant coverage, besides the fact that it isn't reliable. Make Use Of offers significant coverage, but I couldn't find anything on its reliability as a source. Another editor will need to take a look at it. Great Games Experiment is user-supported, rather than being a published source. ONrpg is ambiguous as to whether it is a published source. The review is laid out in the "pro" manner, but there is no info about the staff, something that throws up a red flag. [www.commonsensemedia.org Common Sense Media] seems to be used as a source in a handful of articles here, but the reviewer seems to be a freelance writer. Not a problem in and of itself unless the site is largely published by "freelance writers". Now, that being said I'd like other editors to take a look at these sites and get a better consensus. --Teancum (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tean, I said that there were 17 references. Now the #1 free MMORPG RuneScape has less than 40 reliable 3rd party references with the rest of them being news posts. Now yeah, again we have 17 sources, but comparing that number to 40 by RuneScape is a great comparison for Roblox having 1/10 of RuneScape. And I bet the contributors over there are active Wikipedians. Jeremjay24 00:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument. Notability is established on an article-by-article basis. --Teancum (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Tean, I will add third party sources in a few hours. Also, for the off site things, most of the people who are posting here because of it, aren't putting up a good argument.
And some would of noticed it anyway, by just quickly looking at the article for some quick info about something. 76.110.112.159 (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Sources:[reply]
- http://tech.163.com/09/0817/16/5GUBQD1G000915BF.html (in Chinese)
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/14/AR2009081401914.html
- http://www.consumerelectronicsnet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=987042
Yup. That only took 5 minutes. Jeremjay
- The first two sources cover a very small part of what would establish notability for the article, the third is a press release. --Teancum (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And it only took five minutes. At that rate, I could get 36 references in an hour. Not very bad. Jeremjay24 23:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's exactly why you should keep digging. If the sources are there, I'm all for keeping the article, but if they don't pass WP:RS and WP:N you could find 100 sources. All I'm saying is that if you want to save it, find the sources and source the article. --Teancum (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And it only took five minutes. At that rate, I could get 36 references in an hour. Not very bad. Jeremjay24 23:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I am a roblox user myself and know one is tryign to advertize!!! roblox is a onlien game the article jsut needs a good wrighter to edit it--Mathepa 02:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because you like the game doesn't mean that you should vote to keep it. Wikipedia articles are kept for the reason of reliability. Jeremjay24 23:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE) AfD semiprotected due to offsite canvassing. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Offsite canvassing. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 03:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 04:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of non-trivial reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 09:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I actually came here with a slight bias towards keeping, but there really is a complete lack of reliable, independent secondary sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - references are good enough to establish notability; article reads a lot better now it has been cleaned up. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. TNXMan 16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep The Washington Post article is getting in the right direction. The sources seem to just barely push above the edge of notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Take note that User:Orangemike has removed the Washington post referece.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 11:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite being on the Post website, it was actually a press release, not an article. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:WEB. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike, The roblox article actually passes the first criteria of WP:WEB. There are now (or soon) Robux (virtual currency) redeeming cards sold at 7-Eleven, Robux and Builders Club (Premium membership) sold via Rixty on Coinstar machines. Jeremjay24 21:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope; that doesn't have anything at all to do with "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike, it also passes the 2nd. I believe an A rating on the Better Business Bureau would go under "well-known and independent award". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyfox (talk • contribs) 22:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope; that's nowhere remotely near being an award; it's just a rating by a commercial service. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. It may be messy, and unorganized, but that's why you need to correct the dumb 7 year old's anonymous mistakes. If this is keeped, we need to fix it. Relorelo84 (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This may be offtopic, but User:Gordonrox24 worked on the Roblox page before he became a mod. Since then, he made very minor edits like spelling, references, etc. Jeremjay24 02:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The COI tag is still valid as most of the editors are either staff or users.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:49, 11 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) 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Max Barrow
- Max Barrow (edit | talk | 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 the Wikipedia notability guidelines. -- IRP ☎ 21:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. As an athlete, there is no evidence of him competing at the highest level of his sport. The International Table Tennis Federation's World Ranking Page turns up no evidence of him. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per above. No notability. (GregJackP (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete no notability. Nuttah (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article hangs notability on a just-deleted article about his radio program, for nothing in his athletic activities indicate his making WP:BIO. B.Wind (talk) 04:58, 8 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 Intentional community. Content can be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Faith-based community
- Faith-based community (edit | talk | 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. The article is rather vague about what its topic really is. WP already has articles on related topics including: Monestary, Ashram, and Commune (which has a section on religious communes.) Beyond that I don't think the Amish, the Religious right in the USA (implied in the "see alsos"), and the nations of Israel and Iran should be lumped together under one title, as the article seems to be doing. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Intentional community. I'm fairly certain faith-based communities are a subset of intentional communities. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm with the above.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the title should be left with a "Redirect" to Intentional community or Commune, which may be merged anyway. The title "Faith-based community" should continue to exist with the redirect so users can find the information they seek. The term, while vague, has been bandied about enough that people may come to WP to investigate. Some will suppose the term refers to a commune while others may think it refers to persons of faith scattered throughout a larger population. http://www.allbusiness.com/specialty-businesses/non-profit-businesses/458156-1.html Yopienso (talk) 06:10, 9 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#G7 - 2/0 (cont.) 10:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
System Administrators Guild of Ireland
- System Administrators Guild of Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't see any assertion of notability here. While SAGE (organization) appears notable at first glance, this would seem to come under the local-chapters-aren't-notable-unless-they-actually-are rule. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No Contest - as the author of the article there was local press at the time of writing but there has been little since. It's not a "local chapter" per se but in the absence of further coverage and references for the earlier articles it's safe to say it doesn't currently satisfy WP:N. I'm not sure it qualifies for CSD G7 though as a number of other authors have contributed to it. -- samj inout 22:14, 4 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. Tim Song (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ksenia Kirillova
- Ksenia Kirillova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod contested by creator. There's nothing in her competition history that indicates this woman has played at the level required by WP:ATHLETE Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. Nonnotable athlete (even not very pretty). Timurite (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite what you said on my talk page, I have no clue how a subjective opinion on another person's appearance matters one whit under WP:ATHLETE. I don't think that's the level of discourse we want to engage ourselves in. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is disgusting that you would mention someones appearance in a vote debating their notability. Just thought you should know. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 18:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - She is a professional athlete. The question is whether she is really competing at the highest level of her sport. Her tournament activity shows competing at low level events. Her best WTA ranking is 1010. That's not exactly up there. She is mentioned in various news reports about junior tournaments like this. Altogether, this doesn't meet the guidelines for notability for me. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - She is successful as a junior, see here for her junior activity. She has won 5 Grade A junior titles [4] (also please refer to the first link) and was part of the Russian Fed Cup and Helvetie Cup winning team, here and here. She's also successful in doubles, reaching the semi-finals in the prestigious junior Grand Slam twice (Wimbledon & Roland Garros) [5]. She has beaten many notable players in the junior circuit including Noppawan Lertcheewakarn, Laura Robson, Ajla Tomljanović and Timea Babos (please refer to here, change player activity from 2009 - 2010 to 2006 - 2010). Her low ranking can be explained, she doesn't play many WTA tournament, no ranking points for junior tournament that she competes in, no matter how many titles that she wins. According to here (View activity by year - 2009), she has beaten quite a number of higher ranked player including 1 in the top 500. It will also be a bit tough to find western coverage for a Russian player. Help should be requested at WP:RUSSIA. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 19:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as she has played in the following tournaments: 2009 Australian Open – Girls' Singles, 2009 Australian Open – Girls' Doubles, 2009 French Open – Girls' Singles, 2009 French Open – Girls' Doubles, 2009 Wimbledon Championships – Girls' Singles, 2009 Wimbledon Championships – Girls' Doubles, 2009 US Open – Girls' Singles, 2009 US Open – Girls' Doubles, 2010 Australian Open – Girls' Singles and 2010 Australian Open – Girls' Doubles. And with this the article meets WP:ATHLETE. Armbrust Talk Contribs 02:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All juniors competitions- not the highest level of competition in tennis- or fully professional. She has never been in the main draw at a Grand Slam. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She has significant coverage in the media. Here is a small sample. BBC Sport Guardian AP article at CBS News Telegraph Montreal Gazette Repo-Box (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. She is only mentioned in passing by media sources. Coverage is not significant.--PinkBull 16:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Bradjamesbrown. None of the sources mentioned by Repo-Box have what I would consider significant coverage of the subject, and some of them have barely one sentence about her. If the subject achieves more as an athlete at the main adult level, beyond the junior level where she has mostly been competing so far, the article can be re-created at at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Im mostly confirming with Whpq on this one. Shes professional no doubt about that. Her Tournamnets that shes participated in arent the best and that makes my keep a weak one. If consesnus steers deletion I have no objection towards that. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I guess we waffle to different sides on this one. In looking at her tournaments, I've tried gauge using top level. Even for the WTA, there's top level tournaments, and minor ones, and as far as I can tell, for the senior circuit events, she's only been at a few of the decidedly minor ones. -- Whpq (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Junior level athletes are not inherently notable; they do not meet WP:ATH. I'm not seeing the significant coverage in reliable sources to make up for that. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete only mentions are in passing, does not rise up to WP:ATHLETE either. JBsupreme (talk) 20:51, 11 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. Absolutely no reasons put forward why this is not a standard news item in a violent part of the world. No continuing news coverage past the couple of days after the event. This,as pointed out, is what WikiNews is for. Black Kite 01:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tapuah junction stabbing
- Tapuah junction stabbing (edit | talk | 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 is this stabbing notable? Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Jmundo (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete:no more notable than any other violent incident in that region over the years. --Chuunen Baka (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep.Why is this stabbing different from all the other stabbings? 1) it was perpetuated by a Palestinian Authority police officer, someone who was expected by the international community and Israel to defend Israel against these types of attacks. 2) the victim was an Druze soldier, not the typical victim. My opinions aside, this murder is unique as attested by the coverage given in realiable sources, which don't usually cover stabbings to this level. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. nableezy - 02:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is a serious incident that is likely to withstand a 10-years test. - BorisG (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Brewbrewer. Ordinarily, a simple premeditated stabbing would not be significant, but this one is quite unique and involved a PA law enforcement officer murdering an Israel druze soldier in an unprovoked situation. --Shuki (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- Nableezy 23:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect with the appropriate Palestinian terrorism article. This hasn't yet proven that it satisfies WP:PERSISTENCE/WP:EFFECT, and claims otherwise are still speculative. THF (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - All of the above considered, put on Wikinews. I don't see anything that would meet WP:N outside of that. Shadowjams (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If Rachel Corrie has her own article I don't see why a Druze soldier getting murdered by a homicidal Palestinian isn't less defensible. Certainly there is enough sources to support it - Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, and it has been referenced by a variety of notable Palestinian and Israeli leaders. The event wasn't as publicized as other attacks and was virtually ignored by Europe and the USA, but in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it has its place. The article is flawed and could use a re-title, like Killing of Rabbi Meir Hai. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Wikifan, do you really need to be explained the difference between this and the Rachel Corrie story? Factsontheground (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was a jest FOTG, relax. Terrorism in Israel is high-profile, unlike similar conflicts in Kashmir, Iraq, Chechnya, where war-of-attrition type conflict is rarely reported. this attack is significant, why else would heads of state not refer to it? Clearly this has a place on wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is an interesting one. It would appear that the criteria for establishing notability at Wikipedia:Notability (events) isn't met but the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) is. There seen to be little coverage of the event beyond the initial burst shortly afterwards but WP:N/CA only seems to require coverage of criminal acts to be from national/global sources which is the case here. It has been suggested by Shuki and others that the identify of the perpetrator is significant here but I would question that since the article itself says "Most of the fatal attacks in the West Bank in the years preceding the stabbing were carried out by members of Palestinian security forces" so that he was such an individual would seem less significant. I think Wikifan12345 's comparison with Rachel Corrie is a very poor one. The list of sources, both in terms of its extent and the period of time which is involved, in my view suggests it is a very different case. Adambro (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it is notable when a police chief murders a random citizen because of ethnic hatred. In answer to User:adambro's quesiton, the pbest comp is probably Yaakov Teitel. As someone says above, stuff that happens in Israel gets noticed.AMuseo (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Random citizen? A soldier in occupied territory is a random citizen? nableezy - 03:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. I see now that the man driving the car was a soldier. I thought he was a civilian driver. Nevertheless, this was not combat. It was an unprovoked attack on a man who was driving his car. By a police chief. That is unusual, notable, and shocking.AMuseo (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Random citizen? A soldier in occupied territory is a random citizen? nableezy - 03:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the soldier was killed in a battle, raid, of operation - it is unlikely it would be considered a terrorist attack. But murdering sleeping Israeli soldiers manning a negotiated check point is more than consistent with the long history of Palestinian terror exploits. One who is familiar with the history of terrorism knows what I'm talking about. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Brewcrewer, Shuki. Notable regarding relationship between Israel and PA, terror attack, Druze soldiers, etc. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Shuki.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - while Wikipedia is not news, this event is exceptional, demonstrated by coverage in reliable sources. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:08, 11 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 Withdrawn: User has requested userfication, which I have done. Afd therefore withdrawn, non-admin close. – ukexpat (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Social Science Research on Greatness
- Social Science Research on Greatness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disputed PROD. Article reads like, and has all the hallmarks of, a college term paper. In addition, it has references but without citations it is hard to see where the OR ends and the referenced encyclopedic stuff begins. ukexpat (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly reads like original research, which we do not publish. We must userfy or delete it . Bearian (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote the article. It is not original research (or a college paper). i thought i referenced my sources. I have no doubt screwed this up, and would appreciate any advice re how to correct it, so that wiki will keep the article. AgRince (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In that case, I think the best thing to do would be to move it back into your user space ("userfy" it) so that you can work on it further. You should also take a look at the tone, construction and flow of articles on similar topics to see how that are written and structure this article similarly. If you are OK with this approach I will happily move it back to user space for you and withdraw this Afd. – ukexpat (talk) 14:06, 5 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Planes of Existence (talker)
- Planes of Existence (talker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nomination. Article was prodded by JBsupreme (talk · contribs) with the rationale "part of a giant walled garden, none of the sources are reliable third party." Article was at AfD twice before and is therefore ineligible for prod, so I'm relisting here.
I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: The article was at AfD three times before – twice under the current title and once at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planes of existence (chat site). —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. My fault for not noticing the earlier AfD listings from 2005 and 2008. As I have stated, none of the sources amount to reliable/non-trivial from third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I hate to say this about a piece of history, no matter how obscure or inconsequential, especially Internet-related history, but I just don't think there's much to be found about this. What little we have are primary accounts of it, and most of the links in the article are currently broken. I'd be very inclined to change my vote if someone can come up with a secondary source or two about it. Macai (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on the basis of the informal sourcing provided by the links. This is the sort of material that Wikipedia has long specialised in DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- As Macai notes, all the sources are primary and some are broken. Coverage in secondary sources is required, and this just hasn't got any. Reyk YO! 12:50, 5 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) 00:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tipping (mind game)
- Tipping (mind game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nomination. Article was prodded by 67.180.84.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) with the rationale "No indication of notability. WP is not for stuff made up one day." Talk page discussion indicates that deletion is not uncontroversial, so I am bringing it here.
I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--Isn't there a requirement around here somewhere that an article needs a SOURCE?
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Save the Seas
- To Save the Seas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can find no indepedent coverage in reliable sources to establish this declaration as notable. Whpq (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this declaration. Joe Chill (talk) 23:31, 4 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) 00:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Igor Golubchik
- Igor Golubchik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is a promotional piece written through a paid editing request from this posting on elance dot com. The seller, "bomond", posted the following request: "Looking for an experienced wikipedia editor to create and submit several short articles on a local public figure and couple companies." Three days earlier he posted another request to elance for a "Redesign of vashe.com / chicagorussianradio.com" [6]. This article links to bomond dot com as well as vashe dot com and chicagorussianradio dot com, so this is clearly the article that was created through the elance posting. Our spam guidelines and policy that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion apply here, as well as our general notability guideline, as it appears that the subject hasn't received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. ThemFromSpace 17:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - blatant spam.Autarch (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is conceivable that he might actually be notable, but whomever he paid for the job obviously does not know how to show it. Perhaps some uninvolved person will start over. Given the history, I am not planning to rescue it myself when there are articles entered in good faith that need the help. . ` DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. Enigmamsg 16:55, 5 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 06:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pattaya Piamkum
- Pattaya Piamkum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced article about living person, unclear notability although possibly meets requirements of WP:ATHLETE guideline. Google search finds nothing relevant for the name; there does appear to be a coach of the Vietnam futsal team called either "Pattaya Piemkum" or "Piemkum Pattaya", and there is also a player in the FIFA Futsal World Cup Final called Pattaya Piemkum[7], and an article on the Italian Wikipedia about him, although I am unable to verify whether these sources and the article are all referring to the same person. snigbrook (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - According to FIFA, he's played in two futsal World Cups, which might be sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I believe playing in two FIFA Futsal World Cups and managing two national futsal teams should be sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE and provide notability. I've added references to the article to support this. Jogurney (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Having played at the World Cup, he clearly passes WP:ATHLETE. The article clearly needs cleaning up, but that's no reason to delete it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly meets WP:ATHLETE. Edward321 (talk) 02:05, 10 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) 00:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editor air
- Editor air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This book does not appear to meet the notability guideline for books. I couldn't find it on Google or Amazon. –Grondemar 17:07, 4 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. Fails WP:ENT. Jayjg (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jennifer Cormack
- Jennifer Cormack (edit | talk | 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 minor-role actor/extra; clearly fails WP:ENT. Author contested prod. I42 (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The actress has had one important role at the end of the Rest Stop and has a few television roles as well. Some of these are worth noting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver Buizel (talk • contribs) 23:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete When her best known role is as "College Student" its clear she is not notable.Edward321 (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete She does not yet meet the criteria for notability as an actress. I wish her luck with her career and maybe the article can be recreated when she has had meatier roles. --MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 11 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) 00:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lamborghini Embolado
- Lamborghini Embolado (edit | talk | 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 someone's personal 3-D model that they slapped a Lamborghini logo on. Not notable AniRaptor2001 (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The description ("a design study by a student") isn't notable enough for its own article. If it gets significant coverage in the automotive press, it might qualify. Mandsford (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. swaq 18:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of notability. Agree, though, that it would qualify if the press offers significant coverage - which seems unlikely, but isn't impossible. If that happens, we can always start a new article. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:49, 8 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) 00:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Head in the Sand
- Head in the Sand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. I don't see how this thesis project meets WP:NFILM. PDCook (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PDCook (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability is neither asserted nor shown.Edward321 (talk) 03:05, 10 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. WP:SNOW and Speedy Keep (nominator !voted Keep) —SpacemanSpiff 18:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nalini Venkatasubramanian
- Nalini Venkatasubramanian (edit | talk | 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 noteworthy accomplishemnets to meet WP:PROF, there are few with average number of Google scholar citattions. She is not there yet, may be after few years she may become wiki notable kaeiou (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. 259 published articles and a h-index of 21 [8], in 10 years (and a full professor too)--Sodabottle (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the detail output and the tool. Is that good enough with no significant awards or fellowship or medals? What # fromWP:PROF corresponds to this? Well, she works in applied science in this case it is CS. Obviously one tends to write more papers in that area. Thx.--kaeiou (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have seen no hard numbers for either citations or h index in previous AfD decisions. But as far as i know, anything near 20 h index usually gets kept. I may be wrong and as you have put, applied sciences do see more research output than hard sciences and obscure humanities fields--Sodabottle (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- H-index is relevant to satisfying criterion #1 of WP:PROF and is usually invoked in AfD discussions in that context. Nsk92 (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The reason there are no numbers in WP:PROF is because it varies drastically from field to field over an order of magnitude, even in the sciences: 30 papers is very good in physical chemistry, but not in medical science. Further, to many people --including myself--h index is used only because it's convenient, not because it is a valid measurement of scholarly quality: because an index of 21 could mean 21 papers with 21 citations each or 20 papers with 200 citations each and 1 paper with 21. The actual distribution shown on the GScholar output given is 88, 84, 82, 58 58 etc.; to me and most academics, the importance of the work is the importance of the best of the work. A lot of mediocre work does not make one notable; a little really first-rate work does, just as o a writer gets notable by writing some good books, not by writing lots of mediocre ones. Whether her record is good enough would depend on the area of computer science, but I would say it probably is. But there's a complication: her work is in a field of computer science where almost all work is presented in conferences, some of which have actual high quality peer-review, and some of which do not (a rough guide is that any of the papers republished by the ACM or IEEE are high-quality). Google scholar does not differentiate for this. Scopus does, do a considerable extent: the results from GS, will therefore always be higher than G Scholar, generally around twice as high in most fields, three times as high in conference-dependent fields. . In Scopus, I find 92 included articles, with highest citations 24, 17, 25, 14 -- as expected. As an example of the problems involved, , the highest cited in the G Scholar search, [9] is not in Scopus at all, and in fact is an invited paper, not a contributed one, [10], which usually means it is essentially a keynote asked of an important scientist, but not actually peer-reviewed--the quality control is that the scientist is trusted by the organizing committee. Additionally, it is in a relatively minor conference, European Wireless 2002 [11]. As for those who want third party references, we specifically have WP:PROF because of the difficulty of getting conventional 3rd party references until people die. An alternate way to look on it is that the citations from other workers in the field are the 3rd party references that count. DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you DGG and others on this. I’ll withdraw this afd nomination for Nalini Venkataraman unless users want to see in the next 7 days what others would say on this. I feel that WP:PROF guidelines are inadequate (too compact) in such things while we have several senerios within scenarios. And data is not complete and is not adequate. In some cases, for example in computer science, data is there. In some cases, we don’t find data at all. Having all these on hand, it is still difficult to judge because those criteria outlined in WP:PROF does not cover all possible cases. How do you treat fiction, non-fictions, applied science, pure mathematics, medical science, engineering, humanities, social science, behavioral science, rhetorical, lawyers, politicians, government officers etc? And on the top, these educational systems vary from country to country – In India and in many English speaking countries, the head of the department is always the senior person where as in the US and in some places, it could be anyone in between. In WP:PROF, Chair/Head is WP:PROF notable. Again it is also said that he or she is from a major institution (how do you define this or is it assumed all higher education institutes are major? Or how could one say that this university is a reputed one in a dynamic world?)?
What would you do if someone has high h-index (may be just one very good paper) today and down the road he/she ends up with ZERO papers for the rest of the life? Thanks. Respectfully --kaeiou (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What I would do is leave the editing of these pages to people with knowledge and experience of the worlds of academia, scholarship and research, just as the editing of any other specialised topic is best left to experts in that particular topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep in view of citation record of substantial contributions to scholarship. DGG correctly draws attention to the complexities of citation analysis. Looking back at past decisions on these pages I find that subjects with indicies of less than 10 are usually found to be not notable, those with greater than 15 are usually found to be notable. Many hundreds of publications are expected. This subject, with an h index of 21, clearly passes according to this criterion. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- comment Many hundreds of publications are expected is not true. Thx.--kaeiou (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to some earlier questions: , normally, when one finds someone with one very good paper only, it's because the paper was written when a grad student or postdoc, and the name was added to a paper on a project the person works on but is not responsible for, and thus does not indicate notability . I can think of people who did their best work very early on, but I can not at the moment think of anyone who did excellent work once only very early on and then never did anything significant at all. If this should occur, once notable, always notable is the guideline, as with a person who appears in a single Olympics game, or who wins a seat for one term in a state legislature.
- the question of who is a significantly responsible author in multiauthor papers has been critical at a number of these discussions. There are no hard-and-fast rules from position of authors names--the various fields have different conventions, and individual labs often assign authorship in their own fashion. The different academic ranks are distinguished by the greater assumed independence. One would not be appointed to a tenured associate professor position unless the department were confident that one could do good independent work, normally shown by doing good work as an assistant professor, not just as a post doc. Exceptions would be if the work was known to experts in the field as independent. The most difficult situations are in major earth science, astrophysics, and experimental physics projects, where the publications may have hundreds of names--or in some cases, just a name for the collective and no names at all. In a case like this it is impossible for an outside to tell based on bibliometric analysis--one has to go by what insiders think, and this is normally shown by formal academic positions. In industry, where there are large projects but a less formal hierarchy of positions, there is often no way at all for outsiders to know.
- The meaning of head of department is variable: in most US institutions, it is not necessarily the most prestigious person in the department--who may well refuse the position or be administratively incompetent, but it always is one of the higher ranking ones--as they need to have the respect of their colleagues. The rating of universities is tricky: there is no institution so low that it may not have a few excellent people. There are many universities were some fields are of established excellence. There are also a few where all the subjects they offer are of established excellence and international prestige. This is not something that leads to exact measurement, but there can be a good deal of consensus.
- In response to some earlier questions: , normally, when one finds someone with one very good paper only, it's because the paper was written when a grad student or postdoc, and the name was added to a paper on a project the person works on but is not responsible for, and thus does not indicate notability . I can think of people who did their best work very early on, but I can not at the moment think of anyone who did excellent work once only very early on and then never did anything significant at all. If this should occur, once notable, always notable is the guideline, as with a person who appears in a single Olympics game, or who wins a seat for one term in a state legislature.
- There is considerable recent work across several fields, which i will review somewhere here if the blp pressure lets up, that within a subject in the sciences, the principle factors for quality are the two axes of number of citations per article and number of articles published. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG, common outcomes. This is a full professor, with a great number of well-referenced publications, as well as working on important issues. She easily meets WP:PROF. This nomination appears to be based on the rationale that brown women are not "wiki notable". Bearian (talk)
- Thats unfair Bearian. I have argued with the nominator often enough at AfD to know that, he doesn't have anything against "brown women". He is just thorough thats all. In fact his AfDs have resulted in many articles getting better (just to prove him wrong).--Sodabottle (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and close by all means - Oh boy, no chance even in my dream for what Bearian wrote above. I got to go and will shed some light(background) on this after retuning from workplace (Est Time). I do not use wiki at workplace to respect work ethics. Thanks to DGG and Sodabottle. --kaeiou (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: good publication list on GS. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable and sourced. (User) Mb (Talk) 12:45, 5 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 Withdrawn, deferring to article state and WP:SNOW. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phyllis Litoff
- Phyllis Litoff (edit | talk | 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 originally prodded this shortly after it was created: subject does not appear to be terribly notable. Only references about her available were an obit and a brief blurb about how a hall was named after her in memoriam. Original author removed the PROD from the article, so I am bringing it here. I motion for deletion per WP:BIO. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She has a $24,000,000 building named after her at one the most famous music conservatories in America (there is considerably more press coverage of this than the blurb that was originally there.) There is also more coverage of her in the New York Times, than just her obituary, and an Associated Press article about her work at the Belleayre Music Festival, where a pavillion is named after her. See the latest additions to the article. I have to say that proposing an article for deletion within 7 minutes of creation, is pretty bizarre. It had at least two sources, why not give the creator a chance to work on it? It's not a very good welcome for new editor. Also may I ask if the nominator in this deletion discussion actually looked for further sources before nominating this? Voceditenore (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The New York Times doesn't write obits about nobodies. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - NYT obit as well as host of other refs is enough. Shadowjams (talk) 08:16, 7 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. Black Kite 01:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Antonio Puig
- Antonio Puig (edit | talk | 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 prod. Article contains no reliable secondary sources to establish notability. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I expect that any such sources will be in Spanish. I've asked Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spain for help to find out, either way. Maurreen (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,certainly exists and is known in Spain, but I have only found one source so far, which I added. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Delete the only reference in the article is a link to a book he wrote. Yes, he wrote a book. After searching for 20+ minutes in English and Spanish, I found ZERO independent sources discussing him. Here is a "Antonio+Puig"+OR+"antonio+del+puig"+OR+"antonio+j+del+puig"+OR+"antonio+jose+del+puig"+poeta+OR+escritor+-"Puig+Campillo"+-wikipedia+-perfume+-perfumes+-"Don+Antonio"+-"PUIG%2C+S.+A."+-"PUIG+JANE"+-"D.+Antonio"+-toilette+-Blanch+-"puig+sa" link to my google query if you're interested. The problem is there are a lot of false positives. Someone prominent in Spain in the 1990s would have secondary sources findable on the internet - it's not from long ago or a developing country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Agreed that online sources seem to not be there. It is possible that print sources in Spanish may be there, but I only have access to online Spanish sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My view is that a writer currently active in a developed country who doesn't have any web presence is not notable. If print sources turn up later, this could be recreated, but I strongly doubt anything of substance exists. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I also note that the book you linked to in Google books is not held by any library in WorldCat or by any of the Spanish library catalogs individually linked in the ISBN link page. The article, both here and at es.wiki, was written by User:Antonio Puig. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My view is that a writer currently active in a developed country who doesn't have any web presence is not notable. If print sources turn up later, this could be recreated, but I strongly doubt anything of substance exists. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Agreed that online sources seem to not be there. It is possible that print sources in Spanish may be there, but I only have access to online Spanish sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (change position): Ahah, I hadn't checked that. It is somewhat strange as the books exist, but now I see that the press "Editorial Vision Net" is a self publishing company [12]. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two of the other books are listed at theBiblioteca Nacional de España [13] , but that probably isn't enough for notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- When I de-prodded the article, I did so because it seemed like a borderline case concerning notability. But any case seems to be getting weaker all the time. Maurreen (talk) 09:42, 6 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. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 00:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AHMED MATER
- AHMED MATER (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was speedy deleted twice yesterday, so now skipping WP:PROD and bringing to AFD for the purpose. Subject does not appear to be notable. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up. The artist has exhibited at The Louvre and the British Museum, and appears to be a major player in the Saudi Arabian contemporary art scene. (I don't know how big a scene that is, but this artist appears to be making a name for himself among it.) Links in the article seem to assert his notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I have moved the page to Ahmed Mater for proper capitalization. I have no vote in the AfD discussion because this is not my area of expertise, but I agree that the article might be worth keeping after extensive cleanup and wikification. I will add edit tags. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - IP editors have inappropriately removed the AfD tag and the edit tags without comment. They have been restored but who knows if the editors will take the hint. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If he's notable enough for the Louvre and the British Museum then he's notable enough for Wikipedia. They are the experts, after all. A few more sources:[14][15][16][17]. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Prominence through exhibitions and sufficient secondary sources. Ty 14:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep as per Phil Bridger.Edward321 (talk) 03:17, 10 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avery Nesbitt
- Avery Nesbitt (edit | talk | 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 citations available are either unreliable or linked to the source; example, he's won an award, one that is both unimportant and directly linked to his foundation work. Ironholds (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as no independent evidence of notability. The creator of the article (User:Averycnesbitt) has also been removing a COI notice and the AfD notice (now restored). AllyD (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the AfD per the above line "You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page." which I have done. Please explain why you feel the article does not fit proper guildlines. I am removing the AfD. Additional references have been added.
- Very well. Then what needs to be added to the article. I have included additional references and supporting articles. Please explain why you feel the article does not fit proper guildlines. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete: lacks reliable independent references, apparently WP:autobiography. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Almost entirely original research. StAnselm (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The references seem to be legit. Article needs to have unsubstantiated infomrmation verfied or removed by can be keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WindowLover (talk • contribs) 06:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC) — WindowLover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Articled has been edited and additional independent references have been made. Averycnesbitt (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has 8 references by my count, all web links, mostly affiliated with the subject in some way (from Victory World Church or Sunday to Sunday). The corporation filing for Sunday to Sunday is the only independent and reliable reference, and doesn't indicate notability in any way, per WP:GNG. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. -- Radagast3 (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just got this email from Ironholds - "The fact that a faith group you're heavily involved in writes about you means jack shit; it's a faith group you're heavily involved in." - So I guess I will add additional independent references. Thank you everyone for your help. Averycnesbitt 70.11.18.83 (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry you got that email Avery. But remember that editing articles about yourself is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:Autobiography. StAnselm (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Mr. Nesbitt, I'm sure you are a good person and do important work, but since the world at large has not taken independent note of you (at least not according to anything I can find on Google), we can't keep the article here. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, an important resource for millions of people, and it has to maintain standards to keep it from becoming a hodge-podge where anyone can post anything. BTW I'm really sorry you got that e-mail. That was totally inappropriate. Good luck with your work. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 11 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. and rename. Black Kite 01:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malaysia Companies House e-info
- Malaysia Companies House e-info (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
26 hits for this on Google. Article has had no real edits in 3 years. Ridernyc (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article should be moved to the title of the body. And the article needs to be references (I'll try). But any national corporations regulator is, in my view, inherently notable.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 06:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to Companies Commission of Malaysia. It's a national-level statutory body with numerous GNews hits: 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. cab (talk) 06:53, 11 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. Black Kite 01:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish peoplehood
- Jewish peoplehood (edit | talk | 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 looks to me like a chunk of original research/synthesis from a particular point of view. Phrases such as "a dramatic paradigm shift in Jewish life, which is gaining increasing support within Jewish communities worldwide." sound to me that this is a position paper being positioned as a WP article. Some of the material might be better placed in an article about Mordechai Kaplan or the NADAV Foundation but this is not a WP article. Joe407 (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Joe407 (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - (pending review by a Judaica expert!) concur with the above; this looks like concept promotion cast into an article. Sources seem too "clustered" and academic; if topic were truly notable, there should be independent coverage and critique or history. There should also, by now, be better "in passing" references on the web. A Google search for "Amiut Yehudit" (with quotes) turns up exactly 2 hits at this time; the Wikipedia article in question and a casual usage in what appears to be a collections of blog comments. A search for the Hebrew term עמיות יהודית turns up a large collection of hits in Hebrew, but the first few pages of hits seem to be either low quality (blog comments, youtube comments, etc.), tied to the same cluster of sources, or to such groups as the Jewish Agency for Israel, which I think can be fairly characterized as the archetypical Zionist organization (i.e. a strong advocate for some particular positions - a group likely to take up promotion of a concept such as this). Noticeably, in the highly ranked search results I reviewed, there was only one newspaper hit, from 2006, which in passing referred to "peoplehood" as a new concept being promoted (based on the Google translation). It's certainly possible that there are better/appropriate sources that would establish notability; my inability to read Hebrew would certainly prevent me from finding them, and what we have now strikes me as inadequate for that purpose. Studerby (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep At the very least this is an expression which is being promoted. It seems from the sources that its promoters have been successful enough that it is being noticed and commented on by published sources -- hence WP notable. Of course this article does not replace others on the larger topic including Who is a Jew? and others about Jewish identity. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I was not certain how widely the term was in use, so I did a quicl check and found it in use as defined in the article in 14 Wikipedia articles. I have linked them all to this article. It is also clear that this has been a term of art in Jewish circles since at least the 1890's.AMuseo (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and encourage additional development and sourcing. The concept is far from being a neologism, and if there is renewed interest in it, an article is entirely appropriate. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article itself does not show the notability of this idea, and of course reads like OR, but the references indicate that it is indeed a notable phrase. i would strongly recommend a complete rewrite, but the refs are substantial.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly a POV fork. Jon513 (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete based on the following, peculiar observations:
- This article is well sourced. At the same time, I have never heard of the term (in either English nor Hebrew). Probably some people are using it for their propaganda purposes, likely mostly outside Israel.
- On the other hand I find it strange that neither the article about Mordecai Kaplan, nor the article about Reconstructionist Judaism which is based on his ideas, mention Jewish Peoplehood. Debresser (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS, and WP:NEO. The material seems to be forced into a format that yields the desired conclusions. Regarding the idea of "peoplehood," doesn't Jews take care of that by itself? Debresser: Speaking of references, did you notice that the first 6 references are dead links? Yoninah (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update and comment. At the risk of outing an editor, the page creator shares a name with the NADAV Foundation's public relations director. The NADAV foundation is also the cited source for a number of the papers and refs in the article. Advancing the concept of "Jewish peoplehood" is a stated goal of the foundation "...Nadav Foundation supports initiatives designed to advance understanding of Jewish Peoplehood." While COI is not a reason to delete an article I believe that the term is currently a neologism and not in wide, notable use. This is a POVFORK looking to advance a concept rather than an article reporting on an existing concept. When Jewish peoplehood is a widespread term in the broad community (not just among those looking to advance it as a concept) it should then get an article. In the meantime, the information should be filed under Mordechai Kaplan, Jew, and if there is enough notable coverage, NADAV Foundation. Joe407 (talk) 16:07, 11 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. Fails WP:BAND. Jayjg (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rose Funeral
(Was formerly mis-listed as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Rose Funeral)
- Rose Funeral (edit | talk | 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 adding the following to the nomination, as it would make no sense without the main article:
List of members of Rose Funeral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)-- Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 07:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Article deleted per its own {{afd}} Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 01:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has only been in existence for a 5 years, there aren't any notable band members or recordings. Hourick (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - This is a talk page and should thus go to MfD. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Presumably the intention was to nominate the article, rather than its talk page....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed... Hope it ddn't break anything.
- Presumably the intention was to nominate the article, rather than its talk page....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I doubt that the age of the band is relevant, the lack of notability is. Notorious, yes, notable, no. They've got one reliable source, which is hardly significant coverage. Also, see my comments on the article talk page. Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 19:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck out above !vote - it was referring to the talk page rather than the article. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability per WP:BAND, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes notability 174.55.2.138 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How so? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes notability on the basis that they are signed to Metal Blade Records and working on their third release. If Dirty Little Rabbits can have a page, then so can Rose Funeral. User:willisx90 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.12.76 (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dirty Little Rabbits is notable because it contains two (albeit questionably) notable members, therefore passing criteria 6 of WP:BAND. Rose Funeral does not. Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 07:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added List of members of Rose Funeral to the nomination. It's already part of it's own afd, but it makes sense to list it here as well. Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 07:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has been deleted per its own {{afd}}.Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 01:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am protecting the article because I just removed vandalism that resulted in the article being tagged for speedy deletion as nonsense. Dlohcierekim 16:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability per WP:BAND, no significant sources, no notable members, no notable recordings. - A7xandquantumtheory —Preceding unsigned comment added by A7xandquantumtheory (talk • contribs) 19:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Just claiming this band "fails notability" per WP:BAND without actually reading the criterion is simply stupid. Rose Funeral at the very least passes criteria 1, 4 and maybe 5. Possibly others. I'd like to explain criteria 5, Metal Blade Records has a long history and has signed countless notable bands. Rose Funeral has two albums out (One on Metal Blade, one on Siege of Amida that apparently was re-released by Candlelight) and is about to release their third this year on Metal Blade. I know, that is a future event, but what is the point of deleting a band only to recreate the article later on? Also, Rose Funeral possibly also passes criteria 7. Do I need to mention the "UNO" incident? That has also certainly contributed coverage of this band in various news and magazine outlets. Joe Capricorn (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Criteria 1 requires significant coverage on reliable sources, the only reliable sources I can see cited are about.com and allmusic. Together, they are not exactly a significant amount. Criteria 4: What reliable source would that be? Citation 5: requires two albums on major labels, you've only stated the significance of one of them. Criteria 7: How so? As for the Uno incident, see WP:FAME, for which I stick by my summary that notoriety is not necessarily notability. Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 03:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Citation 5: Their debut album on Siege of Amida Records. I believe they are a part of Ferret records but this could be a gray area. If not, then Citation 5 does not apply to Rose Funeral... for now. They are working on a third album and that will most likely be released on Metal Blade, so if Rose Funoral(sic) is deleted, they'll be re-added later on. I could try to dig up links about criteria 1 and 4 but I don't feel like it, since in all honesty I don't care about Rose Funeral as a band, just the coverage of the Uno incident. Likewise this is likely my last post on the topic. Joe Capricorn (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regarding Criteria 4- how exactly should we define a "reliable source"? By Googling "Rose Funeral Tour we see info from Metal Blade Records itself and some other websites. If a "reliable source" is expected to be some international news center then that would result in a ton of bands missing this criteria. (User talk: willisx90) —Preceding undated comment added 07:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: OK, make that a "reliable third party source", as in one not affiliated with the tour, which was what I was intending by my comment. Surely that is a logical extension of the GN criteria? Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 12:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:Reliable sources — Gwalla | Talk 22:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The vandalism is extreme, and will likely not stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magson13 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This from one of the contributors to the vandalism. Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 12:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not I edited the page at one point does not make my point any less valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magson13 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: As I added to the references, the majority of the content of this article was originally copied from [18], as of this revision. Since then, it looks as if content might have been copied backwards and forward numerous times, with very little attempt at attribution. I'm not sure what to do with this discovery, as last.fm bios are released under CC-BY-SA. Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 13:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. I am concerned that the initial mislisting and the circumstances leading to the page protection affected proper consideration of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails to meet any of the criteria set forth in WP:BAND. No reliable sources to indicate notability. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:34, 4 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. Black Kite 01:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The longest suicide note in history
- The longest suicide note in history (edit | talk | 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 may be a relevant entry for a dictionary of quotations, but wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. The quotation is already discussed in its proper place, the article on Gerald Kaufman. Malleus Fatuorum 14:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge: It covers a notable event in British political history.. Seeing that it is an important topic, i'm pretty sure that it can be expanded. --TIAYN (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not cover any event, it is a quotation. It really ought to be included as part of the United Kingdom general election, 1983 if anywhere else other than the Kaufman article. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, very notable phrase, widely referenced. Everyking (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this phrase is incredibly notable in British politics of the early 1980 (probably before most Wikipedians were born, so that's why we're here. Had it been a passing X-factor contestant it would be a speedy keep). The phrase is notable in the context of the 1983 general election, but has been widely used since. It is referenced in various articles and it makes perfect sense to click through to one article that can explain its origins, impact and afterlife. Deletion makes no sense at all.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging would simply mean that the information was repeated on Gerald Kaufman Michael Foot United Kingdom general election, 1983, Hard left, History of socialism in Great Britain, History of the British Labour Party etc. The phrase is also used (in other contexts entirely)on articles like You'll Never Eat Lunch in This Town Again and Peter Gutmann (computer scientist) where the background isn't strictly relevant but the reader might be curious enough to click through and find out the origins.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I find the argument that a computer scientist once used the phrase means that it deserves its own article to be preposterous. Does every quotation deserve its own article in your view? What about "like being savaged by a dead sheep", or "we shall fight on the beaches ..."? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We shall fight on the beaches. Also Blood, toil, tears, and sweat and This was their finest hour and Never was so much owed by so many to so few. But Be Ye Men of Valour seems a step too far to me. -- Jttw (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, this is more like "savaged by a dead sheep" than "we shall fight on the beaches" (the latter is certainly notable).
- I am convinced by the arguments below that this should simply be moved to 1983 UK general election Labour Party manifesto or similar, or, perhaps better, I believe it was actually entitled "New Hope for Britain",[19] although I doubt anyone would ever look for it there. That also happens to be the title of a 700-page policy document issued in March 1983, which seems to be confused with the 39-page manifesto. I updated the article to show how it could look with a focus on the documents rather than the epithet, but have been reverted, so started a new article under the title of the documents. Also compare the more recent "New Labour, New Life For Britain". -- Jttw (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Useful article, justification for removing it seems more relevant to a merge discussion, and I'd oppose that as well. Artw (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Gerald Kaufman, unless someone can think of a better merge destination. Unless there's evidence of significant use elsewhere, can't see its best use as a stand-alone article.
Merge to Gerald Kaufman.Redirect to List of political catch phrases#United Kingdom The epithets uttered by some public figure deserve mention in his article, or might redirect to an article about a notable speech, but do not need to be spun off into separate articles. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of epithets, and this one does not seem that notable in any event. Edison (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Merging to Kaufman is silly. The quote is notable because it says something about the Labour party of the 1980s, not because Kaufman said it. It doesn't tell us anything about Kaufman. I'm disturbed that these merge notes are not about "what helps us best present this verifiable information?" but some ideological dislike. This IS notable. Google isn't everything but: 236,000 hits, 80 Google scholar hits. And look, A BBC article on the phrase itself, a Telegraph newspaper story, C$ news. With respect, can I suggest the mergers are ignorant of British political history?--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- May I recommend that you read the policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks and refrain from calling those who disagree with you "ignorant?" Please strike the personal attack. Edison (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't a personal attack.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- May I recommend that you read the policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks and refrain from calling those who disagree with you "ignorant?" Please strike the personal attack. Edison (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the view that this article only belongs in "a dictionary of quotations" (i.e. it's just the epithet, not the manifesto and the problems within the party) isn't based on ignorance, then what is it? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're stretching veracity to breaking point, and in a rather insulting way too, both of which are unnecessary. The BBC article you claim is about the phrase is actually about Labour's 1983 election manifesto, as you would have known if you'd read it; it just happens to have the phrase in its title. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. That's the point. The phrase is all anyone thinks about when the manifesto is mentioned. It isn't just a quote - it is a saying that came to encapsulate a whole chapter in the history of one of the two major British parties, and the leadership of michael foot. The phrase is a cultural icon in itself. That's evidenced by the fact when the BBC write about Food and the manifesto, they are writing about (and titleing it) "the longest suicide note in history".--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The BBC article you claim is about the phrase is actually about Labour's 1983 election manifesto, as you would have known if you'd read it; it just happens to have the phrase in its title." Malleus, if you can honestly say that in all naivety, you ought to withdraw the nomination on the grounds of a total misunderstanding. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree that this article appears to be falling foul of some built in biases of Wikipedias: It's not particularly new, and it's not particularly American. Artw (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're stretching veracity to breaking point, and in a rather insulting way too, both of which are unnecessary. The BBC article you claim is about the phrase is actually about Labour's 1983 election manifesto, as you would have known if you'd read it; it just happens to have the phrase in its title. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keepIt seems just about everyone talking about the relivant era of british politics brings up the phrase.©Geni 23:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This has a huge significance in British politics, even more than as a US president saying, "I am a donut" or "read my lips". Besides which, if you delete it, I hope the unquiet spirit of Michael Foot (greatest prime minister we never had) comes and haunts you. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is indeed a scary thought; Michael Foot was scary enough when he was alive. BTW. I thought "the greatest prime minister we never had" was John Smith? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI really do not want to have an article about every epithet uttered by a politician, especially if it extends to Dick Cheney ("Go fuck yourself!") and George W. Bush"They misunderestimated me." These phrases got lots of press coverage, but do not deserve articles any more than the present article.Instead, individual epithets or catchphrases are redirected to an article about the speaker, or about the speech, or to the article which has a collection of such catchphrases, List of political catch phrases. This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, not Bartlett's Familiar Quotations. Edison (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apples and oranges. Inarticulate phrases which get media attention and then pass should not be listed. Phrases which become historical icons with a life of their own should. This isn't a catchprase - it became the title of a historical period and event. A closed comparison would be "It's the economy, stupid" - although that's a campaign phrase, which this is not. This one is wider.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "I really do not want to have an article about every epithet uttered by a politician"
- This isn't an article about the epithet, it's about the Labour party's manifesto, the attitude within the Labour party of the time that allowed them to produce such an obviously unelectable document (wow, democratic organisation shooting its feet with process over content, who'd have though it?), and the wilderness years it then consigned the Labour party to. Reading the article I'm disappointed that it's so sparse as to not make this clear, but the topic is far broader than Kaufman's one-liner reaction to it, snappy title though that does offer us. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the detail on the manifesto's content would be inappropriate for Kaufman's biographical article. The subject is notable because of its impact, not because of this name given to it; therefore I would like to see this article developed with more detail on the contents of the manifesto and other experts' comments on its background, relation to previous Labour party mainfestoes and those of the other major parties, and its impact on the election. Such an article could be renamed "Manifesto of the Labour Party for the 1983 General Election" and be the start of a very interesting set of similar articles on modern British political history. Knepflerle (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - What the hell? I vote delete for most of the AfDs, but for the life of me, I can not see how this was proposed for deletion. Did I miss something? Merging it with Gerald Kaufman is not going to do it, because it is kept in recorded history without necessarly mentioning his name. -RobertMel (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have missed a great deal apparently – that this is an article about a quotation when it ought to be an article about a party political manifesto, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I have missed anything. It was submitted for deletion, not a rename or a change as proposed by Fatuorum. So, I don't see how it is proposed for deletion. Yes, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this requires appropriate changes not an AfD. -RobertMel (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You also seem to have missed that rather useful search box. Type in "finest hour" and do a search on that to see what I mean. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have missed a great deal apparently – that this is an article about a quotation when it ought to be an article about a party political manifesto, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as redirect We ought to have articles on the manifestos of the major parties, or at least sections in United Kingdom general election, 1983. This looks like a good start on such an article, and should be a redirect to that (for those who didn't live through those times, yes this a well known name for the platform of the main opposition party in 1983 and one explanation for one of the largest ever Conservative wins). ϢereSpielChequers 18:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The manifesto is the background to the quotation, but the quotation has also had an afterlife. Merging this makes zero sense.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Evidently notable. Merger or move is not performed by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't think there is enough to be said about this phrase to justify an article. If the phrase has a place on Wikimedia projects it is in a Wikiquote article about Gerald Kaufman or about election campaigns. The article itself has some inaccuracies: the manifesto was not "over 700 pages long", but merely 37 pages. Michael Foot was not responsible for the suggestion that a manifesto be produced from all conference resolutions; this appears to be a garbled interpretation of the suggestion by Labour right-winger John Golding that it be written from NEC policy documents in order to thoroughly implicate the left-wing of the party in the expected heavy election defeat. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Intersting snippet, could be expanded, and wikipedia shouldn't be rewriting/whitewashing history. I can't imagine anyone actually wanting to delete this unless they were trying to save the Labor party from some embarrassment. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep If it was mentioned in newspaper of the day, then its a notable phrase. Dream Focus 08:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, I'm always amused at your votes for deletion, so invariably devoid of reason are they. But this one marks a new low. Seriously, have you not yet grasped, in your 1,331-day Wikipedia career, that verifiability is not tantamount to notability? True, a lion in Arkansas enjoys drinking milk, a car has been stolen in South Dakota, and a house has burned in Kansas. These events are "mentioned in newspaper [sic] of the day". Does that imply "its [sic] a notable" enough topic to include in this encyclopedia? I should hope not. Other readers make a more cogent argument for keeping this, but your comment does their side no service. - Biruitorul Talk 03:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looking at what links to the page this article would have to be reproduced in every article linked. It's a very notable and memorable statement on the Labour Manifesto at the time that has been widely used ever since in all media. The article certainly doesn't need deleted, and I can't see how it could be merged, where would it be properly merged to? I agree with Sam Blacketer that it contains inaccuracy's but not their view that it needs to be deleted. It needs attention and a bit of work.Amentet (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, rename into something like "Labour party 1983 manifesto". Current title of the article is of questionable neutrality (being popular, it should be kept as redirect page).Fuseau (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutrality isn't a problem. The highly non-neutral description of the manifesto was Kaufman's, not any bias in our reporting of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that the title should be changed to something more encyclopedic and less POV, as Fuseau suggests, in the event the article is kept. Edison (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: compare with Ich bin ein Berliner, Read my lips: no new taxes, It's the economy, stupid, giant sucking sound, There you go again. There seems to be a pro-America systemic bias for politics, as Milk snatcher also got deleted not so long back, despite being more long-lasting than the giant sucking sound. Sceptre (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, rename per Fuseau above. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to United Kingdom general election, 1983, where this content fits comfortably and belongs, since it is not really a discrete topic. If that article grows too long, create United Kingdom general election campaign, 1983 and cover there. If that grows too long, cover at Labour Party campaign campaign, United Kingdom general election, 1983, and in the unlikely event that gets too big, cover just this topic at Labour Party (UK) manifesto, 1983. But we're a long way from that point, and it does no good to break out short, random bits of something that makes far more sense as a coherent whole. - Biruitorul Talk 03:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirct Agree with Biruitorul. Seems best, given that this article is arguably notable and poorly written, but is something that shouldn't just be deleted. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:00, 11 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) 00:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How to pack for camping
- How to pack for camping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Howto - not an encyclopaedia article. Disputed prod noq (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Not an encyclopedic topic. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As stated above, Wp is not a how to guide. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because this article is a "how-to" guide, and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.--BelovedFreak 15:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete - Zero encyclopedic value, howto guide, as stated above. PDCook (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete. This belongs on Wikihow. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--Please take care not to be biting a newbie.Jarhed (talk) 17:59, 6 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. Another NOTNEWS article that we have WikiNews for Black Kite 01:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2009 Orlando shooting
- 2009 Orlando shooting (edit | talk | 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:NOTNEWS violation. Not notable. Hardly any inbound links and unlikely to gain any. Certainly less notable than Nidal Malik Hasan and he was nominated for deletion. Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant keep I'm not sure why this made news worldwide when it happened [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], or why the New York Times included it two months later [26], but I can't deny that it happened. I contemplated the argument that only one of the six shooting victims died, but we don't measure notability that way. Mandsford (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Another local news story with the three days of heavy coverage from national sources and then a fast trail-off from there. Nate • (chatter) 23:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of receiving national or worldwide notice, this can also be notable for two or three reasons, One, It was right after, or the day after, the Fort Hood Shooting. Secondly, it was in Orlando, an International hot spot. Many people visit Orlando. Thirdly, because of how much attention Caley Anthony has given Orlando. It may have dove-tailed or correlate into that. Florida is seeking the death penalty for Anthony. These three factors most likely combined to make it tip in the news. Most significantly because it was the DAY AFTER the Fort Hood Shooting.
Here's a kicker. You could delete the article. But then what if he is executed after conviction under Florida law? Then you would have to re-add him under "executions in Florida." So you might as well keep it until he is convicted/his case goes to trial. Adanumber (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the Fort Hood Shooting connection is so weak that the consensus on the articles Talk page has been not to mention it at all in this article. also wikipedia is not a crystal ball. if he becomes notable because of his execution the article can be recreated then. Misterdiscreet (talk) 06:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The timing of the shooting to Ft. Hood means nothing and this has absolutely nothing to do at all with the Anthony case in any way. Finally, most everyone except for local residents completely ignore Orlando's crime beat unless something heinous occurs. One person died and everyone else was OK here. The only unusual item is that occurred at an office. Anywhere else and it wouldn't be here. Nate • (chatter) 07:12, 11 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. Not a valid deletion rationale Tikiwont (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arab Bank
- Arab Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Arab Bank Page has been edited and reverted back by many users, and some are not allowing for the content to be updated. 09:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mongol_Empire#Legacy. Content can be pulled from the page history and merged. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Breaking Back
- Breaking Back (edit | talk | 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 Content
- Delete : Does not explain what 'Breaking Back' is - just states that it existed and why it was used. Much more content needs to be added for this to merit an article. The topic is notable but as it stands the article is too thin for inclusion. Would be like having an article on Barack Obama and having it say 'Barack Obama was a black guy who may have been born in the United States sometime after 1840'. Though Obama is notable, I don't think such an article should or would stand. Maybe not the best example, but hopefully you get my point. DegenFarang (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If you think the topic is notable, then AfD is not the place for it (see WP:BEFORE). I personally don't think the topic is notable, and if additional references aren't added, I'd suggest delete, but I'm withholding my !vote for now. PDCook (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:IAR. I am attempting to improve Wikipedia by getting rid of this worthless article. This is the second time somebody is telling me 'this is not the proper method to do so'. I don't have time to wade through red-tape and bureaucracy any longer - just to appease a single editor that I did things the 'right' way in having the article deleted. It should be deleted, so let's WP:IAR and delete it because it will improve Wikipedia (and not waste any more of my time). DegenFarang (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how bringing an article you think is notable to AfD can be excused by WP:IAR, as there plently of policy-based ways to improve Wikipedia here. If you think the article is notable, then WP:Stub it down (it's pretty much a stub already) or expand it appropriately. If you wish to change your deletion rationale, and say that this topic does not meet Wikipedia's notability policy, then I think you might have a case here. Given that there is a reference that mentions the action of back breaking (although it doesn't use the term verbatim), I would imagine this could be merged into an existing article. As far as the red tape and bureaucracy, it's simply a matter of learning a few core policies before jumping into the deep end. PDCook (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I retract, I do not think the topic is notable. DegenFarang (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how bringing an article you think is notable to AfD can be excused by WP:IAR, as there plently of policy-based ways to improve Wikipedia here. If you think the article is notable, then WP:Stub it down (it's pretty much a stub already) or expand it appropriately. If you wish to change your deletion rationale, and say that this topic does not meet Wikipedia's notability policy, then I think you might have a case here. Given that there is a reference that mentions the action of back breaking (although it doesn't use the term verbatim), I would imagine this could be merged into an existing article. As far as the red tape and bureaucracy, it's simply a matter of learning a few core policies before jumping into the deep end. PDCook (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
and merge(already merged) into Mongol_Empire#Legacy. This section already had the same image that the Breaking Back article has, and one sentence about back breaking could be added to the text. I might go ahead and add this if I get the time. PDCook (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a sentence about back-breaking and the reference given in this article to the Mongol_Empire#Legacy article. So no loss of information will occur if this article is deleted. PDCook (talk) 22:24, 5 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) 00:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bulldog Gin
- Bulldog_Gin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
Delete This article fails to establish notability by providing scant third party references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterS2009 (talk • contribs) 2010/03/02 16:28:36
Delete Only one very trivial news mention. Sometimes referred to in books, but all those books are from before this product was launched, so it's not about the same thing. Smocking (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 4 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) 00:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G'vine
Delete
- The links provided do not show evidence of notability, as they are largely blogs - and unheard of ones at that. There is no third party coverage/press etc to evidence WP:GNG
Having looked into the links a bit further - there is evidence of fakery - see this one: http://www.luxist.com/2006/12/25/gvine-gin/ most of the comments are transparently faked - not very impressive at all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterS2009 (talk • contribs) 2010/03/02 16:48:31
- Delete for lack of notability. The articles used as references, fake comments and all, prove that the Gin exists, which is fine, but we need to show that it's notable. I can't find sources to do it, nor do I believe that they exist. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 4 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 . Beeblebrox (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gedenken
- Gedenken (edit | talk | 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 the general notability guidelines. Trivial assertions of notability ie. second place in non-notable competition. Other assertions of notability are based on the artist, not the artwork. Reconsider! 12:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This article should stay, as the artists work is notable, as qualified by the high praise it has received by industry critics, incl. Fairfax Media and the Australian Institute of Professional Photography. The work is currently being considered for further exhibitions at the Sydney Jewish Museum for it's use of historical testimonies of holocaust survivors / refugees in Australia. Seanpbrokenshire (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC) — Seanpbrokenshire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This one artwork does not appear to be notable enough to rate its own article. It's possible that the artist, Meredith Schofield, might be notable based on this and (presumably) other work, and if this gets deleted, interested parties could try creating an article about her instead. --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't really see how this piece is notable on its own. Like MelanieN said, this might be worth mentioning in an article about the artist (assuming that article fulfilled WP:AUTHOR) but not on its own. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:54, 11 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) 00:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Golf clap
- Golf clap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Never-sourced article on a neologism. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per WP:NEO and WP:NOTDIC. If appropriate sources can be found, some of the content could warrant merge into the Applause article. PDCook (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Non-notable neologism. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 14:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above NEO and NOTDIC CTJF83 chat 07:38, 6 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 06:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Immigration Bridge
- Immigration Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
HI, sorry for blanking the Immigration Bridge page - I thought that is how you deleted.
I would like to delete this item as I do not believe it fits into the category of Buildings and structures in Canberra. The Immigration Bridge is neither a building nor a structure - it is a concept, it is not built nor has been built. All the other articles in this category have either been built and are still standing or where once built and are no longer with us, this is why I feel that it should be deleted
If it is decided that it should stay them I will accept that. Thanks for your help and sorry for any trouble I have caused.CanberraBulldog (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it has reliable sources. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The coverage already presented in the article is significant. A topic being in the "wrong category" is not proper grounds to delete an article. --Oakshade (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. One could argue WP:CRYSTAL as this bridge will hopefully never be built. However there has been significant coverage of the proposal, which makes it verifiable speculation such that WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. A clearly notable topic. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While this bridge may not be built, the proposal to build it is notable - it's received extensive media coverage and was the subject of an Australian parliamentary inquiry. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 5 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) 00:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Information Technology Association of America
- Information Technology Association of America (edit | talk | 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 assertion of notability and without independent citations to back up its claims, it's little more than fancrust. Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article has lots of references, but they weren't formatted properly. They are now. Some of the links to the organization's own site are broken, but can probably be fixed. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Eastmain - this seems to be pretty well-sourced now. Addionne (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but I can see why it would be considered prommotional at first reading--there was n awful lot of spam--a list of every one of the member organizations, and of all the officers-- that Eastmain has now removed DGG ( talk ) 08:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - even after Eastmain's improvements I thought this was headed for the deletion block at first glance, but in amongst the self-citations and press releases are some credible sources, particularly about the association's support of Real ID. It will take more rewriting to prevent another well-intentioned editor from nominating this again, however.--~TPW 15:22, 8 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) 00:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff Peckman
- Jeff Peckman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
receiving an inconsequential number of votes does not make one notable. being a columnist does not make one notable. and as for his 2008 stint in the news, see WP:NOTNEWS Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep However unlikely to succeed his ballot initiative in 2003 was to "increase peacefulness," it got national, [27], [28], and international news coverage and lengthy coverage in a book, all included as inline references. However hard to believe was his video of an extraterrestrial peeking in someone's window in 2008, it also got national and international news coverage, which is referenced in the article. Two events is not one event, 2003 is not 2008, and the ballot initiative to foster peacefulness goes beyond a one-day news story. WP:NEWS does not forbid us having articles about someone who has been in the news repeatedly. Appears to satisfy WP:N and WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Costello and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Bonds 714th home run. being mentioned in the news does not automatically make one notable. Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep being discussed in multiple sources for a series of things, all exceptionally stupid, can indeed amount to notability. Costello was wrongly decided -- CEO of a major company, which he was, is notable. The other article is not parallel, being not about a person, but a specific event in the life of a person. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources. PDCook (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Cleanup. Peckman is notable via media coverage of his unconventional political activism, candidacy and views. Article need not have separate section headings for his education, ufo video, etc. but rather concisely summarize the reliably-sourced coverage he's received. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Coverage in reliable sources for two distinct events, so WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. — Gwalla | Talk 18:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- while being in the news might be enough for an article on a company, biographies of living people have stiffer requirements. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Atkinson (software developer) (2nd nomination) is a good example. bio deleted despite interviews because WP:BIO has stiffer requirements. Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not on point at all. The Atkinson article was deleted as "unsourced BLP." This one has references. BLP is a special requirement for bio articles to avoid libel and harm to living persons. WP:BIO is not "stiffer notability requirements" for people than for other types of article subjects. It just sets forth helpful ways to decide notability is in some special cases such as authors or artists. A person who satisfies the general notability guideline is still notable even if they do not specifically satisfy one of the profession-specific provisions of WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep His varied activities have received sufficient mainstream coverage to make him notable for Wikipedia. __meco (talk) 20:42, 4 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. Tim Song (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lakeline Mall
- Lakeline Mall (edit | talk | 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 reads like PR copy for a advertisement. Not only is it just apparently another non-notable mall, but it has almost no references. Nothing is mentioned that would make it notable. It's not even borderline keepable. Misterdiscreet (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand off sources added. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per [29] it has 1,102,805 square feet of gross leasable area, making it a "superregional mall" per the classification standards for US malls. These have generally been kept in previous AFDs for malls. Edison (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:N. Of the 1060 Google News results that this mall yields, there are at least two articles on the first page alone which appear to sufficiently satisfy notability guidelines. — C M B J 20:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- you mean those newspaper articles that can only be viewed if you pay money to view them? and are we to believe that you actually paid that money? Misterdiscreet (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He has his methods.--Milowent (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- but apparently he cannot use his methods to actually summarise their content on this page? or do they all just say the same non-notability-establishing stuff that the original citation said? if there is something in non public links that make the mall notable then add it to the article - do not just say "these links make it notable" and leave it at that without saying what in those links make it notable Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're the one who made an ill-advised AFD nomination, not him. Cheers.--Milowent (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- it is hard to be well advised when one does not have "his methods". since his methods do not allow verification are we supposed to just take everything he says on faith alone? are we to pretend WP:V does not exist? Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My assertion was based on the idea that we can take an educated guess at the content of an article by its (1) headline, (2) topic sentence, (3) opening paragraph, and (4) publishing integrity. The two articles I spoke of both have (1) headlines which suggest non-trivial coverage of the mall itself, (2) each contain a topic sentence and (3) opening paragraph which directly address the mall, and (4) come from one of the largest, oldest, and most reputable newspapers in the region. Furthermore, as much as I personally oppose closed-content schemes, it remains a matter of policy that we are allowed to cite material which may not even be accessible online at all. — C M B J 03:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- it is hard to be well advised when one does not have "his methods". since his methods do not allow verification are we supposed to just take everything he says on faith alone? are we to pretend WP:V does not exist? Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're the one who made an ill-advised AFD nomination, not him. Cheers.--Milowent (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- but apparently he cannot use his methods to actually summarise their content on this page? or do they all just say the same non-notability-establishing stuff that the original citation said? if there is something in non public links that make the mall notable then add it to the article - do not just say "these links make it notable" and leave it at that without saying what in those links make it notable Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He has his methods.--Milowent (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- you mean those newspaper articles that can only be viewed if you pay money to view them? and are we to believe that you actually paid that money? Misterdiscreet (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, nowhere near a borderline case.--Milowent (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Super-regional malls are notable; the references show it. There has been a recent string of nominations on a number of different areas of articles that can very easily be sourced. WP believes in sourcing--we take it seriously, or at least I do. To propose deletion as "apparently just another ... " , rather than as a whatever that I have tried to source , but can not find anything sufficient, is to put the work onto others, and is uncooperative. There are stronger words than uncooperative that are sometimes used for that sort of behavior. DGG ( talk ) 08:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- if article creators cannot be bothered to satisfy wikipedia policy then wikipedia should not try to bend over backwards for them either Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Supreme speedy WP:SNOWY keep. Is there really any question at this point? JBsupreme (talk) 22:57, 6 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. No deletion rationale, WP:SNOWBALL. — Gwalla | Talk 18:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mini Viva
- Mini_Viva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])
Why do you want to delete the article anyway? --Laxstar5 (talk) 09:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Disregarding the lack of a valid rationale for deletion, they made the British top 10 last year with Left My Heart in Tokyo, thus passing Wp:BAND. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article asserts notability, and the fact that the band had a charting single means that they pass our notability guidelines, as noted above. No objection to a speedy close for lack of rationale, either, but there's no reason not to have the debate now. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep, according to WP:SK. There are zero remaining arguments for deletion and an emerging consensus claims that the band is able to pass WP:BAND. I really don't see why we should prolong this discussion. — Rankiri (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - no deletion rationale.--BelovedFreak 16:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:BAND. PDCook (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Nominator's lack of reason is a procedural error: forgot to complete AfD Step 2. In any case, the group still meets WP:BAND as noted by everyone above. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:37, 4 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) 00:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Bottle Flipping Game
- The Bottle Flipping Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is a clear case of madeupitis. I can't find a good speedy rationale for this purpose beyond WP:SNOW, so here we are. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious delete per WP:NFT -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this with fire! Gatemansgc (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aw, come on, it says "This game is not made up", so it must be for real :-) But seriously, Delete, as it really is just made up and unreferenced. -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, which this very clearly seems to be, plus zero coverage in reliable sources makes it unverifiable.--BelovedFreak 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:MADEUP. PDCook (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Based on the description, made up on a day where everyone was really bored. Apparently no reward for somehow flipping a bottle and having it land and stay upright on a table, but it promises plenty of pinky injuries for failure, and possibly some from broken glass, or the downstairs neighbor complaining about the noise. It ought to be the other way around-- employ the rules of spin the bottle if the bottle lands on its side, and if it happens to land upright, "game over". Mandsford (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: for making me lose The Game again. Seriously, though, short of AfD you might consider wp:prod for cases like this - essentially uncontroversial, but doesn't fit in any csd bucket. ErikHaugen (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Should have been Speedy deleted, IMHO... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:50, 9 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 06:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
World Information Technology and Services Alliance
- World Information Technology and Services Alliance (edit | talk | 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 assertion of notability and without independent citations to back up its claims, it's little more than fancrust. Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 16:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Here's a Google Books search result[30], and a Google Scholars search result[31]. It also has a page[32] on Eurofound, which is an organisation directly under the European Union. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -This article hasn't got any attention but the topic is notable, and as such, the article needs to be improved with references, not deleted.Veritas Omnia Vincit (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sufficient sources,as can be seen by looking. The main thing wrong was excessive external links, and I took care of them. "fancruft" as used here has a specific meaning, the sort of thing a groupie would write, and it does not apply to material that is just generally a little promotional. DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 6 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. done by User:Jayjg. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disco-Funk
- Disco-Funk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A DAB page with two original research entries. The first a made up genre that links to two articles. The second a real genre article but no where in the article is this term used. Ridernyc (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to serve no purpose except to imply the existence of a fusion genre for which there is no evidence and mention.--SabreBD (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as neither entry meets the guidelines, this could be a case for Template:db-disambig. Boleyn2 (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I've seen "disco-funk" used occasionally by critics who can't stop micro-categorizing innovative music, but that's their problem not ours. The term has not been used in any reliable of verifiable fashion. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't make any sense at all. Nominate a disambiguation page as AfD is just funny. Why the page wasn't merged with Disco? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:38, 4 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) 00:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rama Sarma
- Rama Sarma (edit | talk | 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. Ridernyc (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Maybe he's a good lawyer, but I can't find any sources that demonstrate notability. The article states he's written a couple of books, but without titles or references who knows if they're at all notable. Given the layout, I'm suspicious that this is a copy-paste from somewhere. If notability can be established, I may reconsider. PDCook (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - He has a few news hits (use string "Rama Sarma + lawyer" for gnews search) but still doesn't meet WP:GNG.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:48, 4 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) 00:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
St. Augustine School of Medical Assistants
- St. Augustine School of Medical Assistants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can not find any information about this school in reliable sources. An amazing amount of self promotion but nothing independent. Ridernyc (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Weird. All I can find wrt sources are things about how this school is a fraud or ripoff. See [33] for example. I'm going to look a little closer. PDCook (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can find nothing about this school in independent reliable sources - the one book source founed by the search above is a trivial mention in a book self-published via iUniverse - and the accreditation body does not appear to have stringent standards, to say the least. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't find any sources that demonstrate this is a notable school, and I can't help but think it's some kind of fraud. PDCook (talk) 21:26, 5 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 Jaleco. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 06:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Big Striker
- Big Striker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can't seem to find much info on this game. The article has been pretty much totally untouched for 4 years. Ridernyc (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Jaleco in lieu of significant coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Jaleco per Marasmusine. Rlendog (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - Per above. EuroPride (talk) 09:05, 10 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) 00:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lutta corsa
- Lutta corsa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only soruce is the org's site, little to no info, appears non-notable (see also Martial arts project review) Natet/c 13:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Natet/c 13:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Natet/c 13:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sources were requested in July 2009 and no response it appears. Fails WP:N. !! Justa Punk !! 12:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can find no independent reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 04:30, 8 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) 00:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John Cornish
- John Cornish (edit | talk | 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 somewhat promotional lacks sources despite a search (see also Martial arts project review) Natet/c 12:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Natet/c 12:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can find no evidence that he passes WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per discussion at MA project. Fails WP:MANOTE Niteshift36 (talk) 00:04, 10 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) 00:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimate Taekwondo Federation
- Ultimate Taekwondo Federation (edit | talk | 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 or sourcing to support notability (see also Martial arts project review) Natet/c 12:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Natet/c 12:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Found no reliable sources and very little information of any kind. Only 9 total ghits on the organization's full name. Papaursa (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ORG and WP:MANOTE. zero gnews or gbooks returns. 14 actual ghits on the whole federation title, mostly WP and blogs. No evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources, which seems odd since the claim is that they are a large org. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:13, 10 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) 00:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sappo
- Sappo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Little context, or content, pretty much a Dicdef, (see also Martial arts project review) Natet/c 12:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Natet/c 12:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--If you can't find a source that explains what this is, delete it.--Jarhed (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Kappo, with which it is generally paired. This seems to be more detritus left over from when someone tried to add a separate page for every Danzan Ryu technique. See [34], [35]. JJL (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and per discussion at Martial Arts project. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:15, 10 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/redirect as a plausible search term. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lutheran Family Services of Virginia
- Lutheran Family Services of Virginia (edit | talk | 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've searched I get a mountain of hits, but as far I can tell no substantial coverage of this group. Lot's of one line mentions in questionable press articles and tons of self promotion but not much else. Ridernyc (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Lutheran Services in America. Mandsford (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Most of the information is too trivial to merge into Lutheran Services in America, which is where this kind of subject belongs. BTW I don't find that any of the other state Lutheran Services agencies have their own article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 11 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) 00:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Brooks
- Sarah Brooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Also included in this nomination:
This is a textbook case of why we have WP:CRYSTAL. Judging by this press release, these are not actually the names of any characters being introduced on Law & Order: Criminal Intent this season. Articles have already been created at the correct usernames, and I do not think this justifies a redirect as it won't be a plausible search term once the season premieres. Redfarmer (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agree with nom. Shadowjams (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agree. Jrh7925 (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agree. Pages were created prematurely way before that press statement. --66.217.112.3 (talk) 19:30, 8 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30 (film)
- 30 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Proposed deletion reason was "Non notable film. Apart from one local article in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the film has not received any attention from independent reliable sources. Fails WP:N." Prod was removed and the claim added that one notable actress played a supporting rolein the movie. However, no reliable sources about this have been added, so this fact has apparently not received any attention. It is not even mentioned in the one article about this movie, [36]. Fram (talk) 10:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aileen Quinn also had a supporting role. Her first live-action film as an adult since Annie (1982).phillyfest website, accessed March 4 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtispollock (talk • contribs) 21:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not create this wikipedia article, but was obviously alerted to its presence once someone else had. I noticed you posted it for deletion though, but it adheres to the rules as far as I can tell. there is a very notable actress making her first film in over twenty years. I am not too saavy on how to edit properly on this site as I only joined to fix this matter yesterday, but I believe this is the reference you are looking for.
Aileen Quinn also had a supporting role. Her first live-action film as an adult since Annie (1982).[1] phillyfest website, accessed March 4 2010 Curtispollock (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC) keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtispollock (talk • contribs) 21:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is no coverage about the film in reliable sources. I see nothing that would establish notability under the Wikipedia:Notability (films) guidelines. In particular, all we have is that the film was showsn at a film festival. There is no evidence of significant awards or critical review. Also note that the writer and director of thsi film is Curtis Pollock so there appears to be a conflict of interest situation. -- Whpq (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice. Fram found an article... and it does indeed speak about the film and the director's inspiration for its creation... but that one article is all that I could find. If the director gets it screened at a festival 5 years after its initial release, we might then have it back. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I did not create this original article on the movie. I'm not attempting to create any conflict of interest or trying to be deceptive. I joined Wikipedia using my original name, so I'm not hiding anything, merely to point out the credentials and references missed. THere is a review (that I already posted, see: http://phillyfests.bside.com/2007/?_view=_filmdetails&filmId=15659326) in the Phillyfest website by that programs director, Jared Early. He states clearly that this is the first film for Aileen QUinn since Annie. That in and of itself is noteworthy. It has been five years and I still receive inquiries about her efforts in the movie (in fact, I just received an email about her today).
Also, there has been more coverage of the movie than a single article in THe TRibune REview. I was interviewed by CBS and there is a followup article on the interview: http://cbs3.com/topstories/Curtis.Pollock.30.2.308477.html As you can see, it is listed as a top story and also points out Aileen's contribution (nevermind IMDB also points out her return to the screen in the movie).
And here is the writeup from Longbaugh Film festival: http://lff.bside.com/2007/?_view=_filmdetails&filmId=13131011
THe film is also noted as a standout film of that festival in this article:
http://www.willametteweek.com/editorial/2007/03/07/the-long-and-shorts-of-longbaugh/
please note that these writeups from Phillyfest and Longbaugh comprise the point of view from the authors, in both cases, the programming director's at each festival. Not mine.
Just to reiterate, I did not publish the original article on the movie. (is there any way to find out who did, by the way?). I was very surprised to find it on Wikipedia to be honest, but once I was alerted to its presence and saw it marked for deletion, I only felt it fair to point out some references since it appears your editors can only find the one article from the Tribune Review. THese are all reliable and independent sources, so they should be considered reliable.
And if there is anything else you feel is needed, please don't hesitate to ask. Curtispollock (talk) 07:48, 10 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jordan Anderson
- Jordan Anderson (edit | talk | 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 this individual look as if he is a NASCAR champion. However, he is not a NASCAR driver and I cannot find a single reliable source that says he has ever won anything. Most of the reference material I can find show this individual to be heavily involved in commercial advertising, mainly for himself. The article does not contain a single inline reference, and as nearly as I can tell, it should be deleted immediately as an unsourced bio. Jarhed (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There has been some edit warring regarding the state of this page. I recently tried to revert this page to a stub due to the fact that yes, he is at best a semi-pro racer. However, SPA's keep popping up to revert the page to the awful form that it is now. I would bet a lot of money that those SPA's work for Anderson's PR team (or is Anderson himself). I have tried to start discussion on the talk page regarding the issue, and have tried to solicit help from the BLP noticeboard and from Wikiproject Motorsports. However, the SPA's are intent on skirting discussion in order to revert to the article version that might as well be a press release. I know little about racing; I do know that the racing series this 18 year old driver is in The Legends Series is not considered the highest level of its sport, and I also know when an article is being hijacked by people with an agenda. Angryapathy (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What needs to be done to help get this page in its correct version. I've witnessed this young man race several times and think this page is correct with the information.
http://www.charlottemotorspeedway.com/media/news/549233.html http://www.charlottemotorspeedway.com/media/news/549392.html http://www.charlottemotorspeedway.com/handler.cfm/article,display/art_id,534125/cat_id,41022?print=1 http://www.uslegendcars.com/racing_info/news/523273.html http://www.thecolumbiastar.com/news/2009-04-24/Front_Page/Forest_Acres_star_moving_on_to_NASCAR.html http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=322482&FS=BUSINESS
Hope this helps!.....NCmotorsportsacc —Preceding unsigned comment added by NCmotorsportsacc (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC) — NCmotorsportsacc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Well it certainly does not help me. In the US, NASCAR is a very popular sport with a lot of press coverage. I would think that if this individual has ever won something, *anything*, we could find a mention about it in a newspaper somewhere. Please bring us a reliable source, just one would be nice.--Jarhed (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "correct" version that keeps getting reverted to by the single-purpose accounts is, by Wikipedia standards, garbage, and does not belong in an encylopedia. Wikipedia is not a mirror for Jordan Anderson's website or a venue for his PR team to spread the word that a semi-pro driver exists. Angryapathy (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentMaybe you should consider the quote posted on your page...."Imperfection is OK."
--NCmotorsportsacc (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)— NCmotorsportsacc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- 'Comment Please look at the links I posted. One is from the Charlotte Observer, another from the Columbia Star Paper, and at last the Charlotte Motor Speedway website, where it clearly states the individual had won the second championship. See here [37] This website is the Official Website of the track the NASCAR drivers race on. The Wiki page does not state he races NASCAR, rather is an up and coming driver.
--NCmotorsportsacc (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC) — NCmotorsportsacc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Hi, I see that he won a race, what I can't find is anything about that race anywhere except at the track where it is run. Do you have anything about the notability of the race? And also, I can't find a reference to the Charlotte Observer, which would be nice. The Star is a weekly and it might be ok if there were more refs than just that one.Jarhed (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment My apoligies, I realized I left out the link. [38]. This site is the motorsports powered online site of the Charlotte Observer. Also here [39] is a link to an article about the series in general.
--NCmotorsportsacc (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC) — NCmotorsportsacc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: A mention of this debate has been posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NASCAR. Jarhed (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:Athlete. No evidence subject competes at the "fully professional level of a sport" or "at the highest amateur level of a sport" --TreyGeek (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a crass, self-serving puff piece for a very junior driver, whose only achievement to date is to win an amateur, regional, pay-per-drive race series. The only references provided so far are for commercial operations linked to said race series or to the driver; small, local newspaper websites (and they will print anything if it has a local connection); and verbatim reprints from the article subject's own press releases. He isn't a professional, he isn't nationally known (let alone internationally), and his achievements to date are fairly mediocre. Do we run articles about every 18-year-old who wins the Formula Ford Festival (a far more intensely fought series than those this young man has competed in)? No, because they aren't yet notable outside of their own sphere of reference. As he professes deep Christian faith, perhaps he and his PR department ought to ponder on the text of Matthew 5:5 and stop cluttering up the web with this hubristic nonsense. Pyrope 22:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The first comments don't have it right according to what the article says right now. He has never had anything to do with NASCAR on either the local or national level - he races on a dirt late model touring series that I never heard of -- and I've written lots of content about regional touring series. What he won was a local to possibly regional race at a track that happens to host a NASCAR race - on a small short track at their facility. The series that he won in (legends car racing) is a local level. Don't let the Pro part fool you - it's the better amateur drivers from a limited scale. I did the second most number of edits to the legends cars article for the record [40] and took a bunch of the pictures. Pyrope said it right - this is a very junior driver. Thanks for the link to this AFD at WikiProject NASCAR so we can shed light on the situation to people for who don't understand the level of racing. If Humpy Wheeler is right and he becomes a NASCAR driver, then we can add him and use a small amount of the current content. Right now it needs to be deleted. Royalbroil 03:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable driver. Clearly an article created for promotional purposes by someone with a conflict of interest. Readro (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems legitimate enough, the article just needed better formatting. --Americanusxv (talk) 07:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC) — Americanusxv (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Your persistence makes me smile. A brand new account, with edits only to the article in question, and most of those edits being to insert yet more spurious references (three that are directly controlled by the subject or his associates, one that doesn't even mention the subject, and one listing for the race track that operates the pay-per-drive races that the subject claims as a major achievement), that doesn't look suspicious at all, oh no. Pyrope 14:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment--This article has changed quite a bit since it was nominated for deletion. Here is what it looked like when it was nominated, along with a typical revert comment: [41].Jarhed (talk) 07:56, 10 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) 00:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Codleanu
- Codleanu (edit | talk | 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 was not able to find any articles pertaining to this person. Also, the page does not cite any references. Shashwat986 (talk) 09:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am one of the researchers at the digging site in Baulesti. All the recent discoveries are now undergoing the process of authentifications. We are welcoming scientists to help us authenticate these documents as soon as possible so that we can publish the full articles regarding this discovery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.138.12.144 (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the article will violate No Original Research. Please check the guidelines and see if it fits. Shashwat986 (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - "...are now undergoing the process of authentifications" = no reliable sources exist (yet). If, and when, a reliable source writes about this then perhaps someone without a clear conflict of interest will come by and create an article showing why this person was notable. Until then, please be patient - you don't have to be first, first, first to get the news out. Astronaut (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that for now this article could be deleted until I gather all the required references and authentification details so that everything is reliable. As soon as I have this detail informations I will add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runelord (talk • contribs) 11:03, 9 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 prejudice against recreation if actual reliable sources are found. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shree Maa
- Shree Maa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged unreferenced since July 2007. Notability is not supported by independed good reliable sources. Wikidas© 08:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 11:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 11:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep its hard to tell exactly how notable this person/organization is from their website, but they do have numerous tv broadcasts (though probably local cable access channels), and some coverage in media. I have added (very poorly formatted, im not in the mood right now to do better layout, sorry) some external links to help people determine notability. I do believe she is a genuine saintly person with a significant international following. she seems to have been mentioned in a number of books. i dont see any info on where they are located or how large their ashram is, if they have one in fact. I would say keep pending better refs, and of course a rewrite or reduction to a stub article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are simply no sources besides her own associates and promotional ads in the newspapers, anyone can do those broadcasts and international following is not a measure. (User) Mb (Talk) 12:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- well, unfortunately, i have to agree, despite my argument above. if no one who is more familiar with the subject can provide sources beyond the subjects primary sources, i would have to agree with deletion, even though i strongly suspect the subject is in fact notable within her field of influence (hindu spirituality, etc). i couldnt find enough sources myself. i will not canvass this, per WP conventions. of course, considering the content here is unsourced, it could be easily recreated from scratch if found to be notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I lean towards keeping articles which likely have sources in South Asian books not accessible to the majority of Wiki editors. Shii (tock) 18:40, 7 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. I found the reasoning of Phil Bridger to be most convincing. This article is named 'Baron Mulingar' but says nothing about him. We already have an article on Viscounts Gormanston, and some of this material could have been cut and pasted from there. Article could be userfied if anyone thinks something might be salvaged EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Baron Mulingar
- Baron Mulingar (edit | talk | 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 appears to be a genealogy but I can't see how the family is notable independent of a few members who have Wikipedia articles. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. All are notable as members of the (defunct) Irish House of Lords or United Kingdom House of Lords. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Eastmain.Edward321 (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Earl of Carbery, entire content of the article is not about the Peerage title of Baron of Mulingar. Content contains duplicate content to the article Viscount Gormanston & Gormanston, County Meath (looks like a cut and paste), a slective genealogy of the Preston family (family head is the holder of the Peerage title of Gormanston) and a description of the Gormanston Arms. No link is shown or asserted between the title of Viscount Gormanston nor the Preston family to the title Baron Mulingar. --blue520 04:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to satisfy all criteria, to the point and referenced. (Historyislife (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC))— Historyislife (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep I agree and concur.(Leeadam68 (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC))— Leeadam68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep There seems to have been a non-issue here. artical should stand as is. Irishlibraryguy (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC) — Irishlibraryguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment: Relisted to generate more discussion among established users. Cunard (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per blue520. Edison (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article title is Baron Mulingar but the content is all about the Barons and Viscounts Gormanston, about whom we already have an article. The name "Mulingar" doesn't appear anywhere in the article, so this doesn't even tell us what the title is supposed to mean. If there are any reliable sources that say that Baron/Viscount Mulingar is a title held by the Prestons then this can be a redirect, but otherwise it should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 5 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. g11 Cirt (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional Demonstration
- Promotional Demonstration (edit | talk | 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 suffers from the same issues that its sister article Educational Demonstration suffers from, and which has already been nominated for deletion. It is an essay and original research not made notable nor verifiable by its apparent sources. Considering the two articles together they could be viewed as a WP:COATRACK style vehicle for promotion of the commercial and rather spammy reference to Redwoods Media, a reference which is present in each and which mentions the term in an entirely "buy this product from us" manner.
The term promotional demonstration is not even a neologism, it's simply the juxtaposition of two reasonable words, so placed in order to create this article, an article which is not currently notable nor verifiable, and which is a borderline advertisement. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom. TeapotgeorgeTalk 08:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The term itself seems to be a generally-used phrase with no specific encyclopedic notability, and it doesn't seem to mean any more than the sum of its parts - a "promotional demonstration" is a demonstration, and it's promotional. The article just reads like an essay on one POV aspect of producing promotional demonstrations (who says they have to be video, for example?). -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:49, 4 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 The case for non-notability has not been madeMike Cline (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yogi Ramsuratkumar
- Yogi Ramsuratkumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (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)
Person is not sufficiently notable and sources are not found to support material of the article or supposed notability. Wikidas© 08:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks like it passes notability criteria.TheRingess (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It would be helpful if the nominator could explain how the books listed under "further reading" in the article, along with the other sources found by the Google Books and News archive searches linked above, are not sufficient for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Much as i dislike godmen, i have to admit this one was a fairly well known "swamiji" in my state. Here are a few Tamil links to show coverage in offline and online print media. (use tamil search term யோகி ராம்சுரத்குமார்). a 2001 book by Ontario Hindu conference, a video report in dinamalar, a 2001 article on his declining health, an anniversary celebration report in dinamalar, a 2009 article in Dinamani about a function in his ashram, an article on him in Ananda Vikatan (behind paywall)--Sodabottle (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still not conviced that these proove notability. It just proves that he existed, not that he is notable sufficiently to be included in Wikipedia. What about being a Yogi makes one notable? There are hundreds if not thousands of people like that without any notability. Is he notable for an event? Has he recieved an award? Has he been called a leader of some notable organisation? What is notable again? Wikidas© 22:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those questions is relevant. Notability, in Wikipedia terms, means having significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If you want to claim that this subject is not Wikipedia-notable then please explain how the books listed in the article and the sources identified above fail to meet this requirement. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still not conviced that these proove notability. It just proves that he existed, not that he is notable sufficiently to be included in Wikipedia. What about being a Yogi makes one notable? There are hundreds if not thousands of people like that without any notability. Is he notable for an event? Has he recieved an award? Has he been called a leader of some notable organisation? What is notable again? Wikidas© 22:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Phil, you are wrong that none of the above is relevant. The policy for notability for all biographies is WP:BIO. This particular individual does not fit under any of the list below:
- 2.2 Academics
- 2.3 Athletes
- 2.4 Creative professionals
- 2.5 Criminals and crime victims
- 2.6 Diplomats
- 2.7 Entertainers
- 2.8 Politicians
- Thus WP:ANYBIO applies. The question should be asked if this person has recived a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times? In not he fails first criteria. The second question to be asked if this person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field? To both of these we have a negative answer. The sources quoted are largely self published and do not support any criteria for inclusion under WP:ANYBIO. Not he has a significant coverage in independent reliable sources, to support any of the other categories of WP:BIO. Wikidas© 00:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Read up a bit in WP:BIO to WP:BASIC. Subjects who pass that are notable, with no need to look at any other criteria. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any of the listed factually self published sources be considered reliable or intellectually independent or independent of the subject? I can not see any established or reliable publisher who published his works or has any of the established reliable publishers published his biography or has he be mentioned in many different sources of the same quality? Hohm Press is obviously not such a publisher and clearly not intellectually independent. Any review of his publications been published in a pier reviewed journal by a notable academic or a historian? Any modern history of philosophy mentions him at least in passing? No. Wikidas© 01:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Not he has a significant coverage in independent reliable sources,". The media outlet links i have provided Dinamalar, Dina Mani and Ananda Vikatan are the biggest selling Tamil newspapers/magazines with circulations over half a million. Since subject died in 2001 and most of the Tamil archives in internet begin only with 2001 we don't see that many online links here. But coverage in independent reliable sources was there (i remember reading about him all the time in the newspapers). That said, the biographical details are unverifiable, as they all stem from either the yogi's organisation itself or his devotees. Most of the news/magazine articles would be more about "the yogi spoke about this", "the yogi was attending such and such event", "the yogi gave such and such advice", "the yogi comes to town X" and less about the yogi himself. In short, i believe he can meet WP:BIO through WP:GNG, but do not believe that we will be able to build more than a stub using the coverage in independent RS.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any of the listed factually self published sources be considered reliable or intellectually independent or independent of the subject? I can not see any established or reliable publisher who published his works or has any of the established reliable publishers published his biography or has he be mentioned in many different sources of the same quality? Hohm Press is obviously not such a publisher and clearly not intellectually independent. Any review of his publications been published in a pier reviewed journal by a notable academic or a historian? Any modern history of philosophy mentions him at least in passing? No. Wikidas© 01:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Read up a bit in WP:BIO to WP:BASIC. Subjects who pass that are notable, with no need to look at any other criteria. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:26, 8 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. Black Kite 01:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Hinch
- Mark Hinch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nonnotable musician. Close to no trace on web. - Altenmann >t 08:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 06:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of any notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. (GregJackP (talk) 22:55, 11 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) 00:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Angela suresh
- Angela suresh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't see any nobility for this. There are no relevant results in Google, and the links in the article have nothing to do with the subject. Ems24 (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - she appears to be known only within her various organizations, but not notable enough for an article here. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:52, 4 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 Sanjeev Bikhchandani. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 06:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sanjeev Bhikchandani
- Sanjeev Bhikchandani (edit | talk | 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 looks like this article already exist under a slightly different name Sanjeev Bikhchandani. Delete or redirect this page to Sanjeev Bikhchandani? Nsaa (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect -- nothing to discuss. Wikidas© 09:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect -nothing salvagable as inline citations are not given (which is a pity since the source given is a good book on entrepreneurs) --Sodabottle (talk) 16:57, 4 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. Black Kite 01:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Command substitution
- Command substitution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced article that is purely a dictionary entry and user guide. Subject already covered at C shell#Commmand Substitution but author contested redirection. I42 (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or redirect to C shell. A plausible search term but too little information to have its own article. JIP | Talk 07:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If merged anywhere, it should be to Shell (computing). This feature is common to essentially every modern command-line shell (see its entry in Comparison of command shells). I'm fairly certain it didn't even originate in csh, but in the Bourne shell. —Korath (Talk) 17:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I created the page. I've been working on the C shell page, which implements command substitution using a particular syntax, namely,
`
...`
. All the other common shell facilities (namely, piping, here documents, variables, control structures and filename wildcarding) have separate articles. Command substitution was the only common facility that did not have any article at all, much less something comparable. The C shell is not the only shell that has this feature nor even the first (Korath is right, it was the Bourne shell) and the syntax csh uses is not the same as used everywhere. For example, Bash uses$(
...)
instead and because it has distinguished left and right terminators, it can be nested without having to use escape characters. Even Microsoft's cmd.exe implements command substitution, but only as part of thefor
loop. Also, a complete article might outline some of the implementation details, for example, that typically only stdout, not stderr, is captured, and that the output is parsed into words by taking whitespace as separators (which can be problematic if filenames contain spaces.) So I think it's notable and I think it needs to be separate page. Msnicki (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable feature of numerous notable shell languages. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. Specifically do not merge with C Shell - a bunch of languages do this, just a question of whether it's notable -- samj inout 01:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Feature has been adopted in an increasing number of languages and merits treatment on its own. --Lambiam 01:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I found this article because I wanted to show someone an overview of this common procedure that is available in several shells. The feature is important and is well known within computer science, yet treating it as a topic within one particular shell would make it hard to understand for someone unfamiliar with that shell. The nom's claim regarding a dictionary definition is not applicable: in the same way that Evolution is more than a dictionary definition of what is meant by "evolution", this topic is more than a dictionary definition of its name. Notability results from the frequent application of the technique, albeit within specialist documentation. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 11 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 Mark Driscoll. Black Kite 01:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TheResurgence
- TheResurgence (edit | talk | 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. Speedy deletion was declined, although I see no claims of notablity. Woogee (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The largest paragraph is a barely modified version of info found at the official website here. That may present a copyright problem. --Ibn (talk) 07:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In re notability: Article in Time Magazine[42], founder w/multiple appearances on ABC Nightline, multiple appearances in itunes top ten for podcasts>religion, The Resurgence fan page is approaching 20,000 fans on facebook (just short of the largest Barak Obama group page), The book, Vintage Jesus, had sold 25,000 copies prior to even being released. The Resurgence organization has been a major catalyst for all of that. Keep, mark editing required (after all it is a brand new article)Jeverettk (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)jeverettk— Jeverettk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Aside from numbers, The Resurgence is also notable for significant shifts in culture and thought - a major trend toward Reformed, Calvinistic, Evangelical Orthodoxy among young single adults, spanning disparate political persuasions. Jeverettk (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)jeverettk[reply]
- Can you provide relible sources for those claims? Woogee (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, while not a great measure, Google "the resurgence" and you the top two results are this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparticus (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Mark Driscoll. TheResurgence seems to be riding entirely on his popularity. It hasn't rated an explicit mention in coverage about the New Calvinism. StAnselm (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge that which is verifiable (and copyvio-free) into Mark Driscoll. Despite the founder's notability, the organisation itself does not yet appear to enjoy the coverage necessary to justify its own article. --Ibn (talk) 09:05, 10 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Lorck Eidem
- Paul Lorck Eidem (edit | talk | 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 and WP:CREATIVE. note that the Norwegian article of him lacks references too. limited coverage in gbooks [43], nothing in gnews [44]. LibStar (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Easy speedy keep, subject has an entry in a quality paper encyclopedia. Nominator claims that another article in an inferior Wikipedia "lacks references too" - too is not appropriate here, as this article is referenced, to the mentioned paper encyclopedia. Google News, what are you talking about? He died eighteen years ago, and was active 50-60-70 years ago. Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time. No, this seems like a nomination made in error. Geschichte (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Keep The article is referenced, the sources are reliable and independent. The entry in Store norske leksikon is sufficient. --Vejvančický (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- .. and I agree with Geschichte, absolutely inappropriate subject for G-News Search. --Vejvančický (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added more sources, although that's not strictly necessary. Both his 50th and 75th anniversaries were marked with articles - in two of Norways three largest newspapers. Then there's his obituary, as well as sources I didn't add (on book releases, tidbits about him appearing in radio etc). Geschichte (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, this seems like a nomination made in error, so Speedy keep is my vote. __meco (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing administrator please note Since this article has been put up for deletion, the extensive references have been added. [45] Okip 02:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep very well referenced article now. Article meets all criteria for notability. Okip 02:36, 7 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. Clearly BLP1E Black Kite 01:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heather Tallchief
- Heather Tallchief (edit | talk | 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:BLP1E. Notable only for the robbery and nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 06:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Also the biographical subject of a film under development, as indicated in the article. You nominated this because of a discussion on the Jeopardy! message board. [46] Robert K S (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I have no idea what Robert K is talking about (see above) but this article is a WP:BLP1E at best, BLPzeroE at worst. JBsupreme (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although I spent time sourcing the article back in September, the BLP1E argument is a valid one. If the movie ever moves past development and garners enough attention or acclaim then the sourced information regarding Tallchief's life can be included in the movie article. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 14:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She was labelled one of one of the FBI's most-wanted fugitives, her case featured in "America's Most Wanted: America Fights Back, Season 9" TV series, according to sources I just added to the article, clearly, clearly making the (terribly subjective) BLPE1 irrelevant. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteStrong delete WP:BLP1E. appearing on America's Most Wanted is not a criterion for having an article. LibStar (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Your comment shows the hopelessly subjective nature of BLP1E. She found way into national TV: (CBS News 2005) and an in-depth interview aired in Dateline Saturday, (NBC 2006); in real-crime TV; in national newspaper coverage: Las Vegas Review-Journal (2005), in New York Times (March Sept 2006, Sept 2006) - it's only a matter of digging up those sources. Yes, she is known for one event; many, may people are known for only one event, but this event has lasting interest. A constructive comment would be if the article should be renamed to address the case, not the person, and that would certainly be in line with BLP1E. But oh no, let's delete the stuff. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- you even admit she is known for one event. LibStar (talk) 10:50, 9 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. Narrow majority of Delete votes. Supporters quote WP:MILMOS, marked as a guideline for style purposes (though not notability), which declares that flag officers are notable. The Globe article says that he was the head of Obama's transition team for Homeland Security, suggesting a highly trusted role in the military. There was not a strong enough numerical verdict to give consensus for delete. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John C. Acton
- John C. Acton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are no cited sources (there is a link in the "references" section, but it is broken). The page also does not seem to meet Notability Guidelines. WikiPedia clearly states that uncited biographical articles are clearly against policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 226Trident (talk • contribs) 2010/02/22 23:34:16
- Comment - Hard one here, as some of the things described in his article would suggest he might be notable. Can someone wanting to save the article try sourcing it? -RobertMel (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete just another flag officer. No special achievements, combat command, or notability. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Flag officers are notable. Article now has sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He is no longer a flag officer, and 1 of the sources is a broken link and the other barely mention him. Anyways, hes not very decorated or anything. 226Trident 00:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionKeep - 226Trident - What do you mean by: He is no longer a flag officer? Are you implying that retired/dead admirals and generals are no longer flag officers. Unless they were officially demoted, retired officers in the U.S. Military will always carry the honor and respect of the rank they earned in the service of their country. BTW: Hawkeye is right about Flag Officer notability--Mike Cline (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 05:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of significant sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 05:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I wonder whether he did anything notable in civilian life, since he was a reservist for part of his Coast Guard career. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Hawkeye. --BaronLarf 07:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not aware of any guideline that says flag officers are automatically notable, nor those with X number of medals. Paucity of sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well now you are. MILHIST guidelines say that a subject is notable if they held a rank considered to be a flag or general officer, or their historical equivalents. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, no. It states "It has not been accepted as a Wikipedia policy or guideline". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well now you are. MILHIST guidelines say that a subject is notable if they held a rank considered to be a flag or general officer, or their historical equivalents. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per MILHIST guideline and recently-added references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do not think the MILHIST guideline takes into account that we previously have not held US Brigadier Generals presumably notable, but only Major Generals and above (and their equivalents elsewhere--the US Brigadier General is the UK Brigadier, who is not usually considered a general officer, & it would be anomalous to consider one but not the other notable. This does not however impact the present article, which is about a Rear Admiral, which I think generally ranks as the equivalent to Major General. And I just mention that though =we usually do follow guidelines for the WikiProjects, we do not need to , unless the community as a whole agrees--even the wikiprojects of the highest quality, such as MILHIST, are not autonomous. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete MILHIST is not a WP guideline and should not be cited as such in an AfD. However, I think that a military officer of this seniority is unlikely to be unnotable. But the sources still need to be there and they need to cross the bar of "significant coverage in reliable sources". Here, the government, military and alumni sources obviously don't count as reliable. What's left plainly isn't significant. The importance of reliable (non-self published) sources is that as a tertiary source, wikipedia's reliability depends on the reliability of the secondary sources it uses. If there are no reliable sources about a subject, wikipedia should not have an article about the subject because the article will itself be inherently unreliable. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:05, 11 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. Both those favorite delete and those favoring keep make policy based points. Being above a certain size does not make something notable, but being the largest of its kind often does. Apparently reliable sources are cited in this AfD, but none were added to the article. In the end it comes down to a judgment call on what constitutes "significant" coverage, and those discussing here simply do not agree on this. Nor does more discussion look likely to change this. DES (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amateur Martial Association
- Amateur Martial 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 article needs deletion it has no reliable third person sources or notability. Fails criteria WP:NOTE, WP:SOURCE Dwanyewest (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. I nominated this before. Not a single bit of improvement has happened in the past 9 months. The arguments used for the 2 keep !votes last time were based on alleged size, not on notability demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails WP:MANOTE and WP:ORG. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It seems to fail WP:N,WP:GNG. It might be large, but there is little independent coverage, it seems. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nine months with no secondary sources indicate a clear fail of WP:N. Hopefully, a less impressionable admin will close it this time around. Pcap ping 06:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per User_talk:Dwanyewest#Massive_number_of_PRODs_and_AFDs jmcw (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to be confrontational, but this article was nominated 7 months ago. Your project wanted to keep it then. And in 7 months, there hasn't been a single thing added to it. Nothing. How does that add up to a speedy keep? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As per the nomination, lack of third party references is not a ground for deletion. Stubs can live here without the same quality references as a FA. jmcw (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It still comes back to the fact that notability hasn't been demonstrated through significant coverage by reliable, third party sources. So-called stubs exist on the premise that they'll be expanded with said sources to show why they belong here. After 3 and a half years, I think we've waited long enough. (And yes, I've read WP:NOTIMELIMIT, so spare me the reference to the essay) Niteshift36 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Complete and utter failure of general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete reads like a brochure for the organization. No indication at all of how this is notable. RadioFan (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because clicking on the "news" link provided in the header at the top of this article shows numerous sources about its events and their significance [47]. The nominator should have done this check himself. Note from The Mirror ([48]) that "the Amateur Martial Association, AMA, [...] is the largest martial arts association in the UK with over 3000 clubs" and from the South Wales Echo ([49]) that "David is the real thing - twice AMA (Amateur Martial Association) British Heavyweight Kung Fu champion, and a fully qualified, totally inspiring instructor." (i.e., being an AMA champion is the evidence adduced to show that he is the "real thing"). The Bolton News finds passing one of its tests a noteworthy experience ([50]). Google Books, also linked above--I just clicked on those links to learn this--is listed in many books on orgs. and acronyms, of course, but also is recommended as "an umbrella organization" for learning about the martial arts in a book ([51]). From the previous AfD there is, for example, an endorsement from the BBC News ([52]) of the AMA as a source for learning about the martial arts and finding a school. Quoted as an expert source on martial arts statistics in The Telegraph ([53]). JJL (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lnk #1 is strictly a google search. Link #2 goes to an article about a man who stabbed another man. That's not an article about the assoc. It's a mention. Link #3 confims they exist and have a championship. The local fair has a hotdog eating champion. That doesn't establish notability. The article mentions the assoc, not covers it. Link #4 says a guy is on one of their committee's. It is a mere mention. No coverage of the actual assoc at all. Link #5 tells us what the acronym means. It provides no coverage of it. Link #6 provides info on their website. Providing a bunch of mere mentions is not significant coverage. And making sarcastic edit summaries doesn't establish their notability either. Has it occured to you that people search for sources, but understand the difference between significant coverage and trivial mentions? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Link #2 identifies it as the largest U.K. m.a. org. This was an issue at the previous AfD. Link #3 not only confirms the existence of their championship but also addresses its significance. What you suggest has indeed occurred to me but I've rejected it based on the available evidence. To be clear, are you saying that you concur with the nominator that "This article needs deletion it has no reliable third person sources[...]" (emphasis added)? JJL (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I read the link. Largest doesn't mean notable. Did you ever read WP:BIGNUMBER? "Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources." You'll find the WP:BIGNUMBER in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. To be clear, I think it should be deleted because of lack of significant coverage by reliable sources and it failing WP:ORG. I thought that was pretty clear in my !vote above. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fails general notability guidelines WP:GNG Dwanyewest (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would hope that the nominee has done the enormous work of trying to source every article he nominates--if so, he should tell us. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no reliable sources to assert notability WP:GNG and fails on the grounds WP:SOURCES the onus is on the author to prove what they are saying is true WP:PROVEIT.Dwanyewest (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, based on JJL's quotations of sources I can't read. If this is indeed the largest martial arts association in the U.K. and if it has over 3000 member clubs, per the Mirror mention, it would be notable, and sources will very likely exist in specialized publications. Supposedly this association was started in the 1970s. I'm troubled that the Mirror article, as an off-hand mention, might be in error, so I intend to look for more sourcing, particularly from international organizations that the AMA is allegedly recognized by. "Existence" arguments are indeed insufficient, I can feel the pain of the nominator.... --Abd (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - based on some of the sources, it appears to be barely notable. Bearian (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 05:18, 4 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 Default to Keep This one stills needs cleanup and better sourcing but non-notability not provenMike Cline (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David Dineen-Porter
- David Dineen-Porter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a living person with marginal notability. Subject has only been mentioned in one or two reliable sources; the others being blogs, and passing mentions at arbitrarily chosen websites. For the sake of protecting a BLP, and removing per notability concerns, I assert this article should be deleted. Blurpeace 20:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is no reliable source for the discography. All of the links only mention subject in passing. Subject has not participated in anything verifiable besides a few appearances on a few television programs, winning a minor competition and obtaining a government grant. A few of the claims cannot be verified at alllittlemissmachiavelli 21:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlemissmachiavelli (talk • contribs)
- Keep, per these references in Eye Weekly: http://www.eyeweekly.com/blog/post/59585--the-daily-distraction-may-5 and http://www.eyeweekly.com/music/liveeye/article/73615 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As previously mentioned, links only mention subject in passing. These articles only note that he also goes under the alias of PDF Format and does not contribute to strengthening notability. littlemissmachiavelli 21:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be self-promotion, and the sources suggested above mention him only in passing. Murdoc van Horne (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have fixed all the formerly dead links by replacing them with their archived versions from http://www.archive.org Here is one of the formerly dead links: http://web.archive.org/web/20070927001051/http://www.eyeweekly.com/eye/issue/issue_08.26.04/arts/meet.php It's reasonably indepth. Blogs that are part of a newspaper's site written by journalists are just as reliable as dead-tree newspaper articles. And the other references are more than mentions in passing. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources you refer to only make passing mentions at, on average, three sentences to one paragraph. The EyeWeekly source given is the only one that has done an in dept coverage of Porter. Blurpeace 04:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, the source appears to be from 2004. If he was notable, it should follow that he would have done other things that warranted a high level of coverage within the last six years. 136.159.72.2 (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Reply to 136.159.72.2) Once notable, always notable. Notability is not temporary. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Folowing Eastmain's lead, I have begun cleanup and additional sourcing to the article as yes, it seemed overly promotional. And yes, I have cleaned up the improper ELs. He seems to have more coverage as a musician than as a filmmaker, comedian, or blogger. For instance, this 2009 article in Torontoist [54] is a very nice article about the fellow, and the official blog of New York Times technology reporter Jenna Wortham [55] in 2008 offers some more-than-trivial information about the man. More to do yes... but definitely do-able. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: A good feeling about where this article is going. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. He just hasn't met the notability criteria yet, IMO. PKT(alk) 15:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 23:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Sources used only mentions him in in passing and the article highly seem to be self-promotional. -RobertMel (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 05:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The test of significant coverage doesn't call for a web harvest to find anything at all that mentions a subject. The sources must be reliable. I see very few sources that would pass the test of reliability (I hardly think [Eye Weekly] crosses the reliability standard of "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy), and what's left is arguably not significant coverage. This is an important point and is not nit-picking. As a tertiary source, wikipedia essentially delegates its fact-checking and accuracy to secondary sources. We must therefore only use sources that are reliable, especially with BLPs. I don't see them here. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:15, 11 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 close: redirected to Scott Allan as a duplicate, that article may be nominated separately for deletion if appropriate. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Kadlec
- Scott Kadlec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently a hoax. Orange Mike | Talk 05:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this has been nominated for speedy deletion by User:TenPoundHammer. Alos consider Scott Allan which appears to be another version of the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:59, 4 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 those who favor delete have stronger arguments; see the detailed rationale. 03:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Lenin's Hanging Order
- Lenin's Hanging Order (edit | talk | 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 is original research about a certain event in history of Soviet Union based exclusively on primary sources, with improper title: about the order itself is only its translation. The article talk page contains sizzled discussion that something wrong with this article. In is unclear what is the notability of this event or order: no secondary sources, and I am sure Lenin issued hundreds of ruthless orders. Laudak (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.
- Rename, keep, hang!. Ambiguous title. And it was not an order, strictly speaking. NVO (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have mixed feelings about this article. On one hand, the secondary sources could be better (I don't have access to the cited books); on the other, it is a notable example of Lenin's tactics. Considering LoC names the telegram Hanging Order (see also here), it might be best to name the article to Hanging Order, too. So, overall, weak keep. --Sander Säde 13:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This page is not about event, but about a document. This document was highly publicized. We now have four articles about it on languages other than English. The only question is about the title. Current title comes from the library of US Congress if I understand correctly. The page might be renamed rather than deleted, but current title is sufficiently descriptive.Biophys (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Possibly, rename to "Lenin's telegram of 11 August 1918". It has 4 interwikis now. Yes, Lenin issued much more such orders, but this was one of the few such documents preserved in archives.DonaldDuck (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence presented that the telegram is of any particular historical notability. Timurite (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I think this article was originally intended as part of an anti-Communist POV propaganda offensive on the wikipedia. Lenin issued thousands of "orders", some good, some bad, some indifferent, of which this seems to be the only one commemorated on the wikipedia - for POV reasons I think. Even the name of the article is (deliberately?) misleading. Lenin it seems "ordered" some kulaks to be hanged, but in the event nobody was actually hanged and the "order" (if that's what it was), was disobeyed...A bit like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland shouting "off with their heads" than an "order" methinks. Lenin, was no doubt, a very ruthless man, but it does no service to truth to have such a misleadingly titled POV piece in the wikipedia. I'm not sure how it could be improved, as POV seems to be of its essence, therefore I suggest it be deleted. Colin4C (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhm, just a question, what is the source about no one being hanged? --Sander Säde 12:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You hit the nail here: There are no sources at all about the subject of this article, and there is nothing to write about beyond improper original research and political rants. Timurite (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhm, just a question, what is the source about no one being hanged? --Sander Säde 12:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In answer to Sander, Lenin, himself, testifies to his exasperation that nobody was hanged, in a further letter to the Gubernia Executive Committee in which he modifies his instructions:
- "I am extremely indignant that there has been absolutely nothing definite from you as to what serious measures have at last been carried out by you for the ruthless suppression of the kulaks of the five volosts and confiscation of their grain. Your inactivity is criminal. All efforts should be concentrated on a single volost, which should be swept clean of all grain surpluses. Telegraph fulfillment." Telegram to the Penza Gubernia Executive Committee of the Soviets (quoted in J. Brooks and G. Chernyavskiy's, Lenin and the Making of the Soviet State: A Brief History with Documents (2007). Bedford/St Martin’s: Boston and New York: p.77).
- In a old version of the page there was a link to a Russian web-site claiming that 13 people were shot (not hanged) in response to the order. Lenin's "orders" were in fact quite often ignored by the local Soviets. For instance when the head-honcho of the White Armies Admiral Kolchak was captured by the Reds, Lenin ordered that he not be executed but kept in custody alive for interrogation. However, in the event, the local rebels decided that the best thing to do was to ignore Lenin, shoot Kolchak and throw his body in the nearest river. Despite this however, no wikipedia editor has yet decided to create a Lenin's Whatever You Do Don't Shoot Kolchak Order article. Colin4C (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's anything sourceable here that isn't already in the Prodrazvyorstka article then it should be merged there, where it can be covered in better context. Otherwise, delete. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Possibly, rename to "Lenin's telegram of 11 August 1918", as DonaldDuck says. Hepcat65 (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As it appears, the telegram itself is quite widely discussed, but not as "Hanging order". Fairly simple Google Scholar and Books searches bring a reasonable amount of additional sources; almost certainly more sophisticated searches will bring more results. --Sander Säde 16:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I concur with the above comment. It as an important historical document that is referenced in numerous books and articles on Lenin and the Russian Revolution (for example, in this article by David Remnick). I would not object to the name change suggested by DonaldDuck. --C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly an important historical document and a number of sources are available. Edward321 (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Google seacrh shows that this telegram is used as primary source, but so used have been hundreds of other Lenin's telegrams and tens of thousands of letters of various famous people. We only have articles about documents which were subject of published research on their own. The current article has no such evidence. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 17:30, 10 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. No valid reason for deletion has been given. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You shall not make for yourself an idol
- You shall not make for yourself an idol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Preaching bobrayner (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and trim. Per the navbox, other articles on exist on each commandment. Sources do exist to write a full article on each commandment; any issues are easily fixed. This is not my area of expertise, unfortunately, so that means it's somebody else's problem. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, since we are discussing the topic, rather than this particular article. Some of the other articles on the 10 commandments have been around for a while, and have survived merge discussions. There's so much that could be said about this commandment - we can't include it in the Ten Commandments article, which is already 75K, well beyond the guidelines of WP:SIZE. StAnselm (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up. I've put rescue and cleanup tags on the article - the article is one-sided (badly so), and does not conform to WP:NPOV in my opinion, ergo the rescue; the cleanup is foregone from there. Otherwise, a summary of interpretation is, in my opinion, not a Bad Thing. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has more than 100 references. There is not even a reason given as to why this article is proposed for deletion; therefore, I do not know what to argue against. This may be grounds for a speedy keep per Wikipedia:Speedy keep#Applicability #1. Xyz7890 (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Much of this article seems to be redundant to Idolatry and Christianity and Idolatry in Judaism, and is not as neutral in tone. Possible merge? Reyk YO! 08:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep nomination sounds like nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TomCat4680 (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep This verse has received the attention of academics and theologians for centuries. ThemFromSpace 23:41, 5 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) 00:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brian J. Robinson
- Brian J. Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Stub about a musician that has been tagged as not notable since March 2009. This article has never had any references other than unacceptable links to Wikipedia mirrors of the identical article. No apparent prospect that the article or the subject will meet our inclusion guidelines in the future. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable and independent sources indicating notability of this musician or his projects. The subject fails notability criteria for musicians. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 4 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) 00:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bitan (Bengali)
- Bitan (Bengali) (edit | talk | 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 basically defining a foreign word, Bitan as something like 'expansive' or widespread, as well as who used it. It doesn't really seem to be something that can ever be expanded into an encyclopedic topic; as the topic is a word, and is highly likely to be covered by wiktionary. We don't even have the English words expansive or widespread here, and I don't think we ever would. It's also completely unreferenced. I'm calling for transwiki delete. - Wolfkeeper 04:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 07:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 07:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete: Bitan is not a Bengali word as like describe here. Bitan is in bengali বিতান and according to Bengali to english dictionary means a structure in a garden for sit ting in, a summer-house (লতাবিতান); a canopy, an awning; a tent; a pavilion; tension, stretch. and also it not a notable term. So as per norm delete it. And also I am Bengali people and my mother longue is Bengali from Kolkata,India.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 16:18, 4 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 Fear of ghosts. Any content actually verified by the sources can be pulled from the page history and merged. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phasmophobia
- Phasmophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original research. Despite numerous references, which create appearance of well-referenced article, ho evidence beyond dictionary definition presented that there exist actual clinical cases of phobia. The whole text is basically repetition of what related to any specific phobias plus some some generic issues of Fear of ghosts, which is a separate article, which deals with traditional fear of ghosts. By modern science it is an irrational fear, but not necessarily notable clinical phobia. For comparison, there is fear of black cats, but I would be surprised if someone writes the article blackcatophobia (or whatever it will be in Greek; not to be confused with ailurophobia). Please notice, I do no exclude that such clinical phobia exists, but the current article must be deleted as original research and replaced with redirect to fear of ghosts, where the dicdef is defined. Laudak (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to the existing Fear of ghosts, since Phasmophobia does appear as a defined term in some of the sources, plus others to be found online (though these are not necessarily reliable). This indicates to me that "Phasmophobia" is possibly a viable alternative moniker for "fear of ghosts," but not distinct enough to merit its own article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Fear of ghosts. Merge only statements immediately related to this fear/phobia. There is no reason to duplicate general information about specific phobias where a wikilink suffice. Timurite (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect as per Doom and Timurite. JFW | T@lk 16:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Fear of ghosts, merging any specific information that's relevant. Beware of the original research in the article while you're doing the merge. Eubulides (talk) 18:28, 9 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talvin DeMachio
- Talvin DeMachio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely unsourced BLP of gay porn performer who appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep again, a poorly judged deletion request from this nominator on the topic of gay pornography. Rather than following the guidance of BEFORE and making a token effort by searching, say, Wikipedia or Google for references to awards won and then recommending improvement, Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) has rushed to a full deletion. In less than five minutes I have tracked down and added several awards and nominations that prove PORNBIO has been met. Could somebody please advise at what stage such targeted nominations on gay topics should be considered disruptive editing? It is becoming quite difficult to assume good faith when there is such a distinct pattern of poor nominations on such a specific genre. Ash (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I started a thread on WP:AN to forestall exactly these kinds of accusations when I nominated several unsourced or poorly sourced BLPs of gay porn performers some weeks ago. Ash is aware of the thread and should understand that the issue remains unsourced or poorly sourced BLPs not "gay topics", since we have discussed this many times. Anyone is welcome to start an RfC at anytime if they feel that my AfD nominations are disruptive rather than productive. While I do not agree that DeMachio clearly passes WP:PORNBIO, at least there has been some attention drawn to the article and some attempt to source it (although http://www.rainbowcollexion.com/store/ProbeAwards1997.html is clearly not a reliable source). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rainbowcollexion states "The incomplete list below is taken from Adam Gay Video Directories", as the AGVD is not available on-line this is a handy source. I could instead just put in an enigmatic reference to the printed AGVD without including any URL, this would seem pedantic and unhelpful for the layman reader. In no way is this a justification for deleting the article.
- Thank you for the ANI, I was unaware of it (having only started to contribute to this area in January) and it makes your deletion campaign clear. The points raised in the thread with regard to your unacceptable behavior in raising deletion nominations without following BEFORE are true two months on, and makes you appear to be on an established and entrenched campaign of destructively attacking the topic of gay pornography. As stated in that thread, you are prepared to raise AfDs knowing that awards have been won and so the subject of the article does meet PORNBIO just that sources have not yet been added and with the false rationale that these may improve the articles by encouraging someone to work on them (a false rationale you have repeated here). Such deletion requests are not just poor judgement, they are a deliberate and sustained mis-use of the DELETE guidelines and process. Ash (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Carbuncle, the question is if you followed BEFORE, which was a policy last time I looked, and not a guideline. In the light of the ANI thread comment "Nominating biographies for deletion without trying to establish whether or not they are sourcable is disruptive", your answer to this question is quite relevant. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BEFORE is not and never was a policy. It isn't even a guideline. It is a convenience redirect to a section of a procedure. I have no interest in debating this here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ash, please stop distorting my words. You have been involved in several discussions wherein I have linked to that AN thread. I do not know why you have not read it until now, but it says nothing that you haven't heard from me before. Feel free to take action at the appropriate forum, but stop making these accusations here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe I have quoted you here so I fail to see how I am distorting your words. Your unacceptable behavior is as characterized by other editors on the AN thread you provided above and your statement in that thread is clear, I suggest any other interested editors read it for themselves. If you are not prepared to accept on good faith that I was unaware of the AN then that's your problem, it is not particularly relevant to the issue of your behavior. I am not making accusations, I am pointing out relevant background to highlight that this AfD was not raised in the way that BEFORE recommends. Such a deletion request and any more that you raise in this way should be speedily kept on the basis that the policy has not been applied. Ash (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't know how much effort Delicious carbuncle put into researching the subject before making the nomination, and I think we need to assume good faith in this instance. The award nominations DeMachio has are quite obscure and difficult to find. I note it took you quite a while to find reliable sources for them. Epbr123 (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, your point is invalidated by the fact that I included archive.org links to the original grabbys.com site for the Grabby Awards before you made any comment in the AfD. I have continued to improve the article with further sources but with DC's background of lengthy debate on Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films, s/he is fully aware of sources such as XBIZ.com, AVN.com etc. which would be some of the first places to look for suitable sources. Ash (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you know, a single Grabby Award nomination isn't enough to pass PORNBIO. Also, XBIZ.com and AVN.com provide no evidence of DeMachio passing PORNBIO, so I don't really see your second point Epbr123 (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's odd as the first match I get in XBIZ is a reference to his award in 2009, see http://www.xbiz.com/news/video/105763. I used the award site in preference but I'll add this one too. Ash (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, only a single nomination. Epbr123 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I will spell it out for you as you seem to be having problems hearing me. You made the point that XBIZ provided "no evidence" when in fact using XBIZ immediately provides a source for his Hookie. You were wrong. The Grabby.com reference was for his Grabby. That makes two not one nominations. Ash (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To spell out what I'm saying, you've accused Delicious carbuncle of being disruptive for not checking XBIZ and AVN before making the nomination. Those websites do not show DeMachio to be notable, so there's no proof he didn't check XBIZ and AVN first. Making accusations against users without evidence isn't very nice. Epbr123 (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I did not make any such accusation on this page. You have artificially reduced my statement to the examples of possible sites I gave, please make the effort to check what I actually wrote on this before paraphrasing me. I have not accused Delicious carbuncle of disruptive editing, you appear to be taking his/her interpretation as fact rather than reading my words. I asked for advice on when targeted nominations on gay topics should be considered disruptive editing. As for being "nice", you appear to not have applied the same high standard to Delicious carbuncle's pattern of edits over the last few months. Ash (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To spell out what I'm saying, you've accused Delicious carbuncle of being disruptive for not checking XBIZ and AVN before making the nomination. Those websites do not show DeMachio to be notable, so there's no proof he didn't check XBIZ and AVN first. Making accusations against users without evidence isn't very nice. Epbr123 (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I will spell it out for you as you seem to be having problems hearing me. You made the point that XBIZ provided "no evidence" when in fact using XBIZ immediately provides a source for his Hookie. You were wrong. The Grabby.com reference was for his Grabby. That makes two not one nominations. Ash (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, only a single nomination. Epbr123 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's odd as the first match I get in XBIZ is a reference to his award in 2009, see http://www.xbiz.com/news/video/105763. I used the award site in preference but I'll add this one too. Ash (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you know, a single Grabby Award nomination isn't enough to pass PORNBIO. Also, XBIZ.com and AVN.com provide no evidence of DeMachio passing PORNBIO, so I don't really see your second point Epbr123 (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, your point is invalidated by the fact that I included archive.org links to the original grabbys.com site for the Grabby Awards before you made any comment in the AfD. I have continued to improve the article with further sources but with DC's background of lengthy debate on Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films, s/he is fully aware of sources such as XBIZ.com, AVN.com etc. which would be some of the first places to look for suitable sources. Ash (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't know how much effort Delicious carbuncle put into researching the subject before making the nomination, and I think we need to assume good faith in this instance. The award nominations DeMachio has are quite obscure and difficult to find. I note it took you quite a while to find reliable sources for them. Epbr123 (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe I have quoted you here so I fail to see how I am distorting your words. Your unacceptable behavior is as characterized by other editors on the AN thread you provided above and your statement in that thread is clear, I suggest any other interested editors read it for themselves. If you are not prepared to accept on good faith that I was unaware of the AN then that's your problem, it is not particularly relevant to the issue of your behavior. I am not making accusations, I am pointing out relevant background to highlight that this AfD was not raised in the way that BEFORE recommends. Such a deletion request and any more that you raise in this way should be speedily kept on the basis that the policy has not been applied. Ash (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Carbuncle, the question is if you followed BEFORE, which was a policy last time I looked, and not a guideline. In the light of the ANI thread comment "Nominating biographies for deletion without trying to establish whether or not they are sourcable is disruptive", your answer to this question is quite relevant. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I started a thread on WP:AN to forestall exactly these kinds of accusations when I nominated several unsourced or poorly sourced BLPs of gay porn performers some weeks ago. Ash is aware of the thread and should understand that the issue remains unsourced or poorly sourced BLPs not "gay topics", since we have discussed this many times. Anyone is welcome to start an RfC at anytime if they feel that my AfD nominations are disruptive rather than productive. While I do not agree that DeMachio clearly passes WP:PORNBIO, at least there has been some attention drawn to the article and some attempt to source it (although http://www.rainbowcollexion.com/store/ProbeAwards1997.html is clearly not a reliable source). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteunless reliable sources can be found for the awards and nominations. Epbr123 (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep Grabby and Hooky awards now adequately sourced. Epbr123 (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Especially since the article is now sourced appropriately. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability asserted. Notability sourced. Nuff said. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No question of notability and <personal attack removed>. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 23:38, 7 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) 00:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shopcasting
- Shopcasting (edit | talk | 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 evidence of notability; seems to be somebody trying to advertise their advertising idea, article gets essentially no hits, and google only gets about 40 hits (estimate is wayyy off) - Wolfkeeper 03:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 4 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. Black Kite 01:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
William S. Schaill
- William S. Schaill (edit | talk | 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 author, no sources, the article was PRODded but the original author removed the PROD tag. Woogee (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The author is User:LLBooks, which appears to be the author's publisher, Leaping Lion Books. Woogee (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a conflict of interest when I just listed factual information about him? The page isn't glowing with compliments. I think I remained quite unbiased. LLBooks (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found two reviews of his first novel: Cabot Station in The New York Times and The Hour. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I really wanted to keep this article when I saw that his first novel was reviewed (briefly) in the NYT. However, none of his subsequent books seem to have attracted any notice or significant reviews that I could find. By the way, the blurbs about each book (which sound like they are quoted directly from the book jacket) are inappropriate and un-encyclopedic. They do nothing to make me want to to keep this article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with MelanieN. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:50, 11 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. Black Kite 01:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Terrorfakt
- Terrorfakt (edit | talk | 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; long history of COI edits and general unsourced "information" Orange Mike | Talk 03:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. A quick search of google turns up numerous articles on the band. The band is signed to a notable record label, and has multiple albums readily available on most major internet music sites. The band easily meets Numbers 4, 5, and 6 of the criteria listed in WP:MUSIC. Rivetheadx 22:19, 03 March 20010.
- So fix it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick check of the article history will reveal that my efforts are frequently undone by others. The band is notable, but the article definitely needs major work. Work that I'm not capable of performing on my own.Rivetheadx 22:38, 03 March 20010.
- If you mean fix it by adding references no one really reads or cares about to an article, why bother? The band is clearly notable, and anyone that wants something added to the article can do it themselves. Dream Focus 07:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So fix it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As acknowledged above needs Wikification--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep anyone with an internet connection can quickly see that the band is notable. Article very much needs an overhaul, though.Tanzmitlaibach 15:20 4 March 2010 UTC —Preceding undated comment added 15:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notability is easy to verify as everyone else has noted. Issues with COI and poor article quality are not necessarily reasons for deletion. Instead, they are reasons for community editing and improvement. The recently-added edit tags are the proper solution for now. Perhaps we could discuss calling in the rescue squad too. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Criteria establishing notability was covered the first time the article was tagged. Rehashing it is pointless. Article may be a trainwreck, but notability can't be questioned. Doomsdayer520's suggestion to call in the rescue squad in seconded. Parabellum90417:27 4 March 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- The Rescue Squad has been called in! DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep They are signed a major record label, and have released multiple albums. Clicking on Google news search at the top of the AFD shows some mention of them. Dream Focus 07:46, 7 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) 00:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Green Horizon Magazine
- Green Horizon Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently non-notable magazine; API indexes some pretty obscure stuff Orange Mike | Talk 02:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I looked for mentions of this and could find no independent ones, no more notable than my high school year book. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:12, 9 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) 00:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mars vs. Venus (Usher song)
- Mars vs. Venus (Usher 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)
This unreleased song does not meet the notability requirements for singles. –Grondemar 02:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, and Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. SmokingNewton (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - the AfD tag was removed inappropriately by an editor; I have restored it to the article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - for the obvious reason. Wikipedia is not going anywhere, the article can become a reality when the single does the same. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:36, 5 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) 03:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Rosenberg
- Peter Rosenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable radio host. Only significant coverage - and I'm stretching the definition of "significant" here - is a short article in the Washington City Paper. Original author posted two other refs that were not usable because the mentions of Rosenberg were only in passing. Only other refs are his own web site and those of his radio station. Just not enough to establish notability of this radio personality, even in a major market. Just hasn't made enough of a name for himself yet. (Declined speedy; contested PROD, removed by original author.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: WQHT is the station. Even if you just put his name in it. But this article is only a definition. I don't see the notability of the article. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 07:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 01:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NY radio host with coverage if googled. Str8cash (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:VERIFY and WP:BIO. No evidence whatsoever this person "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." — Satori Son 15:07, 4 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. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 06:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Porter and Chester Institute
- Porter and Chester Institute (edit | talk | 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 covers a non-notable for profit training program. I could not find reliable sources to establish notability. I had PRODed the article, but it was declined because it contained non-advertising content. The article was created by an SPA. Racepacket (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient third party references. SmokingNewton (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Schools of higher learning are generally considered inherently notable. This one has eight branches and gets of lots of Googlehits.[57] --PinkBull 14:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Created by a SPA it might be, but this isn't a "training program;" it's a trade school of long standing in western New England. I'm curious as to exactly where the nom looked for reliable sources, because there are 271 Google News hits, with links to relevant court cases, the Hartford Courant, the Worcester Telegram and the Springfield Union-News. RGTraynor 19:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with RGTraynor. This is a tertiary educational institution that has existed since 1946 (under various names) and has 8 locations. The school isn't Harvard and the article may have been created by a SPA, but institutions of this nature can generally be assumed to be notable. I haven't done a thorough search, but I've found a bunch of third-party web content that mentions this school in a diverse variety of contexts (articles about campus expansions, stories of successful students, articles about zoning issues involving some of their campus expansions, announcements of public service activities, court decisions in lawsuits etc.). --Orlady (talk) 04:32, 5 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PredictWind
- PredictWind (edit | talk | 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 looks like advertisement. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, doesn't look like one to me. Has sources. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks like advertising to me: ...allows its users to choose their preferred locations from amongst 20,000 locations from around the world... uses a sophisticated weather model....PredictWind is a subscription based service and has a free trial and a variety of payment options. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete It looks like the article was created by Nathan May, PredictWind site owner. It also reads like an advertisement. --Dc987 (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pure advertising spam. No independent references, just self-referential. --MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as advertisement for non-notable website, there are some references to the site in the "news" website www.sail-world.com, but PredictWind is also a sponsor of this "news" website, so this isn't an independent source. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:03, 11 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian Mountain Holidays
- Canadian Mountain Holidays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Makes claim of WP:N by saying "is one of the original Canadian touring companies". Only significant ref found is la times, but that's only a short travel column about a rock path that the company put up (the company is mentioned in passing). -Zeus-u|c 18:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite a large helping of advertising here; it could be that Mr. Gmoser is himself notable, but that would be outside the realm of this discussion. I very much doubt that it is "one of the original Canadian touring companies"; that ignores a couple of hundred years of Canadian history. I recall that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle toured the Banff area at the beginning of the 20th century, and I think a touring company may have been involved in that and other such tours much earlier than this company's 1965 origins. This company might be one of the original Banff-area ski touring companies, which is a much less broad claim with much less inherent notability. I agree with the nominator that most of the references are not significant. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete The claim that "Canadian Mountain Holidays (CMH) is one of the original Canadian helicopter touring companies" is perhaps a little broad but what the author of this article was trying to get across is that CMH is the company that founded heli-skiing, which I believe is quite notable. Check out the book "Bugaboo Dreams" by Topher Donahue.
- Comment; I think the assertion must be that Mr. Gmoser himself is that inventor (although as I note from the Heliskiing article, that claim does not have universal agreement). Again, it might be that Mr. Gmoser is notable for such an invention, but that's not an article we're here to discuss. Even if the company in question was the first to offer such a service commercially, I'm not seeing anything that indicates that arm's-length third-party experts think that that is notable. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 10:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Spammy, no sources. Obviously no one cares since it's been relisted twice. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete spam. LibStar (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete I don't understand how this can be considered spam if it is the company that invented heli skiing? The book "Bugaboo Dreams" by Topher Donahue tells the story if you aren't convinced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.144.87 (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC) — 142.179.144.87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment The Avalanche Hunters [58] apparently disagrees, so, no, I'm not convinced. It's possible, but not guaranteed. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:42, 4 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oaksterdam
- Oaksterdam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Flunks WP:NEO. Term describes northern part of Downtown Oakland: SF Chron article refers to "Oaksterdam University" not the neighborhood; second footnote doesn't mention neighborhood; other two footnotes are not RS. THF (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, for the same reasons mentioned during the first AFD nomination. No doubt the article needs some work, but I do think it is relevant and worth keeping, as Oaksterdam pertains to a specific area for specific reasons, culturally speaking. --Another Believer (Talk) 07:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteSo you say "needs work" and don't even try to work on it? Nice. Everything's always someone else's problem, and nothing ever gets done. Anyway, delete as unsourced neologism. At this point there's no work that can possibly be done. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 05:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I do not think my opinion on whether or not an article should be deleted should reflect my ability to improve articles. Not only was I out of town this past week, so I did not have as much access to a computer, but I do not have a personal interest in expanding the article immediately as I am working on other lists and articles at this time. I believe this article is relevant and could be improved by editors in the future, which is my reasoning for the keep vote. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A bunch of articles refer to Oaksterdam as a specific district. [59][60][61]--PinkBull 14:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's no reason to delete this article - except, perhaps, prejudice against the cutesy name. But it's not a neologism, and it's not unsourced. The neighborhood is well documented and the name well established. Google News finds a dozen hits including mainstream sources like USA Today. A glance at the Oakland, California article shows that almost all named neighborhoods in Oakland have their own Wikipedia articles. Why not this one? --MelanieN (talk) 03:42, 11 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 Kent, Ohio#Education. Nominator has given no arguments against redirection, and the other participants are in favour of it. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
St. Patrick's Catholic Church and School, (Kent, Ohio)
- St. Patrick's Catholic Church and School, (Kent, Ohio) (edit | talk | 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 parish and school; school article previously deleted; school has section at Kent, Ohio#Education --JonRidinger (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Kent, Ohio#Education as is normal practice with such small, private schools, and where the school is already mentioned. TerriersFan (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Kent, Ohio#Education per precedent. Cunard (talk) 08:27, 4 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) 03:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meteorbs
- Meteorbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no reliable third person sources and lacks notability Dwanyewest (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Dwanyewest (talk · contribs) blanked the AfD discussion page after a malformed nomination which I fixed. I will leave him/her a note shortly requesting that he/she explicitly state if his/her intent was to withdraw the nomination. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dwanyewest left me a message on my talk page ([62]) indicating that the nomination was malformed and his intent was not to withdraw. Proceed as normal. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete alreadsy for lack of sources. Obviously nobody cares, as it's been relisted twice. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:09, 4 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. The keep !votes produced sourcing that wasn't challenged by the delete !votres, which came earlier in the discussion. On balance, the discussion tends towards keeping the article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Montana Justice Foundation
- Montana Justice 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)
Advertisement for a non-notable local organization; probable COI, judging from author's editing history (but that's not a reason for deletion, just an observation). Orange Mike | Talk 01:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Not local, but state-wide. This article helps establish notability: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-165682725/banks-giving-back.html Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentKeep I've given the primary editor some advice off-wiki about possible sources and COI issues. The MJF may or may not be notable but a 30 year old foundation has had to have some coverage in reliable sources, just need to know where to look. We should give this new editor the benefit of encouragment to help improve this article IAW WP policies and guidelines.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some useful sources:
Wikipedia sources:
Great Falls Tribune September 4 2008 Session planned Monday to discuss public access to justice Karla M. Gray
Miles City Star Wednesday, August 12, 2008 p.11 Local in CASA Documentary Steve Allison
The Montana Lawyer
MJF to Help Law Grads Pay School Loans. February 2006 p.20 http://www.montanabar.org/associations/7121/february2006.pdf
Justice Foundation Hikes Grants to $153,000. June/July 2005 p.26
Amy Sings In The Timber, 2 New Cy Pres Awards for Justice Foundation. October 2008 p.17 http://www.montanabar.org/associations/7121/October%202008%20mt%20lawyer.pdf
Amy Sings In The Timber, Justice Foundation Takes On New Advocacy Role. February 2008 p.25 http://www.montanabar.org/associations/7121/Montana%20Lawyer%20-%20February%202008.pdf
Cy Pres Nets $162,500 for Justice Foundation. May 2005 p.24
Justice Foundation Doubles its Grants to Montana Legal-Assistance Programs. June/July 2006 p.10 http://www.montanabar.org/associations/7121/june2006.pdf
Justice Foundation Awards $540,000 in Grants. May 2007 p.16 http://www.montanabar.org/associations/7121/may2007screen.pdf
Glacier Bank Increases IOLTA Interest at Attorney’s Request. May 2007 p.17 http://www.montanabar.org/associations/7121/may2007screen.pdf
Jordan Lyons, Justice Foundation Funds Grants at Record Levels. June/July 2008 p.23 http://www.montanabar.org/associations/7121/june08mtlawyerscreen.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtgirl2003 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentKeep I'd be happier if there were some sources other http://www.montanabar.org/ , which is the main financier for the organization. I did find this one: "Legal assistance group receives $75,000 grant". The Missoulan. 2003-06-08. Retrieved 2010-03-04. -- TJRC (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also: "Guest Opinion: State must ensure access to equal justice". Billings Gazette. 2008-11-08. Retrieved 2010-03-04. -- but it's more or less just a passing mention. TJRC (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another: "Banks giving back". Helena Independent Record. 2007-06-24. Retrieved 2010-03-04. -- Note that this is the full version of the article fragment cited by Eastmain above.
- Based on the cumulative weight of these, I now am of the opinion that notability is established and that the article should be kept. TJRC (talk) 22:40, 4 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Country Radio Broadcasters, Inc.
- Country Radio Broadcasters, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged as reading like a news release since 9/08. Only sources found were press releases and absolutely nothing else except one sentence mentions such as "X won the Country Radio Broadcasters, Inc.'s Y award." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - Just mentioning that the Seminar was a separate Article until I merged it into here. There is possible Notability for the seminar if the "Largest" statement can be found, and thus the organization for creating/hosting it. I just don't care enough about Country Music to dig for it ;). Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 14:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The company commands lots of Googlehits, two of which are now added to the article. --PinkBull 15:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. With the references that have been added, notability seems to have been established. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the updated article now appears to cross both the verifiability and notability thresholds. Clean-up may be called for but that's not a matter for AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 10:08, 6 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Portland (communications)
- Portland (communications) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Just another little PR company; having notable clients does not make one notable. Orange Mike | Talk 01:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike,
Thank you for your pithy comments. May I ask what makes Portland different to: Weber Shandwick, Burson-Marsteller, Ketchum, Blue Rubicon, Fleishman-Hillard, Edelman Public Relations.
Who all have Wikipedia articles.
Is it size or success? Becuase if the latter, Portland is documented as beating the above firms in bidding processes.
Would it help if I detailed a list of UK national media references that mention the firm? What evidence needs to be provided for a firm to be considered for inclusion? The notability guidelines are - due to the different interpretations of their rules - less than clear. Thus, I would greatly appreciete advice on this issue.
Many Thanks Adam Wildman --Adam Wildman (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the old and worthless "look at these other articles" argument. If you don't think these firms are notable, nominate the articles for deletion. (It is my experience that marketing firms have severe delusions about the notability of themselves and their rivals; whereas most of the human race goes in blithe disregard of the existence of these little organizations.) Our standards for corporate notability are to be found at WP:CORP. I must ask: what is your connection with this company? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No evidence of the required significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability per WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear UKexpat,
Sorry to bother you, but does significant coverage include more national newspaper articles, because there are plenty of those. I myself believe the firm to be of interest because it has significant links to the New Labour PR machine. I understand OrangeMike's point about the firm itself not being notable, but a PR firm is never anything more than its employees and its clients. From what I understand, that is what makes a PR firm; its ability to connect to the right people.
On another note, I had noticed that the guidelines - in a round about way - state that the notability of an article is at the discretion of the person reviewing the article in question. As this firm (and the people connected/employeed by it) are associated with New Labour (a British phenomenon), perhaps OrangeMike - as an American - does not recognise the significance of this. As to my connections to this company, I am not employed by this Firm.
Appologies for the lengthy response. --Adam Wildman (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- reply -You may be misunderstanding our guidelines. The entirety of those editing Wikipedia are the judges as to notability; I'm just the guy who brought it up for the consideration of the body. I am, as it happens, depressingly familiar with the history of New "Labour" (a/k/a Tory-Lite, a/k/a all sorts of bitter beardmutterings about class traitors and those who enable them). That's not relevant here. The question is as to whether the firm as a firm is notable in and of itself (a notable execution does not make the hangman notable); and so far the case has not been made. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your speedy response, I will endeavour to make swift ammendments. --Adam Wildman (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have made some ammendments to article, namely, have updated the 'Clients' section and detailed what Portland has, in itself, achieved. --Adam Wildman (talk) 17:55, 8 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) 00:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appalucia Militia
- Appalucia Militia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The only "evidence" that can be found that this group exists is a blog on the page of the band named Appalucia. The only reference given is to a book about the militias that existed in 1760, long before the Civil War. Smells like a hoax to me. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lacks evidence, possible hoax. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I couldn't find anything mentioning this "unit" on google or google books. The only hits were to a Myspace page, which is probably created by the creator of this article. Looking at the one source that is listed (there is a brief description on Google Books) it seems to relate to a different militia unit, not the one mentioned in the article, although I wasn't able to view the source fully. Admittedly my search is not all encompassing, but I feel that unless more reliable sources can be added, that this should probably be treated like a hoax. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:35, 7 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Albert William Tweedy, Jr.
- Albert William Tweedy, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Entire article relies on the verification provided by only one source, a DANFA entry on "Tweedy". In fact, the article is almost literally one huge quote from the DANFA entry; some abbreviations were extended (i.e. Mass. to Massachusetts), but beyond that the DANFA entry was transcribed word-for-word into the article. All of my attempts to find additional information or other sources on this guy failed; any other statements I could find on him were only more direct transcriptions of the DANFA entry on the ship that was named after him. To summarize: lack of any sources beyond the DANFA entry, direct transcription of the DANFA entry. Cervantes de Leon (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not really sure of this fact, but would the fact that a warship was named after this fellow make him notable (coupled with the Navy Cross)? — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I do know that some of the folks at WikiProject Ships have created biographies on individuals who are/were the namesakes of ships, using the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships as thier main/only ref. I agree with Rupert above that notability is not an issue. I have found a ref and added it; but even had I not, I'm not concerned about having just one reliable ref because the individual is not subject to BLP. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (Delete) My concern with the article is less its notability and more its lack of sources. Yes, while the DANFA entry is reliable, this Wikipedia article is a word-for-word copy of it. Clearly that indicates that something's off per WP:NOTREPOSITORY (see the third element in the list). Wikipedia is not a place for complete copies of public domain resources. Even if you were to paraphrase from the DANFA entry, I still don't see how anyone could write an article using only one public domain source (the second source added by Bahamut0013 is just a confirmation of his receiving the Navy Cross) that wouldn't just be a repeat of the public domain text and thus a violation of policy. Cervantes de Leon (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That point is really meant in regard to including the entirety of a primary source - something relating to the article, or indeed the subject of the article. It doesn't seem unreasonable to include a specific article in its entirety from a public-domain resource, when it covers pretty much the same material as we would write in an article based on that article, and it's already an encyclopedia article in form. Compare, for example, our twelve thousand articles heavily drawn from Britannica, and many others.
- But even if it is bad, is it worth deleting? We could, for example, remove the verbatim DANFS text and have a couple of summary sentences which were sourced to it; that would be a perfectly valid stub. This seems to be a dispute about what the textual content of the article should be, not whether or not there should be an article to begin with, and I don't think AFD is the appropriate mechanism for trying to resolve that. Shimgray | talk | 01:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If notability is not an issue, the article should be kept.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepI admit that it is bad form to copy and paste large pieces of text into WP articles, even from sites such as this that are freely distributable but I would argue that the subject is of sufficient notability and can be easily cleaned up.--Kumioko (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The DANFA is an absolutely reliable source, and a free one too, and it can form the basis of the article. It's better to modify it a little, for a Wikipedia article does not necessarily want all the detail it gives, but even if it is just used as it, it still meets the requirements for WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N. I tried to indicate this when I removed the prod, but it was still brought here.
(The old EB is a little different, for using it intact in articles was in my opinion a very bad mistake from the start, an ill-thought-out attempt to get some respectable amount of content in on traditional subjects, as it was out of date for everything it covered, and no longer reliable. We're slowly working through the articles with more modern sources. Myself, I think its best used to indicate what the Anglo-american attitude was towards the subject a century ago. The Navy compilation, on the other han dm, is till reliable--though supplementing it will never hurt.) ` DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per the above. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As a recipient of the Navy Cross and with a ship named after him he more than meets notability requirements. The article will improve over time.--Looper5920 (talk) 03:44, 8 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BrainPOP
- BrainPOP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Some sources are listed at the bottom, but they're all primary, trivial, or merely interviews of the creators, or don't even mention it at all. Reads like a fansite with far too much info on the characters. Only sources found in Gnews were press releases. Last AFD was way the hell back in 2005. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. BrainPOP is an educational website used in more than 25% of U.S. schools. It receives over 6 million unique visits each month. I have added a couple of additional refs and moved a few refs from the External Links section to in-line positions in the text. I believe that there are sufficent references to reliable sources in the article to provide ample verifiability. Disclosure: I have edited this article off and on in the past. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well written and referenced article which clearly denotes the subject's notability. Jack1956 (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you even reading the sources? Tell me which of these is non-trivial, substantial, secondary coverage. Oh wait, that would be none of them. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:16, 6 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talking Movies
- Talking Movies (edit | talk | 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 in question. The content could easily be condensed into BBC World News. Cloudbound (formerly Wikiwoohoo) (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Yes, notable. [63] [64]. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:10, 5 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. Those commenting in favour of keeping this article failed to give appropriate policy-based reasons for their stance. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kris Vallotton
- Kris Vallotton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not enough reliable, third party sources to meet our notability requirements for biographies. Essentially, fails WP:N. Another related bio to this that I nominated was Danny Silk, a pastor from the same church. Killiondude (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would hate to see this page and the Danny Silk page removed. Give me some time and I'll try to beef up the 3rd party coverage. These guys really are HUGE in the movement they're a part of! RichLindvall (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - for now and move the article back to user space until such time that it meets mandatory notability requirements...or not. I think User_talk:Houseofisaac jumped the gun a bit on this and a few other articles. He was made aware of the requirements. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Neither writing a book nor founding the Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry makes him notable. StAnselm (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is not a small country church/sunday school. Silk and Vallotton are key players in a global movement which impacts tens of thousands of people worldwide. (Check out iBethel.tv.) I know the pages are rough. I'll try to work on them this week. Thanks! RichLindvall (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Rich. If you're not familiar with the AFD process, you might want to read Wikipedia:AFD#How to discuss an AfD. Why should this article be kept? Keeping in mind Wikipedia's policies and scope. Killiondude (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! RichLindvall (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Rich. If you're not familiar with the AFD process, you might want to read Wikipedia:AFD#How to discuss an AfD. Why should this article be kept? Keeping in mind Wikipedia's policies and scope. Killiondude (talk) 07:47, 7 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Magic Number (pricing game)
- Magic Number (pricing game) (edit | talk | 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 subject is unsourced and topic is adequately covered in the appropriate section of List of The Price Is Right pricing games. No reliable third party sources available and Google search turns up only YouTube links and fansites. Also, Inclusion is not an indicator of validity, notability, or quality and nomination follows similar reasoning in the following recent AFDs:
Sottolacqua (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Sufficiently covered in the main list. Absolutely no sources forthcoming in nearly 5 years. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close mass AfD, open three separate ones- The consensus of the last AfD was specifically that these articles can't be dealt with through a mass nomination. Some of the pricing games are notable, others aren't. In accordance with that outcome, could we split this into three AfDs please? - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a mass AFD. Only one pricing game is at play here; the other two links are past afds where a precedent formed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Sorry, TenPoundHammer, I got confused by your vote of "delete all". Yes, delete Magic Number (pricing game), as there is no evidence in the article (or in good faith searches) of this particular pricing game being notable per WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete already covered elsewhere, not notable enough on its own. Mandsford (talk) 18:09, 4 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peschardt's People
- Peschardt's People (edit | talk | 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 particularly notable. The limited content could perhaps be condensed into BBC World News. Cloudbound (formerly Wikiwoohoo) (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A well-known international show featured on BBC. Many sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notable. Tag stub for expansion. [65][66] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have expanded the article and added references to establish notability. Sarilox (talk) 22:11, 7 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. Tim Song (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Danny Silk
- Danny Silk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not enough reliable, third party coverage to justify a separate article for this person. Fails WP:BIO/WP:N. Another article in a similar situation as this one (pastor at the same church) is Kris Vallotton which I also nom'd for AFD. Killiondude (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - for now and move the article back to user space until such time that it meets mandatory notability requirements...or not. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:BLP. StAnselm (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is not a small country church/sunday school. Silk and Vallotton are key players in a global movement which impacts tens of thousands of people worldwide. (Check out iBethel.tv.) I know the pages are rough. I'll try to work on them this week. Thanks! RichLindvall (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are not valid reasons to keep an article. Reasons need to policy based. Articles need to comply with policies. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:41, 8 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 - unambiguous copyvio/text dump. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PMDrive1061 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sacred Spot Massage
- Sacred Spot Massage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ritual masturbation mumbojumbo bobrayner (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL! Actually, I just deleted it as a blatant copyvio before you nominated it...it was just a big ol' text dump. Love your description, though. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:12, 4 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 Waterloo Central School District. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Waterloo Middle School
- Waterloo Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete because the middle school is non-notable. Elementary and middle schools are probably non-notable anyway. --T3h 1337 b0y (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge to school district or locality, unless winning the National School of Character Award is enough to established notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have suggested merging to the school district, but try my best, I can't find an article about Waterloo Central School District, and therefore, reluctantly, Delete, no notability. Woogee (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, please. Powers T 14:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Waterloo Central School District per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 03:19, 9 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon Brothers Group
- Gordon Brothers Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PR fluff piece. the editor who created it is likely an employee of there's. violates WP:N, WP:RS and WP:NOR Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Thousands of news and book sources are readily available. If anyone objects to these sources not being in the article then they are welcome to add some. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone objects to the deletion of this article than they are free to be bold and edit the article to bring it up to wikipedia standards. that is what User:Eastmain does and for that he has received lots of barn stars. he does not receive barn stars for saying "lots of links exist - feel free to add them" - he earns barn stars for adding them. if no one cares enough about this failure of an article to improve it during an AfD why would they care about it when it is not on the cutting block? besides this article is so full of WP:NOR deletions it would need to be restarted from scratch to be made even a half decent article. Misterdiscreet (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at my contributions and talk page you will see that I make a regular practice of improving articles by adding sources, and often get barnstars and "thank you" messages for doing so, but I don't have the time to do them all single-handedly. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- i do not have the time to delete every article on every Simpsons episode even though it is certain that 99% of them are un-notable no do most delitionists. so they stay. you do not have the time to save every article and those that you do not get deleted. sometimes a lack of time works to your advantage sometimes it does not. if you want to change the rules of the game then maybe i should be made an admin so i can delete every simpsons article without taking consensus. what the consensus would be is a foregone conclusion so to save time let us just skip to the last step and delete! of course because we do not have time does not mean we should make decisions as though we did and this article should not be kept because it "could" be made better if you had more time. either make it better or accept its deletion just as i have had to do with the simpsons. Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at my contributions and talk page you will see that I make a regular practice of improving articles by adding sources, and often get barnstars and "thank you" messages for doing so, but I don't have the time to do them all single-handedly. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone objects to the deletion of this article than they are free to be bold and edit the article to bring it up to wikipedia standards. that is what User:Eastmain does and for that he has received lots of barn stars. he does not receive barn stars for saying "lots of links exist - feel free to add them" - he earns barn stars for adding them. if no one cares enough about this failure of an article to improve it during an AfD why would they care about it when it is not on the cutting block? besides this article is so full of WP:NOR deletions it would need to be restarted from scratch to be made even a half decent article. Misterdiscreet (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The criterion for deletion is unsourceable, not currently unsourced, and there are enough references. In my personal opinion, to make nominations for AfD without the least try at sourcing is just plain unconstructive. --the best solution will be to amend the unsourced BLP deletion process to require WP:BEFORE. We have correctly made a big issue over the fact that these articles need to be sourced--the appropriate response is to try to source them. Berian, previously turned down a speedy on this, and pointed on ton the nom's talk page there were references, and gave a link to them, but it was brought here nonetheless. DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- i have looked at these sources and they no more make this subject notable than the mass of sources on Barry Bond's knee make that notable Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see 1390 Google news references. as an indicator of the firms importance, this is the company that bought CompUS and then closed it -- and similarly with multiple other notable firms. That's what makes them notable and newsworthy. The way to deal with this article is to add so key ones. It's not that Phil and I refuse to do the work. It;s that you had the prior obligation, per WP:BEFORE. It is so much easier to just nominate, without looking or caring, that your failure to do this puts an unfair burden on content-writers. But I'll tell you what. I added 4 key references to 2 of their most notable transactions, but I expect you to add some also. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- how does my AfD put an funfair burden on content-writers yet this speedy delete not? does WP:BEFORE not apply to members of the wikipedia power structure, also known as the cabal? and look at the Cousins Properties now. did all the reliable sources not exist when the article was speedy deleted? Misterdiscreet (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see 1390 Google news references. as an indicator of the firms importance, this is the company that bought CompUS and then closed it -- and similarly with multiple other notable firms. That's what makes them notable and newsworthy. The way to deal with this article is to add so key ones. It's not that Phil and I refuse to do the work. It;s that you had the prior obligation, per WP:BEFORE. It is so much easier to just nominate, without looking or caring, that your failure to do this puts an unfair burden on content-writers. But I'll tell you what. I added 4 key references to 2 of their most notable transactions, but I expect you to add some also. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- i have looked at these sources and they no more make this subject notable than the mass of sources on Barry Bond's knee make that notable Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:29, 6 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. Quite a bit of evidence has been provided to suggest the subject is notable. No consensus is a plausible result here, although I think this AfD is leaning ever so slightly towards retaining the article. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
R. C. Johnson
- R. C. Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
only reason this was not speedy deleted was because a single purpose account deleted the prod Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: As the prod said, "holding a position at a university does not in itself satisfy WP:BIO". Can't see any other notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He's athletic director at the University of Memphis, a Division I school. Their basketball coach would be notable; he's the person who's the senior administrative office who hires (and recently fired) the basketball coach. There should be no problem finding references. Did the nominator even try to look? In fact, right above in the preset searches, the G News source lists 2040 references. Limiting it to "Memphis still gives 1130. There's 16 in 2010 alone. I added a few of them. I don't pay much attention to this subject, but even I recognize him as notable. It is, of course, a shame that the article did not show this more clearly, but it can be improved. It is really discouraging to see the current approach to BLPs that happen to be currently unsourced: nominate them for deletion without looking. I have not the least objection to deleting BLPs that cannot be reasonably sourced, but to nominate without even checking Google News is careless. DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- notability is not inherited. R. C. Johnson is no more notable for hiring someone notable than Barry Bond's knee is notable for being a body part of Mr. Barry Bonds Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an improper use of the term. not inherited means that because he is notable, we do not imply that everyone who is associated with him is notable also, such as his secretary. If a particular organizational office or officer is notable because of his function, everyone there with a yet more inclusive function is notable also. is notable, In any case, a sufficient argument for notability is the hundreds of articles talking specifically about him. A person whose hiring makes multiple news stories, even out of the region, is notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- notability is not inherited. R. C. Johnson is no more notable for hiring someone notable than Barry Bond's knee is notable for being a body part of Mr. Barry Bonds Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteKD Tries Again (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
- Delete does not appear to meet general notability. JBsupreme (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Why was this even nominated? He has significant coverage in the media. This is only a small sample and many of these articles include his name in the title. CBS News USA Today NBC Sports LA Times CBS Sports Associated Press article I found on Myfoxmemphis Ooops forgot the Repo-Box (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the CBS Sports "article" is actually a message board post which WP:SPS addresses. as for the other articles, R.C. Johnson is only mentioned in passing and in the case of the last article, being interviewed by a local news channel no more makes R.C. Johnson notable than it makes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Atkinson (software developer) (2nd nomination) notable, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tito Munoz notable, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Feinstein notable, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Van Dijck notable, etc. using your criterion, i would be notable since i was interviewed in high school while running for class president! Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are being extremely fact selective in singling out two of the links I provided. I strongly disagree with your characterization that the other articles you did NOT address in detail just mention him in passing. Take for example this Associated Press article at CBS news. The article quotes him directly four times. He is also quoted directly numerous times in this USA Today article.
- the CBS Sports "article" is actually a message board post which WP:SPS addresses. as for the other articles, R.C. Johnson is only mentioned in passing and in the case of the last article, being interviewed by a local news channel no more makes R.C. Johnson notable than it makes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Atkinson (software developer) (2nd nomination) notable, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tito Munoz notable, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Feinstein notable, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Van Dijck notable, etc. using your criterion, i would be notable since i was interviewed in high school while running for class president! Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now let's look at all of the articles I *didn't* mention. Do a google search for "R. C. Johnson" at each of the following sites and this is how many hits you get: USA Today - 315; NY Times 166; Washington Post - 51. You are welcome to search for him at other major newspapers and media outlets on your own.
- Keep. Clearly passes the general notability guideline based on the sources presented above. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Has been athletic director at three major universities, Miami of Ohio, Temple and Memphis. Has been the subject of hundreds and hundreds of newspaper articles. A sampling of the articles, including articles The Philadelphia Inquirer (#17 paper in USA), The Cincinnati Post and The Commercial Appeal (the newspaper with the 70th largest circulation in the USA[67]), include: (1) Line's busy, long, in search of coach -- Johnson begins sorting initial list of candidates, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News , November 12, 2009, (2) University of Memphis athletic director R.C. Johnson mulling Tommy West's fate: Disappointed in team, will wait and see, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, November 1, 2009, (3) Give Johnson credit for hire -- Bringing in Tranghese smart move for Tigers, The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN), September 16, 2009, (4) Time for Johnson to bow out, The Commercial Appeal, August 23, 2009, (5) R.C. Johnson speaks, The Commercial Appeal, August 1, 2009, (6) No laughing matter -- Tigers' AD Johnson is 'roasted'by pals, but it's no joke: His decisions seem half-baked, The Commercial Appeal, May 29, 2009, (7) Calkins: Memphis AD Johnson deserves roasting, Scripps Howard News Service, May 29, 2009, (8) Memphis releases R.C. Johnson statement, The Commercial Appeal, May 28, 2009, (9) A warning for Josh Pastner and R.C. Johnson, The Commercial Appeal, April 23, 2009, (10) Best is yet to come -- Johnson sees BCS conference, national title in Tigers' future, The Commercial Appeal, December 19, 2008, (11) Tigers to beef up facilities -- Johnson unveils plan to upgrade football complex, The Commercial Appeal, August 9, 2008, (12) Johnson is joining in chase for Big East, The Commercial Appeal, May 18, 2008, (13) U of M, Big East deny talk -- Johnson says report of courtship is premature, The Commercial Appeal, May 16, 2008, (14) Scholarship fund reaches new heights -- AD Johnson praises 'phenomenal success', The Commercial Appeal, June 23, 2007, (15) U of M's scholarship fund hits $5 million -- Tigers reach ambitious goal set by AD Johnson, The Commercial Appeal, July 7, 2006, (16) Tiger ticket sales near AD's goal -- With opener approaching, Johnson targets 20,000, The Commercial Appeal, August 12, 2005, (17) Tiger AD Johnson hospitalized, The Commercial Appeal, May 28, 2005, (18) Tiger AD to review policies -- Johnson: U of M needs unified discipline, The Commercial Appeal, January 26, 2005, (19) Tiger A.D. expects bid to Mobile bowl -- Strong fan support gives U of M postseason allure, Johnson says, The Commercial Appeal, November 21, 2004, (20) Five questions with R. C. Johnson U of M athletic director, The Commercial Appeal, October 14, 2004, (21) TIGER AD JOHNSON WILL PRESS FOR MOVE, The Commercial Appeal, April 12, 2004, (22) FIVE QUESTIONS WITH . . . R.C. JOHNSON ATHLETIC DIRECTOR, The Commercial Appeal, November 20, 2003, (23) TIGER FANS MAY WIN FIGHT TO PLAY UT - POPULAR OPINION COULD CHANGE JOHNSON'S MIND, The Commercial Appeal, November 14, 2003, (24) FIVE QUESTIONS WITH ... R. C. JOHNSON, ATHLETIC DIRECTOR, The Commercial Appeal, September 25, 2003, (25) FIVE QUESTIONS WITH ... R. C. JOHNSON, ATHLETIC DIRECTOR, The Commercial Appeal, September 4, 2003, (26) CALIPARI'S DEAL TO BE EXTENDED BY 1 YEAR, JOHNSON SET TO TAKE ACTION AFTER NIT TITLE, The Commercial Appeal, April 10, 2002, (27) TIGERS GIVE JOHNSON 5-YEAR EXTENSION, The Commercial Appeal, December 16, 2001, (28) U OF M'S JOHNSON HONORED AT LUNCHEON, The Commercial Appeal, December 28, 2000, (29) A LETTER FROM R.C. JOHNSON, The Commercial Appeal, December 24, 2000, (30) JOHNSON UNDECIDED ON SCHERER'S FUTURE \ DECISION MUST COME QUICKLY, The Commercial Appeal, November 16, 2000, (31) JOHNSON DENIES N.Y. STORY, The Commercial Appeal, February 18, 2000, (32) JOHNSON SAYS HE'S CONTACTED NO COACHES FOR JOB, The Commercial Appeal, December 5, 1999, (33) TIGER AD: 'TIC IS STILL MY COACH', JOHNSON ASKS FOR FAN SUPPORT, The Commercial Appeal, March 10, 1999, (34) JOHNSON, BY THE NUMBERS, The Commercial Appeal, February 12, 1999, (35) 'DISAPPOINTED' JOHNSON BACKS SCHERER, The Commercial Appeal, November 25, 1997, (36) JOHNSON BACKS SCHERER, TIGER AD HAS FAITH IN COACH, The Commercial Appeal, September 24, 1997, (37) JOHNSON WANTS NO CHANGES FOR WHILE, The Commercial Appeal, September 14, 1997, (38) JOHNSON PRAISES U OF M TV APPEAL, The Commercial Appeal, May 28, 1997, (39) JOHNSON'S EMOTIONS ARE MIXED, The Commercial Appeal, May 15, 1997, (40) ERA BEGINS AS SEARCH ENDS, JOHNSON CALLS CHOICE 'NO. 1', The Commercial Appeal, March 28, 1997, (41) JOHNSON: U OF M SEARCH NOT LIMITED, The Commercial Appeal, March 26, 1997, (42) JOHNSON SETS TARGET DATE IN COACH SEARCH, HIRING GOAL: MARCH 29, The Commercial Appeal, March 18, 1997, (43) TIGERS' JOHNSON, TULSA BASKETBALL COACH MEET, The Commercial Appeal, February 18, 1997, (44) JOHNSON GETS OK TO TALK TO BUFFS' COACH, The Commercial Appeal, February 5, 1997, (45) JOHNSON DELAYS SEARCH PANEL, The Commercial Appeal, February 2, 1997, (46) TIGERS STRAIN FOR VISIBILITY, JOHNSON EMPLOYS MARKET IDEAS, The Commercial Appeal, May 31, 1996, (47) JOHNSON HEARS REACTION, AD TO SPEAK WITH FINCH, The Commercial Appeal, March 16, 1996, (48) A NEW BEGINNING ..., JOHNSON SHOULD FIT IN WELL AS ATHLETIC DIRECTOR FOR U OF M, The Commercial Appeal, January 14, 1996, (49) JOHNSON LEAVES TEMPLE FOR MEMPHIS AD JOB, The Philadelphia Inquirer, December 30, 1995, (50) Johnson bolts Temple, becomes Memphis AD, The Cincinnati Post, December 30, 1995, (51) Temple's Johnson named U of M athletic director, The Commercial Appeal, December 30, 1995 (52) Temple Names Johnson, Delaware County Daily Times (Primos - Upper Darby, PA), May 10, 1994, and (53) TEMPLE NAMES JOHNSON AS ITS NEW AD, The Philadelphia Inquirer, May 10, 1994, (54) Big Ten job 'the ultimate,'says Miami's Johnson, The Cincinnati Post, December 13, 1993. Cbl62 (talk) 19:24, 11 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.