- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. It's sad to see this old orphan article go. However, efforts to find reliable external sources to rescue the article have failed, so deletion is the right thing to do. Deryck C. 21:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stéphanie Mahieu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 23:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficient notability. Pburka (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Pburka. Tooga - BØRK! 11:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Ditto. Could not find sources. Readorama (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unsourced BLP article. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 20:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. speedied as recreation of deleted material slakr\ talk / 20:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ops gear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Overly promotional Eeekster (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - while I agree that the article is currently a virtual pamphlet for the company, that could be fixed. The deeper problem is that I cannot find indications of notability - the references are blogs and trivial mentions, now Google news hits, and going through the first few pages (because of the name of the company searching reveals many non-relevant hits) shows nothing to indicate that the company passes WP:CORPDEPTH; meaningful coverage by quality secondary sources. SeaphotoTalk 00:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete per nom.. article is obviously an advertisement Alan - talk 00:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A company article talking about its products. I wonder... CycloneGU (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination Johnclean184 (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete Page includes information on the company along with it's training areas, public services, it's services toward each of it's customer bases, and it's free training. No different then numerous other pages that speak about companies. (User:SAINT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.224.68 (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- None of this information shows why the company is notable. If you think other similar articles need to be deleted, please nominate them. CycloneGU (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also recommended to discount this opinion as User:SAINT has been suspected of being a sockpuppet since 2006 and this IP refers to him/herself as this user. CycloneGU (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. This is a re-creation of an article that was previously deleted after a full discussion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OPSGEAR. I thought that "infidel" shirt looked familiar. The reasons for that deletion discussion were "Questionable notability of this company; article contains no information to assess notability such as net or gross sales, number of employees, whether or not it is a private or public company, etc. Repeated attempts by multiple editors to de-spam this article (practically an advertorial) are repeatedly met with reversion." Obviously none of that has been changed in the new version. So tagging. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of this revelation, I am also suggesting a pinch of salt on anything that could be construed as the company name. CycloneGU (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deryck C. 21:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Frank McNair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject of this unsourced BLP, a management theorist/writer, meets none of our notability criteria. J04n(talk page) 22:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No evidence of coverage by reliable secondary sources. Google shows a lot of self promotion, but no news hits. SeaphotoTalk 00:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable, article is mostly irrelevant subject matter Alan - talk 00:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Likely written by McNair for self promotion. HornColumbia talk 01:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unsourced BLP article. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 20:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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'm sorry Zacharykirk but there's not enough verifiable information about this subject yet Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Itaril (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As per WP:CRYSTAL, there are insufficient details about this character at present to merit a Wikipedia article. No reliable sources provided. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 22:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--Dmol (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
zacharykirk: I am the contributor to the page of Itaril. It is, I assure you, accurate information. I cannot give much detail of her because there isn't much detail of her in the book of The Hobbit. Theonering.net is, I assure you, a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharykirk (talk • contribs) 23:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The nomination pretty much covers it. If the character receives more coverage from secondary sources down the line, then an article might be warranted. Right now the only source we have is a fansite, which is, of course, unacceptable. Millahnna (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. My sources aren't as reliable as I thought. But I'm pretty sure this is accurate information. I don't know off of the top of my head another source for this but I'm sure there is something that can back this information up. --zacharykirk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharykirk (talk • contribs) 21:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is nothing solid indicating that Itaril is going to actually be a character in The Hobbit at the present time. It is nothing but rumors at this point. All there has been to go on so far is a casting sheet that was supposedly leaked way back in January 2010 and a report from Deadline Hollywood (who even claimed that Saoirse Ronan was rumored to be playing Itaril) from last November. Even TheOneRing.net, who you say claims to know that the part of Itaril is a certainty, has never actually said anything on the matter other than say that Saoirse Ronan is rumored to be in negotiations for the role, but that they don't really know for sure what part she is actually up for. It may very well be true that Itaril is a character in The Hobbit, but the article should be deleted until we actually get confirmation from the studio on the matter.TheLastAmigo (talk) 05:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with no particular prejudice against recreation once sourced, but with the advice that a single character is probably better covered in a list of characters article or in a section on the adaptation notes of the film's article. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it has been confirmed on one of my sources, which is clearly visible on my Itaril page, Reelzchannel.com that Saoirse Ronan is, in fact, going to play the character entitled Itaril. If you click on a video interview with Saoirse Ronan on the movie HANNA, they confirm this rumor at the end of it. That is why I made this page because it was officially confirmed with an official movie news database. Please do a little more research before you delete a page with accurate information on it. Thank you for all of your concerns, but this information can be backed up by many other sources if you care to look. --zacharykirk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharykirk (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but Reelzchannel.com is not an official source. The only official sources are Warner Bros./New Line Cinema and Peter Jackson. They can say whatever they want on Reelzchannel.com. I mean, The Hollywood Reporter, an industry trade, reported that Joseph Gordon-Levitt was going to play The Holiday Killer in The Dark Knight Rises, which turned out to be completely false, and they have a much better reputation than Reelzchannel.com (which is, FYI, nothing more than a generic E! Channel wannabe). I don't mean to sound rude, but your line of reasoning is ridiculous. The page should be deleted. End of story.TheLastAmigo (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And nobody has even mentioned the fact that the page looks like it was thrown together in less than 5 minutes. You didn't link any sources whatsoever. Your sourcing consisted of "This can be confirmed by Reelzchannel.com and theonering.net, which are reliable sources" or something to that effect. Like we should just take your word at face value. And where have you read at TheOneRing.net that Itaril is a confirmed character? I've been going to that site almost everyday for the past 18 months and never once have they ever confirmed Itaril as being a character in The Hobbit. Neither have they debunked it. They just report it as being a rumor. Even Saoirse Ronan hasn't said anything other than she'd love to work with Peter Jackson again and wants a part in the films.TheLastAmigo (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just watched the Reelzchannel.com interview you cited, which can be found at http://www.reelzchannel.com/movie/283371/hanna/. All they said is that she is currently filming The Hobbit (which is untrue as she is, by her own admission, not even signed yet) and mentioned nothing about the character of Itaril. Your claims are very misleading.TheLastAmigo (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And nobody has even mentioned the fact that the page looks like it was thrown together in less than 5 minutes. You didn't link any sources whatsoever. Your sourcing consisted of "This can be confirmed by Reelzchannel.com and theonering.net, which are reliable sources" or something to that effect. Like we should just take your word at face value. And where have you read at TheOneRing.net that Itaril is a confirmed character? I've been going to that site almost everyday for the past 18 months and never once have they ever confirmed Itaril as being a character in The Hobbit. Neither have they debunked it. They just report it as being a rumor. Even Saoirse Ronan hasn't said anything other than she'd love to work with Peter Jackson again and wants a part in the films.TheLastAmigo (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The existence of an article about a character about which nothing is known, as fact or otherwise, other than who might be cast to play her is unacceptable. I'd wait a while, maybe until a full cast list with character summaries is released by the filmmakers. Avalyn (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not appreciate the insults I have received from the majority of you. If I were you I'd do my homework before you call my page a bunch of nonesense. You should wait awhile before you choose to delete something YOU'RE not sure is true or not. Until this page can be officially proven to be untrue, LEAVE IT ALONE! --Zacharykirk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharykirk (talk • contribs) 19:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia is here to report facts, not things that might be true. Deletion discussions last for a week, if you gave reliable sources, you'd be better off posting them instead of getting upset with other editors. Edward321 (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, give us some sources. And I mean OFFICIAL sources such as press releases from the studio, comments from Peter Jackson, or even confirmation by Saoirse Ronan herself. Not something you read in some article one time or some throwaway comment you heard from a hack entertainment journalist on Reelzchannel.com. I mean something solid that justifies the existence of the page. Also, are you seriously telling... no, not telling... ORDERING Wikipedia administrators not to delete "your" page? You don't own the page, Wikipedia does. Whatever you write becomes the property of Wikipedia and they can do with it as they please. And that includes deleting "your" page if other editors deem it to be unworthy. And as for doing my homework, I linked one of YOUR sources to this very discussion, and that source turned out to be complete nonsense. Why don't you do your homework instead of telling us to? The burden of proof is on you, not us. TheLastAmigo (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence that this character will appear in the upcoming movie, let alone have an important enough role for a stand-alone article. Probably could have been Speedied. Edward321 (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article has existed for four years with little content and zero reliable sources, and a cursory google search does not give much promise of notability. » Swpbτ • ¢ 22:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - My favourite part: "...is a proposed political party" has been in there since May 12, 2007. Proposed for four years? CycloneGU (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Doooooooooooooooode, what's the big rush? Carrite (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A proposed political party sourced to a MySpace page. This one pretty clearly fell through the cracks at New Pages... Carrite (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Ah, Vermont. The bit about looking for members to help them get registered as a minor party screams non-notability. GabrielF (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Alan - talk 00:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as there is no evidence that this proposed party ever became worthy of note. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 20:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vices & Virtues. Content can be merged from article history. Jujutacular talk 12:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ready to Go (Get Me Out of My Mind) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod contested with the rationale, The article will improve when more details are released. Actually, the right way to do it is to wait until more details make their way into reliable third-party coverage before the article can be created. Song with no evidence of notability independent of the album it comes from, should be merged with Panic! at the Disco until it does. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Another translation of The article will improve when more details are released is, "There is not enough information for an article, so let's keep this rather empty piece of Wiki around until someone starts writing about it". There is no deadline, it's not due for an assignment tomorrow or anything, so merge for now. CycloneGU (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge It will be a single soon, no reason for delete. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 21:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - per WP:NSONGS for non-notable songs. Would suggest that the album article, Vices & Virtues, is a more appropriate merge target than the artist article though. Rlendog (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, always merge to the album, not the artist - unless the album article doesn't exist, then merge to the artist. CycloneGU (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Heriberto Ponce, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Player is a non-notable soccer player. No professional experience, no outstanding collegiate achievements. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY JonBroxton (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Without significant coverage or fully pro appearances, this player clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 14:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Has not played in a fully professional league. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 15:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per standard practice with unsourced BLP articles. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 20:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Flynn Soltys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Independent filmmaker. I've declined the speedy deletion on this one on the grounds of one award. However, I don't see that there is much else in that filmmaker's career that warrants an article on him, instead of one on his movie. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. Even that one award is not very notable, to say the least. Not notable. (I'm the one who speedy-tagged this.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Although the IMDB link in the article is incorrect, his actual entry[1] only shows the one work three years ago. No meaningful secondary coverage, even the subjects website[2] shows no evidence of notability. SeaphotoTalk 00:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- IMPACT Laboratory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is about a lab group s the University of Southern California which does not indicate why it is notable. The article does not have independent sourcing to establish notability, and I cannot find any indication it is a notable lab. Whpq (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete T-LAB is another article about a lab group of the same university, this time without any sources except its own webpage. Both articles fail WP:ORG. If independent reliable sources can be found for these labs (self-published sources do not count), they might be merged into University of Southern California. Nimuaq (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I had a look at T-LAB and I agree that it is just as problematic so I've sent that to AFD as well. -- Whpq (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect to University of Southern California, perhaps add a line [[University of Southern California#Faculty_and_research|here about the USC Aerospace program and/or labs. tedder (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, without a redirect to the USC article. Not that notable, and an unlikely search term. --MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2011 (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 speedy delete. Blatant hoax The Helpful One 23:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fredward Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article has no references, searching for "Fredward Syndrome" online turns up nothing except the wikipedia article, and the idea that a medical condition involving loss of consciousness could be "explained" by a physics paradox involving travel at a significant fraction of light speed is totally nonsensical. Hypnosifl (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - Most of the content is copied & pasted from Twin paradox and Organic brain syndrome. The remaining part of the article consist of four sentences (three of them at the start, another one at the start of the next section). Not even a single source can be found on the web. Possibly a Blatant hoax. Nimuaq (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with a vengeance - lazy plaigarizing and utter nonsense. » Swpbτ • ¢ 21:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Instantaneous Delete in absolute terms. Possibly? a blatant hoax?D.T.Thom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Speedy Delete Unsourced, unverified — this is probably a hoax and possibly an attempt to punk someone named Fred Ward.--Hokeman (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ContentCreatorZ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined Speedy. Article about a company with no coverage by independent reliable sources to establish notability per WP:NCORP. The references are either database entries or press releases, neither of which are sufficient to establish notability. "Hold on" comments on talk page offer no reason to keep the page, purely promotional. Boffob (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - That talk page is laughable. CycloneGU (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I like the fact that the article's infobox lists jargon as a product. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Completely non-notable company. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete I have doubts it's even a company at all. Alan - talk 03:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A complete lack of coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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'm sorry Sopot26 but there are no reliable sources that show that this subject is notable. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fire Ultras 98 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about some fan club of a soccer club with zero coverage by independent reliable sources to establish notability. Boffob (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - "This group is responsible for the original visual style of Fire fans: wearing of scarves, displaying large banners, and waving flags." That's great, so how does that make this group notable? Most fan groups carry large signs; heck, at a Sarnia Sting game, I witnessed someone bring an "easy button". CycloneGU (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great points by people that don’t know anything about the subject they are commenting on. Please at least Google the subject or click on the links and learn how significant this supporters group was and is to the growing soccer culture in American. Also currently more information is being collected to augment the short statements posted.
As for zero coverage by independent source again just Google.
Sarnia Sting please let not compare Hockey with Soccer, just look up TIFO and see the difference. This is something that FU98 has infused in Section 8 Chicago for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epQdreYwO5s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopot26 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds like you have something to do with this article. Can you please tell us what specifically makes this group notable per Wikipedia policy? CycloneGU (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Started to collect FU98 history and discovered how crucial this group was in facilitating the European supporters culture in a fledgling team (Chicago Fire) and the new league , MLS. Today we see fantastic TIFO displays in Seattle, Toronto, Portland, etc… but the humble beginnings stated in section 9, in the old soldier field with FU98.
Looking thru the recent Sports Illustrated articles about the growing supporter’s culture in North America, FU98 stands out as the Godfathers in establishing Section 8 Chicago and yes infusing the group with scarves, large banners, and flags, which was different to the typical American sports experience.
I see you are a sports fan, so I encourage you to partake in the beautiful game and see first hand the influence of FU98. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopot26 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Has the fan club been covered by reliable sources? I still don't get how this makes them notable, Canadian fans are always waving flags at international hockey matches. This type of thing could be said of any sport, not just soccer. CycloneGU (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly just look up Section 8 Chicago and see the displays. Also look up TIFO and see the difference in size, quantity, quality and intricacy of displays in soccer verses other sports. Don’t get me wrong I love Hockey but Hockey does not have the same organized supporter’s culture as soccer.
So what is notable? The groups influence in changing an American soccer culture.
As for coverage by reliable sources, please just pick up the local Chicago papers, look thru the local web media or turn the game on and we will be mentioned.
Also browse thru other supporters clubs of other MLS teams for references on how FU98 and Section 8 Chicago inspired them.
As for waiving flags, I don’t think you seen one than measured 80yd x 25yd at a game :-)
Other examples:
http://www.section8chicago.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=205&Itemid=305
And as I mentioned I am collecting some great historical stuff on these guys, if you feel that FU98 contribution should not be documented on Wiki, I am not gone fight you.
Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopot26 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence, currently, of coverage by independent reliable sources. --Dweller (talk) 09:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a small group of fans sit near each other, give themselves a name, and encourage others to wave flags? Yeah, not even nearly notable, sorry. GiantSnowman 11:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Just added 11 references (coverage by independent sources) and still cleaning up more historical materials I will post. Sopot26 (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I repeat, there is no notability. Has the New York Times written an article about the group? The Washington Post? The LA Times? Another independent third-party source? If not, I can't see an argument for a keep here. If anything, userfy it and try to work on it, but in good faith I really don't see how you'll be able to assert notability. Further, blogs are not sources. They must be removed. CycloneGU (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me understand Chicago Tribune and Fifa don’t count as independent third-party sources?Sopot26 (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw Chicago Tribune, I didn't argue that one. But I also note that this is a group based in Chicago; you'd expect Tribune coverage much like the London Free Press would cover a local group of soccer fans in London, Ontario, an example I use because I live not too far from London. So I'm not sure it counts as significant coverage. FIFA does qualify as independent as well, so a review of the article would be needed. CycloneGU (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Analysis of references - I thought an analysis of the references just reported as added to the article might help discussion.
- 1 is the soccer club's site.
- 2 and 3 are the organization's own Web site.
- 4 is a discussion forum.
- 5 is a blog, as are 8 (in my opinion, though well-written) and 9.
- I can't analyze 10 in Polish (though it does have a Youtube video embedded in it)
- 11 is the same blog as 9.
- Therefore, the only good references are 6 and 7, the Chicago Tribune and FIFA in that order. Since the group is local to Chicago, I rule out the Tribune. FIFA might be the only reliable third-party reference. And the question becomes whether this is enough notability to warrant an article. If the article is kept, then 1-3 can be used in places as well, but 6 and 7 are the only ones that can determine article notability. Refs 4, 5, 8, 9, and 11 should be removed immediately. CycloneGU (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to humbly point out that if we would follow this logic, we would need to delete most of supporters’ group pages in Category: Association football supporters' associations and Category: Ultras groups. For example Kohorta Osijek, the only reference is to their own webpage. Sopot26 (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD has nothing to do with those pages. If you want to nominate them for deletion, go for it and they will be analyzed based on their own merits. CycloneGU (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I will not be nominating any pages for deletion, I see Wiki as inclusive not exclusive. I was just pointing out my perception of uneven analysis of merits, between same subject articles. Sopot26 (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Each page is analyzed on its own merits and notability. There is no comparison between articles in any form. Just because another soccer fan club is notable does not automatically make this one notable, and the opposite also holds true. CycloneGU (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, it is just hard to see an Original 21 article (another supporters club) for example, with similar description and only one link to “Original 21” webpage accepted in Wiki and my article (in development) being scrutinized. Sopot26 (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interestingly, it was never nominated for deletion in 2007. It has no actual references at all. I wonder if it should be. But even so, it still has no bearing on this deletion. Because of the FIFA source, I am reconsidering my opinion, but not sure if it's enough. CycloneGU (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did some digging and found this, which might be a good model for trying to build your article around. I might find some others too that might serve as good examples for this type of article. I'm seriously debating whether Original 21 has enough info to stand, though, without some work. CycloneGU (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you this will help me organize the materials I collected. I was looking for good example that's how I found the other ones. Thank you again. Sopot26 (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Recorded music promotes ancillary markets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Opinion piece promoting the views of the sole reference used. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There may be someplace where some of this information could go on Wikipedia, but this ain't it. CycloneGU (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy delete This isn't an article, it's an optinion, belongs on a message board somewhere, not here Alan - talk 04:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cedric Gore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability not established, per basic notability guidelines, as was the case in first nomination. Five years on an there are still no reliable sources mentioning Cedric Gore, the man. Cites provided all discuss his company, many do not even mention him personally. Search for sources almost exclusively return mirrors of this article. Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The best we have are a few soundbites about his company. I couldn't even verify his birthdate. Huon (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There may be room for an article about the product but there's no sign that Mr. Gore is sufficiently notable. And although this alone is not an argument for deletion, the article's current tone is too promotional to be acceptable. Pichpich (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Same problem here at on James_Anthony_Gore.--v/r - TP 18:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Femjoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:WEB and the GNG. No nontrivial GNews of GBooks hits. Generic longrunning pornsite with no RS independent coverage; virtually all article sourcing is promotional. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just one of millions of similar porn sites in the world. We specifically ignore Alexa ratings in notability criteria. Other "refs" are just commercial links and redirects.--Dmol (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete obvious promotion, no notability Alan - talk 00:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bulu Pattanaik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Vanispamcruftisement by single-purpose account Suntysingh (talk · contribs). No notability whatsoever. bender235 (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 11:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe deckertalk to me 17:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted due to AfD notice being removed from the article on 12 April. Now restored. --joe deckertalk to me 17:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfD notice removed again, but quickly restored.--joe deckertalk to me 18:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC) And again --joe deckertalk to me 13:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and consider salt. Unable to find any reliable, secondary sources providing in-depth coverage of this executive. The blogs aren't quite RS enough, although I'm sure this guy exists. --joe deckertalk to me 14:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Gol talab,bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:Notability I am frankly not sure what assertion of notability is being made with this article, if any at all, but I personally cannot discern the notability, at least from the article as written. In addition, unsourced. Safiel (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the Islampur article. Seems to be similar to Diss Mere, which is covered in the relevant town article. Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You should note that Islampur is a disambiguation page. And there is no entry for an Islampur in Bangladesh on that page. A careful reading of the page will reveal that this is actually in Dhaka, but as per my comment below, there is no compelling reason for merging. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- for lack of any sourced content that could be salvaged. This entire article reads like a travel guide full of the author's personal musings on the topic and fails our core content policy. Reyk YO! 10:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - None of this content is worth merging, as it is an unsourced travel guide. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - The article appears to have been cobbled together using much of the same text as a blog post and has been tagged a a copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The copyvio is probably of little import at this point. The AfD expires tomorrow and looks like a consensus delete. Safiel (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, it expires today. Safiel (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Non admin closure Safiel (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Berlin, German Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page has the history of Berlin during the Imperial Time of Germany. I think it is an important subject, and it should be respected. I will improve the article. --Themane2 (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No Consensus. There is no consensus in the discussion below to delete these articles. As an aside, it would have been more helpful to the closer if participants had spent more time discussing the presence or absence of sources rather than what level on the Football pyramid these teams are most similar to or the history if rugby union. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fishguard and Goodwick RFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am also nominating the following related pages:
- Neyland RFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Pembroke Dock Harlequins RFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Pembroke RFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- St. Davids RFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Tenby United RFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All articles concerned are minor, entirely amateur club rugby union sides, playing in the lower divisions of the Welsh rugby system. The only citations present give a league position and listing of what area the club is in. This is trivial information ("listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion"), hence the subjects have not met the notability criteria of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, nor do I believe that they could do so. Cymru82 (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Amateur is a mute point when concerning rugby union as all rugby union was amateur for the first 120 years, therefore that is a no go. The league to which the club is associated is a valid organisation controlled by a recognised World Sporting body. The fact that they play in the lower divisions is also not an issue as teams have a history which sees them move from higher to lower, so just because a team is in the lower echelons now does not mean they have always been there. There is also a history of accepting lower division amateur sporting teams in other sports. All football teams in the FA (down to at least tier eight) have articles despite having little more information than these rugby teams nominated, although that is not an argument for keeping it does show precedent. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I accept that amateur/professional may not be relevant. However the teams nominated have not (as far as I'm aware, and the articles certainly doesn't help) reached a division higher than 3 West (the 'West' bit being particularly relevant, as this means it's a regional league, rather than a national one). Division Three is the effectively the fifth tier of club competition in Wales (Regions, Premiership, Div 1 W/Div 1 E, Div 2 W/Div 2 E, Div 3 E/SE/W/SW). But this is besides the point to an extent, because the subjects lack "coverage in multiple independent reliable sources". That is the key to determining notability. Without this, it is nearly impossible to independently cite basic factual items such as squads and the club's organisational structure, let alone write an encyclopaedic article about the club as a whole. Cymru82 (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regional also doesn't matter. Many sports are based on regions, mainly to allow costly travel to be kept to a minimum. If teams can promote themselves to the highest echelons of the sport which is national, then the criteria is met. The English football league was once regional and its history included the likes of Cardiff, Villa, Bristol, etc. Historic and notable, and if I'm not mistaken the NFL is sub divided into regional areas. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If and when they reach the higher echelons of the sport, then it's likely they will become the subject of "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources" and meet the criteria for notability. At present however, I still maintain they don't. Yes, I appreciate regional, amateur etc. doesn't matter - I was just trying to put the clubs into context. My main argument for deletion is that no-one has yet managed to provide evidence of notability in terms of that significant coverage, nor supplied a compelling reason why these articles meet notability by some other criteria. Cymru82 (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you wish to use English soccer as the analogy these guys would be in League 18. Also there will be probably be 200 clubs of this size and importance in London. And the gates for the matches by these teams will be less than 100 and you can get in for free. Don't cite me on any of that, i'm making a general point rather than being factually correct. Szzuk (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No you are incorrect. Fishguard and Goodwick are in the sixth tier of the WRU league, not 18th. There is no analogy. You can't use the fact that Wales has only 6% of the population of England to use it as a weapon to beat the article. It's in tier six, there is no argument. FruitMonkey (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cutting to the chase. Provide references demonstrating these pages pass WP:V or they go bye byes. I'm not interested in crappy conversations like this. Go find the references. Szzuk (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No you are incorrect. Fishguard and Goodwick are in the sixth tier of the WRU league, not 18th. There is no analogy. You can't use the fact that Wales has only 6% of the population of England to use it as a weapon to beat the article. It's in tier six, there is no argument. FruitMonkey (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you wish to use English soccer as the analogy these guys would be in League 18. Also there will be probably be 200 clubs of this size and importance in London. And the gates for the matches by these teams will be less than 100 and you can get in for free. Don't cite me on any of that, i'm making a general point rather than being factually correct. Szzuk (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. No assertion of notability, no independant references of note. They are small amateur teams playing rugby union. I have no idea what the notability guideline states for rugby, or if there is one, however these guys don't pass. Szzuk (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not use 'amateur' as a reason for deletion for rugby union teams, its entire ethos is amateur. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not try to correct other people on the usage of amateur because you don't understand it's ambiguity. Szzuk (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not use 'amateur' as a reason for deletion for rugby union teams, its entire ethos is amateur. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He's perfectly entitled to criticise you on this basis, regarding rugby union. For a hundred years, rugby union was the amateur code, and rugby league was the professional code, and this mentality still permeates most of the sport. Many amateur RU sides ARE notable. Some produce internationals.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Has this been listed at WikiProject Rugby union? FruitMonkey (talk) 08:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: If the league, WRU Division Five West, is notable enough to have an article so are the clubs in it. Amateur status may be a reason for deletion in Asociation Football articles, it can't be for Rugby Union, for historical reason. Calistemon (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't inherited. There are no references demonstrating the notability of these clubs. Szzuk (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Given how many utterly pointless articles there are on Wikipedia, I can't begin to imagine why rugby union teams from towns that I've actually heard of (and I'm not Welsh) should be considered "non-noteable". They are the top amateur team from those towns playing in a national league pyramid not just a few mates having a chuck about on a Sunday. You'd easily be able to google match reports in the local press.GordyB (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here in Wrexham (yes I'm Welsh) the under 11 rugby teams get a mention in the local paper, so do they get a page? WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid keep argument. Szzuk (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Au contraire. Getting a write-up in the press is notability.GordyB (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some work to Fishguard and Pembroke Dock. Multiple sources to hopefully add validity, including the fact that Archive Wales feels that the Quins are important enough to store and record their club's papers as historical documents. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now updated Neyland, seven cites from different sources (multiple), all notable. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the refs are very weak and still don't demonstrate notability. However there is something worth discussing now, so I'll leave others to this debate. Have a good day. Szzuk (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most rugby union sides are amateur. That is just the way it is. These sides participate in a valid national league system operated by the national governing body. --Bob (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They play in division 5 West, yes? So the sixth tier, which is the equivalent, in soccer, of a club like King's_Lynn_FC? Given that I'd say it's a probable keep - so long as we don't try to create articles for their youth teams or for their players (unless otherwise notable of course). Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's sort-of the seventh tier, as the regional teams are the premier 'clubs' in Wales (it's the regional teams that play in the Heineken Cup against the top club sides from England and France). Seeing as we're trying to equate this with football for some reason, as an example, on the BBC Welsh TV News, it's common for Cardiff and Swansea City (English football tier 2) and Wrexham and Newport (English football tier 5) to get a mention, but for rugby not even Welsh Premiership (Welsh rugby tier 2) sides get a mention, which gives an example of the respective leagues statuses.
- Regardless, many of these articles are lacking decent quality sources which prove notability through significant coverage. A match report in a local paper is not significant in my view - it doesn't provide an overview of a teams history, organisation or whatever - merely a result for the latest match they played.
- We're also getting distracted over the 'amateur' issue - I'm not arguing that amateur=not notable. Teams like Penarth RFC which have received significant coverage are notable, despite their amateur status. It was a bad choice of wording on my part. Many amateur teams are notable, my argument is that these teams are not. Cymru82 (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fwiw the only reason I'd equate it to football at all is that WP:FOOTY has a very handy set of notability guidelines that really help to keep things easy to decide on. No other reason, promise! I can see your argument entirely - it's along these lines that I'd be weak keep at best. I can see delete in the terms that you're putting the argument though. Perhaps everyone needs to reconsider within those terms? Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - being an "amateur" team in rugby union doesn't indicate low status, nor even does "regional". Professionalisation of rugby union is uneven, and relatively recent.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2 011 (UTC)
- Keep - Assessing these clubs as a whole I opted to look for what was notable rather than what was not. For the most part, they all have been the homes of notable players, they all have long histories important in a social and sporting context, both for the towns they are associated with and with the development of Welsh rugby and in this sense bolster other articles substantially, and they are all in recognised and documented leagues.Kwib (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Baseball Watcher 02:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ding Mao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E, and hence WP:N. Of two references used, one is from the "Chinese Human Rights Defenders" website, which fails WP:RS as it is not a WP:NPOV source. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No information beyond a name except from the CHRD advocacy website, where every student is a "student leader" and every detainee is "criminally detained". The reference from AsiaNews (a self-styled Catholic missionary website) is just a passing reference; name-dropping for a nobody. Quigley (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not notable enough. Mentioned with other names in some news sources and no background to the person whatsoever. Zlqq2144 (talk) 07:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: Complies to WP:N, he was a leader in the 1989 pro-democracy movement, a co-founder of the unrecognized Social Democratic Party, and now he is arrested during the 2011 Chinese protests. Meanwhile there have been added more references complying to WP:RS, hence the article about this activist should stay. — Waikiki_lwt Talk | contribs | email 08:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Passes WP:N. This AfD is part of an attempt by certain editor(s) to remove material that is negative to the Communist Party of China. --Reference Desker (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference Desker, you will continue to lose the trust of editors that meet you so long as you throw such slimy accusations at others. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 20:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources added after nomination, meets WP:GNG via CNN, NYDN sources. --joe deckertalk to me 18:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to some appropriate article about recent events in China. Even in the sources now added, Ding Mao is only mentioned as a dissident who has been arrested, but there is nothing about him apart from that mention. This is not enough to support a biographical article per WP:BIO. The article can be restored if Ding Mao is covered by reliable secondary sources in some depth. Sandstein 07:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, definitely not a BLP1E as explained above. Also, whether a biased source is reliable depends on the kind of information it's sourcing. - filelakeshoe 14:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Current version of article refutes all the nominator's claims. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY - it is now well-sourced and proves some notability. Bearian (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - well sourced and clearly notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect at best per Sandstein's comment. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 20:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Our Lady's Boys Club F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a junior (assoc.) football team. Junior teams are considered not notable for the encyclopedia. WP:FOOTY/Notability and WP:NFOOTBALL. A Prod has been contested, see the articles talk page. Ben Ben (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable sports team. GiantSnowman 15:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No indication of notability. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 17:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. per all of above. Readorama (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion has now been bundled here. (NAC) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 16:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Armenian roots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biased essay, probably copied from somewhere or mechanically translated from Azerbaijani. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia has a very full series already concerning the politically charged history of Armenia, and this violates NPOV. It's not needed and should be deleted.Asnac (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus was notable for reasons other then being a bartender (non-admin closure) Monty845 18:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fran Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable bartender lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Currently working as a bartender but this is not the main concern of the page. Her name is included on Best of Second City so I don't think it fails WP:NACTOR. Apparently, she was with the group from 1988 to 1994 but sources (even video sources) can still be found on the web today. Nimuaq (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Six years with Second City pretty much establishes notability. Gsearches pull up lots of spurious hits, but she's covered in at least two books on Second City and multiple newspieces. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Long time player with Second City would seem to establish notabilty. Listed on the Second City site and appears in news articles on Gsearches. Validays (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2011(UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz six years with Second City is notable. Per Nimuaq fillsWP:NACTOR. Per Validays source search finds mentions in numerous news items. Readorama (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is for keeping despite a lack of in-depth direct coverage.Michig (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wish You Were Here (Avril Lavigne song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
May have charted, but fails WP:NSONG: "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." There has been very little added to this article that does not already exist within Goodbye Lullaby's critical reception section. Stub forever--delete. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 14:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 14:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - If it's a released single that's been on the major charts, then it's keepable, period. With that said, I don't see it on the Hot 100 right now (edit: it peaked at #99 some weeks ago but it's not an official single yet, I've now verified)
, so I'd be curious which chart it's on. CycloneGU (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As you've said, it's not a released single ("period").
And the Hot 100 chart appears to have no verified sources (even if the sources aren't reliable to wikipedia's standards, or even a copyright infringement, I'd be satisfied with at least a photo taken of the actual Billboard magazine or SOMETHING that can prove it was even listed there.) - As it stands now, this article is only a stub of a charted song and has a bare minimum media coverage (usually only a sentence mentioning the song along with all other songs from the album). There's no coverage about the song even charting outside of blogs. Even if those two points cause the song to have even an inkling of notability, there's just not enough encyclopedic content available about this song to warrant having its own article per WP:NSONG.~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 16:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that WP:NSONGS states "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." So even if it is true that this article will never grow beyond a stub, it should be merged to the album article, not deleted. Rlendog (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Assuming a "stub forever" is WP:POINTY. Anyway, it passes WP:NSONGS, it charted in two countries Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 19:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not "POINT"Y at all. I am not "disrupting" Wikipedia, nor am I trying to prove any point. I believe that this article does not (and cannot in the foreseeable future) have substantial information to warrant having its own article. Why have a stub when it can simply be added to Goodbye Lullaby to help improve that article? You seemed to be the only one immediately recreating this article at every turn, so I felt that this was the best way to make a final decision on whether the article stays or goes. There has been no decision that I am "arguing" or point I am trying to make. There is only your opinion and my opinion. So this puts it into open forum. Let's see what happens. That's all. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 20:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are trying to point something: "Stub forever--delete". On the other hand your argument for deletion is invalid for AFD, which is "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". AFD are not venues for request merges, which I repeat, is your argument. I'll never understand why people like you wants to delete articles immediately if we have the {{merge to}} template. The article is searched by people and it can easily me merged an redirected to the article to avoid confusion. Delete the article history is not the solution, and you are actually are trying to violate copyrights with this poor excuse of AFD. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 21:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the wording "people like you". My reasoning for deleting over merging is that there is no real information that can be merged. The only thing worth merging would be the "critical reception" which already is a bit overflowing in the Goodbye Lullaby article. This is basically just an article that says "this song charted". No reason to take up space for such little content.
- Are you forgetting that I did redirect the article? And you quickly reverted it based solely on the fact that this song charted. Further, where am I trying to violate copyrights? By posting a link solving the debate over verifiability of whether it charted in the Hot 100 or not? I think you're going a bit over the top here.~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 21:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are trying to point something: "Stub forever--delete". On the other hand your argument for deletion is invalid for AFD, which is "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". AFD are not venues for request merges, which I repeat, is your argument. I'll never understand why people like you wants to delete articles immediately if we have the {{merge to}} template. The article is searched by people and it can easily me merged an redirected to the article to avoid confusion. Delete the article history is not the solution, and you are actually are trying to violate copyrights with this poor excuse of AFD. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 21:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With that said, the song has charted on the Hot 100. That gives inherited notability. The question is whether it's enough. You cannot argue that charting on the Hot 100 in two countries is notability in itself. And record companies tend to notice things like these, and this could be a single later in 2011 or 2012 (though that would be WP:CRYSTAL). We'll see. What I do know is that every single standard song on the Taylor Swift album Speak Now hit the charts very quickly upon release; each song received digital downloads on its own from people who didn't want the entire album (or heck, maybe some poor sap bought every individual song to contribute more money towards her career than by an album purchase...I have no idea). Many of those songs are not singles, and some of them do not exist in articles yet, so there is an argument to this song not being notable. I'll be interested in following this discussion. CycloneGU (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This well-referenced article is not/no longer a stub in my view, and its appearance in the Hot 100 puts it in the realm of the notable.--Hokeman (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand Article passes notiblity easily, but does need some work for it's quility and content.. should be tagged for such. Alan - talk 03:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The song charted and I am not convinced there will not be additional sources forthcoming to expand the article, hence it passes WP:NSONGS. But even if there were not adequate sources to expand the article beyond a stub, if we want to stick to the letter of WP:NSONGS then the appropriate remedy is merging and redirecting to the album, not deleting. Rlendog (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The song passes WP:NSONGS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.82.65 (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, because this is a superpower song in this album, and it will be a super sucess in the world. --Vitor Mazuco Talk! 13:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 50 home runs and 50 doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- 50 stolen bases and 50 doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Okay, this one is a joke to me, so I'll give it its separate AfD. This page purports to describe a list based on an arbitrary statistical cutoff without establishing notability of that cutoff. Then, it turns out only one person has surpassed that threshold, so the article goes on to list the players who achieved a lower threshold (40 and 40), so not only is this page unsourced cruft, it's not even the cruft the title suggests it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, need to bundle this second article because it's the same story: purports to describe one meaningless statistical cutoff based on two distinct statistics, finds in this case only two meet the cutoff, and then goes to list those who meet a lower, also nonnotable, threshold. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete both per nom. This is not really worth debating, a page that claims to be about one thing and ends up being about another is just not a good page for the encyclopedia. CycloneGU (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Trivia on parade; hit baseballreference.com or whatever and set up a couple filters... Voila! a Wikipedia article! Next, how about 40 home runs and 30 doubles and 50 walks??? Carrite (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if that list comprises of my favorite players and none of the ones I hate. :P – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. Arbitrary list that is pointy or confused. Szzuk (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Per WP:NOT#STATS, the article does not " contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." Without such limitations, there are hundreds to thousands of lists that could be created that while factually correct, are not notable. Sources of the article on each club have not been found that discuss indepth the club as a whole and the significance of the feat, and need to go beyond trivial coverage of the milestone by an individual player or trivial mention of its members . This fails the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG which requires "more than a trivial mention". —Bagumba (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both - The 50 doubles/home runs got adequate attention when Albert Belle did it that I suspect that when others accomplish it it will be notable. But as long as there is only one member, there is not much point. And I never heard of the 50 doubles/stolen bases club until now. Rlendog (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it is just something that gets attention whenever the media decide to discuss it. My guess is that someone read something about it and decided we needed an article about it. CycloneGU (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus below is that, as improved, the article demonstrates notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- John James Nazarian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Private investigator for the rich and famous. Lots of claims of importance, but all of them unreferenced by third-party sources. Possible borderline G11 speedy, but even by taking out the promotional material one comes up with an unsourceable article. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Comment - "...celebrity guest commentator on news and magazine shows..." - This itself does not establish notability, but the fact he's appearing on these shows - doesn't this have the same effect as being reported on in the news? CycloneGU (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Depends which shows we're talking about, and whether that can be verified. The same sentence that lists these shows further down the article also lists a few newspapers that have interviewed him, but the links are to the home pages of said newspapers, and nothing turns up on Google News. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (generally positive) - there are many links here and there, but they are done very badly and could be missed. So this one backs up his claim to have commented on Discovery programmes, and I fairly easily found some more functioning links which genuinely refer to the subject. My instinct is that this subject is notable because of media appearances; however the article is absurdly long and was clearly written by a fan of the subject rather than from an NPOV. I mean, it's lovely that he loves animals and kids (pardon me while I vomit), but this isn't what Wikipedia's for. I would recommend keeping the article but shortening it to 5-10% of its current length, just keeping the notable stuff and eliminating the dross.Asnac (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Asking for guidance as I said I was doing it in my own user space and had not finished putting all of the links to it. I had not finished the final documented yet, for instance all of the news programs he has referred to, the German magazine article that him on it. I can also go back and in the articles listed although some of them are all about him. The ones with him in it find the page it is and link to that page only. Would it help to get quotes from the high profile cases he works on? Actually how many PI's becomes a household name in Hollyweird? He is not dog the bounty hunter but he is also not the common PI. either. I run a large site on legal discussions and have to do an article and put some paperwork up, however after that I will be back later today to continue to reference it to news articles in the U. K., Australia, the German magazine, etc. Thanks for the input. User:JodyD2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyD2010 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The draft is still in your user space, and will not be affected by the outcome of this discussion (except if we deem it unsalvageable, which does not appear to be the case here). That means you have no deadline. But to make the article stay in the mainspace, you should concentrate on finding the actual URLs of the newspaper clips and TV shows you are using as references (if not available online, then the date of publication/broadcast will be sufficient), not merely the home pages of those media outlets. There is plenty of material that would make this man worthy of a Wikipedia article, but none of what you posted is verifiable as it stands, and I am having trouble finding references of my own.
- Also, there's a lot of trivial stuff in the article that doesn't belong in encyclopedic coverage, but that's another story and deletion discussions only deal with what's left behind once we remove such fluff. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article has improved a great deal over the last few days.
Delete. I have never read an article that screams more of "I love me" ever. This is an arrogantly written, "look at how wonderful I am" article, and the guy is just a P.I. for undisclosed celebrities. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 16:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 14:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The very strange footnotes section and copious weblinks in the body indicates to me that we're dealing with a new editor here. This article, in its current form, isn't ready for primetime. Userfy. I'm not sure whether there are extant sources, but there is enough effort showing here that we should give the editor the benefit of the doubt for the time being by deleting without any prejudice against recreation of an article on the subject. I have no opinion as to inclusion-worthiness. I do think we need to move the piece out of article space until it has a chance of making it through the AfD gauntlet. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy per Carrite. He does show up in some news stories[3].--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a quote in one of the articles I was researching; "John Nazarian, a colorful as well as a controversial private investigator" I have no problem moving it back to my user space and dealing with any stalkers or those who hate this man, being new it was unsettling to see it on page one of Google while still in rough draft on my user page and I had intended to keep it in my user space and then send some pictures to an editor to look at that can be used (I. E. one walking the Manson girls to trial) and do more research and in news publications or news talk show and be sure the link are to the page he is one (I. E. the German Magazine called Der Spiegel in which he was photographed by Robert Gallagher), I think the English version is out now and can be read by an international audience. I think a gay activist who took a stand and put his job on the line is notable to me. I guess this is a case of color me very embarrassed. It had been suggested by one of the celebrities he worked with to use their Wiki page as a guide, well that has ended up not to be good advice. Ok I have to do my real job for a bit, but I wanted to join Wikipedia and help because of the asking for help to keep Wikipedia a free source and since I use Wikipedia so often I wanted to give back, however I am very red face, feeling lost in this new environment and so sorry I upset all of you who do this all of the time. I have great respect for all of you and appreciate the work you do for those of us who do use Wikipedia as an independent source on almost a daily basis.JoeyD2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyD2010 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stalkers? Who said any of us were stalking you? That is a mere presumption of bad faith; someone came across the article, thought it didn't belong on Wikipedia, and nominated it for deletion. None of the rest of us even knew about the article or who you were, and even if the article is deleted (with no bias on userfying), we still don't have any interest in following you around. As another user said, you appear to be a newer user, so we welcome you with open arms and hope you will learn more about editing and that you will enjoy editing here. Just remember to always assume good faith. People tend to be friendlier if you do. =) CycloneGU (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CycloneGU, I did not mean that anyone connected with Wikipedia would stalk anyone. What I meant was a jumped into the fire with an article and did not know that by keeping it on my user page while I worked on it and then asked for help that it would appear on Google page one with my user name and the name of the article. I think we have all ran into nuts on the internet. HOWEVER, I have seen none of that from you or anyone here.... I am a perfectionist and I jumped into quicksand before I asked for help or a rope to get me out... I would never assume anything but good and dedicated editors here with the desire to make Wikipedia what it is today and what it will continue to be. --JoeyD2010 (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the clarification, and I appreciate the kind post on my talk page as well. I now understand what you meant, and that is how Google works; when I was a staff member on a discussion forum many years ago (maybe two or three for my last one to date), I always used to see a Google bot come in and look at all the threads it could, which it then uses in its archiving system. What makes this sorta cool is that I can look up something in a post that Google has indexed if I remember enough of the post. I once found an old Wii numbers thread I had participated in by using Google to find it, in fact. Google works the sameway here; as we speak, one (possibly many more) of those "spiders" is waltzing around here archiving every page it has access to (which, frankly, is every single one from a category to a template to an article on Don Juan to Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2011). Anything you post on Wikipedia is searchable through Google, even if it's not ready for prime time yet. During the small amount of time my first unique article was userfied to my page (which it isn't now), I would be doing a Google search for him and it would show up from my userspace in the search with my nickname before it; to say it like Mr. T, I pity the foo who thought his nickname was CycloneGU. =D CycloneGU (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If the creating editor needs specific advice about formatting or content, I'd be happy to help. Leave me a message on my "Talk" page if you have a query. Carrite (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Carriet I did leave you a message on your talk page, thanks to all of you for the warm welcome and the congenial offer to help me anyway any of you kind. As I said on your talk page; "By tonight I am so frazzled trying to go through the internet and find third sources that shows Nazarian has been around and interviewed since 1996 forward... I have found them and now the numbers shows but the reference does not, of course I am such a perfectionist I am sure in a panic to fix it I have missed something that is probably simple to most of you. I think I now understand that this is like a college Thesis and needs to have everything back upped and footnoted." --JoeyD2010 (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You've got it. Check your talk page and stay in touch, we'll get this thing shaped up and through the gauntlet. Carrite (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is a new editor at WP who is just learning the ropes. This piece got tagged for speedy deletion 2 minutes after creation (!!!) and dragged to AfD not long after that. Hopefully and presumably notability will be demonstrated and the article rendered nice and pretty by the end of the AfD week, but in the event of a Delete outcome — unlikely I hope — will the closing administrator please be sure to userfy this page. It's hard to master all the intricacies of layout and all the rules of the road at WP in just 7 days under the pressure of having one's work annihilated. I feel reasonably secure that this is a "Keeper" subject when the smoke clears, but there's still a bit of smoke to be cleared and that takes some time... Carrite (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- TBH, I was wondering why the AfD wasn't just immediately closed and {{newpage}} added at the top of the article... CycloneGU (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Fairly massive LA Times feature article specifically on Nazarian showing in the footnotes, which should get him about 97% over the notability bar as the subject of that piece alone. Nazarian also figures in the best-selling book BLONDE AMBITION in a non-trivial capacity. A very high profile private investigator with copious third party coverage out there. Frequent expert commentator on crime matters on television. Article cleanup proceeds apace. Carrite (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a keep as per WP:HEY - good work by a couple of contributors over the last few days.Asnac (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Another good source treating Nazarian in a non-trivial way is Martin Lasden, "The Pellicano Effect," California Lawyer, October 2006. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Recommend "keep" closure given the amount of work done on the article since the nomination. No sense to run this for three more days. If an AfD is still somehow necessary, let it be on the new article. CycloneGU (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP I have gone back and learned how to reference correctly and the coding to do those. The main media quotes go from 1997 through the present as well as the "The Pellicano Effect," California Lawyer, October 2006. ; that Nazarian figures in the best-selling book BLONDE AMBITION; and two L. A. Times Articles that deal with Nazarian and his work - "He's No Angel, He's a P.I.," Los Angeles Times, June 13, 2006 and "A Profitable Eye on Inevitable Infidelity," L.A. Times, December 28, 2000. Then there are the main stream news media shows like CBS and NBC. I also want to thank all of you for your kind suggestions, words of welcome and encouragement. I am still cleaning up the article for dates and if this ends in a "keep" consensus I am going to look for an agent or PR person to approve the use of a picture "I hope"... I look forward to working in the biography part of Wikipedia, one of the things that made me decide to become an editor is all of you seem to give so much for free to such a great cause and I want to help update those pages in the biography sections that need an update or reference tags on the articles. Thanks again for the help and the very warm welcome I have received. --JoeyD2010 (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)--JoeyD2010 (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ps Samuel Khawas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (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)
Pentecostal Christian pastor in Nepal. Speedy was declined on the grounds of achievement awards given by various churches in the country, which, I can say, being myself a member of a Pentecostal church, doesn't mean much. Google News and Google Books turn up only false positives. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability. StAnselm (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clear consensus Spartaz Humbug! 15:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 3000–500 club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- 3000–300 club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 300–300 club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 300 wins–3000 strikeouts club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lists built on arbitrary cutoffs, not a notable way to differentiate between players. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Uh...what? The third one especially is kind of pointless. Put this information in each player's article (i.e. this player is a member of the 3000-500 club) or something. The fact that one uses stolen bases and the others don't makes the listing type entirely confusing. CycloneGU (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The last article, 300 wins–3000 strikeouts club, was added after I !voted. CycloneGU (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that, you were super fast with your vote and I wasn't quite done adding related articles, but I am now. Does that change your vote? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All - Running a couple random statistical filters simultaneously and pasting over the results does not make an encyclopedia article. We need to stop this sort of nonsense right now. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All - The 300-300 Club in particular is a well known and honored baseball milestone.
Here is a New York Times article about it: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/28/sports/baseball-bonds-joins-300-300-club-before-ejection.html A San Francisco Chronicle article about it: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/giants/detail?entry_id=6157 A Chicago Tribune article about it: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-04-28/sports/9604280264_1_homers-barry-bonds-steal A KC Royals website article about it: http://kansascity.royals.mlb.com/news/print.jsp?ymd=20060619&content_id=1513261&vkey=news_kc&fext=.jsp&c_id=kc&affiliateId=CommentWidget You hear sports broadcasters talking about these kind of statistical clubs all of the time - it is one of their favorite topics. Fan and memorabilia websites also often are filled with discussion of these types of clubs. The articles themselves are trivially verifiable and a make nice addition to Wikipedia.Brholden (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC) 17:50, 25 April 2011[reply]
- As far as I can tell, those sources you produced suggest that it's worth mentioning as feats accomplished on the pages of the individual members, but fail to indicate the widespread coverage that would be needed for its own article. And you're saying "keep all" while failing to discuss all but one. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to see sources that describe the significance of the feat beyond trivial coverage saying "XYZ joined the 300-300 club which also includes ...." Otherwise, this seems like stat cruft. —Bagumba (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly the 300-300 club is the one of these that stands apart. The following St. Louis Post-Dispatch reference is entitled "Reggie Sanders: Claiming his place in Baseball History." "Sanders was asked if the numbers are meaningful to him. 'Are you kidding me?' Sanders answered. 'That's a huge feat.'" http://books.google.com/books?id=5C4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=300-300+club+finley+sanders&source=bl&ots=yFN4BuQZg9&sig=Fh8CHlKdzmdh9Xv74Bn7woG7blM&hl=en&ei=jPq2TavSDcu2tweqg9COAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=300-300%20club%20finley%20sanders&f=false The 300-300 club is very well known in the baseball world; it would be ridiculous to delete that article. Google returns 826,000 hits for the search "300-300 club. What more do you need than multiple New York Times articles and 826K Google hits - it is notable in and of itself. The 300-300 club is that pinnacle career milestone that shows a player's devastating combination of power plus speed. Clearly, the other clubs listed are of a different nature, and if you feel compelled to delete something, remove them. However, I personally feel that they add that next level of detail to Wikipedia and are worth keeping.Brholden (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Per WP:NOT#STATS, the article does not " contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." Without such limitations, there are hundreds to thousands of lists that could be created that while factually correct, are not notable. Sources of the article on each club have not been found that discuss indepth the club as a whole and the significance of the feat, and need to go beyond trivial coverage of the milestone by an individual player or trivial mention of its members . This fails the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG which requires "more than a trivial mention". For the 300-300 club specifically, I found lots of sources that mention the term "300-300 club" and even mentions all of its members; however, the references do not describe the significance of reaching the club aside from its currently small number of members. I am wary of calling this notable without sources supporting that its more than just a statistical anomaly, again per WP:NOT#STATS. —Bagumba (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am not taking a stance yet. My initial thought was, if the topic was not directly addressed as the subject of article, book, etc, then the subject fails WP:N. I moseyed over there and rechecked it:
- Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
- I think it is clear that there are not many articles that address this directly. The question then is: do the mentions in articles that are being found constitute "trivial coverage" or "more than trivial coverage". If many articles are making reference to this in passing, is that more than trivial? I am sitting on the fence on this one for the time being.
- I personally do not accept that these articles describe random milestones, however I also think that there could be a great deal of merging, at the bare minimum. Having said that, personal opinion, and a million fans blogging about it is not sufficient reason for anything to stay.
- There is also something to be said about WP:NOT PAPER. I think it could be argued that information of this kind would generally be included in a baseball encyclopedia, and as such it at least must be reasonably considered for entry here.
- This is not as cut and dry as I thought it might be. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT PAPER a good point, but it also says in that section, "However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered in the Content section below." One of the items in "the Content section below" is WP:NOT#STATS —Bagumba (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking over at Not#Stats:
- Excessive listing of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader.
- I agree that in the tradition of Wikipedia, articles which are lists of numbers are generally not supported for inclusion. Ironically, if anything, most of these articles up for deletion I wouldn't consider to be "excessive listings" ... quite the opposite ... perhaps they are too short to be independently notable (an opinion, hardly fact). I also think that there is text in these articles that (at least attempts to) explain the statistics being listed.
- I guess what I am thinking is: if somewhere out there, there is some reliable source that can explain why these particular "clubs" are what they are (why is 3000-500 so big a deal vs. 3000-450 or 3000-400?), then I'm not 100% sure that NOT#STATS is, by the letter of its description, is a reason to preclude this.
- I certainly see your point, Bagumba. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't feel NOT#STATS precludes any of these articles either, because they are fairly balanced in terms of the amount of statistics they cover. However, these articles fail to meet the threshold of notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps because they fail WP:GNG, I think NOT#STATS also applies because it does not "contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." Perhaps a matter of interpretation, but bottom line is these statistics dont seem to have meaning notable enough for its own article. —Bagumba (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT PAPER a good point, but it also says in that section, "However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered in the Content section below." One of the items in "the Content section below" is WP:NOT#STATS —Bagumba (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - In my heart, I know these collections are notable, but in the absence of sourcing ... and I have been looking, I agree that they are not deserving of separate articles. I would hope that if it is deleted, please keep it open for future re-creation, should coverage threshold be met. There may be factually correct text to frame it, but I really think it has to be verifiable to meet that guideline, and it is not. Maybe I will do more searching over the summer, but for now, I'm empty. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the four references above to the 300-300 club article and removed its unreferenced tag. Brholden (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. Those articles are pretty pointless. 21:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete 3000–300 club and 300 wins–3000 strikeouts club; keep 300-300 club - I don't see any sourcing for 3000–300 club or 300 wins–3000 strikeouts club, and I don't recall those ever being combined in that way to any large extent. But 300-300 club does seem to have sourcing, so I would keep. I am not expressing an opinion at this time on 3000-500 club, since although the article is not sourced, I can recall discussions of this "club" at times in the past, but don't have the time to properly investigate now. Rlendog (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a Yankee fan, read all the blogs and tweets from beat writers, etc., and I had no idea that A Rod joined the "300-300 club" last season until I read it when I AfD'd it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am a little surprised that didn't get much coverage, since apparently a bigger deal was made when Barry Bonds [4] [5] [6], Reggie Sanders and Steve Finley [7], and maybe Andre Dawson [8]. But we all know how much NY sportwriters love A Rod. And A Rod has bigger accomplishments in his sights. I think the 300-300 club only started getting attention in the mid-late 80s, when the 30-30 club became popular. But ath the time only Mays and Bonds Sr. had achieved it.Rlendog (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 300-300 Club as it has sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability. matt91486 (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Greenland Dog. Deryck C. 19:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Greenland Husky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Submitting because there's an article on the exact same breed at Greenland Dog. It's better-developed and older than this one, and there's nothing here I think would be fit to carry over. A merger was proposed last August, which is why I'm not PRODing it. – anna 09:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. – anna 09:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any suitable content and redirect to Greenland Dog. Nimuaq (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Greenland Dog. Keetanii (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the subjects lacks the independent coverage required to support an article. Michig (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Qadir's test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-proclaimed technique virtually unknown outside wikipedia, at least by its name. Materialscientist (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dear Sir: point well said. But, just because its an obscure tehnique does not mean its worthless. For example, since I dont know natural sciences, it got me to think in a way that I never did before. Could we please add something like "non-scientific obscure technique, not generally accepted by the scientific community" and abridge it a little and then allow it to stay, please? Its better to have it here than to refuse to hear another's opinon. Sincerely yours, Pvujin (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Has your technique been covered non-trivially by third-party reliable references? If not, there should not be an article on Wikipedia about it right now, but nothing prevents you from finding other venues to promote it. Perhaps then some reliable authorities will be interested in it, filling the prerequisite for a Wikipedia article. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – unsupported test for cancer. Perhaps hoax or quackery. Lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance to support notability. ttonyb (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nonnotable neologism – 0 Google scholar hits; 0 Google books hits. --Lambiam 19:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Not in widespread use. No secondary sources supporting use. JFW | T@lk 19:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk to me 18:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Craig Garside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG - never played in fully professional league or match between two fully professional clubs Zanoni (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Zanoni (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Professional clubs are mafia-like organizations used to launder drug-money, so their worth today is not notable as sports. The man captained Wales as a youth. I vote to retain. Thank you. Pvujin (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 14:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Has not played in a fully professional league. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 15:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Also, LOL at User:Pvujin. – PeeJay 15:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per WP:NFOOTY as he has played international football at senior level aka aged 18 and over and thus notable. IJA (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the context of international football, "senior level" refers to the full national team, in his case Wales national football team. The national under-19 team is not the "senior level" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ben-Joseph Livnat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
per WP:NOTNEWS. known only for a single event. noq (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Albeit so, he comes from a good family and it seems he martyred himself for his cause. We should not speak bad of the dead, and his family and friends would appreciate but a short mention of his existence. I vote to abbridge and retain, thank you. Pvujin (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a eulogy site. noq (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tendered the page in anticipation that more information would be forthcoming. I'd give it a week and see if anything else pops up. Hcobb (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. ttonyb (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non notable person.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to Murder of Ben-Joseph Livnat per our precedent for these types of similar incidents. NOTNEWS is a faulty basis of nomination because his murder is currently receiving a huge amount of international coverage and predictions about the future end of the coverage are just predictions. Moreover, it is unlikely that his murder will not receive significant coverage down the line. This murder was unique as it was perpetuated by the Palestinian Authority, the very "police force" that was supposed to "guard" Israeli citizens from any terrorist attacks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Information about the incident is already at the Josephs Tomb article:[9]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This death is extremely regrettable, of course, but would anyone who would like to describe the death as a "murder" be so eager to do so if the situation had been reversed, i.e. if a Palestinian was shot after he and his group had moved barriers at an Israeli checkpoint out of the way, and then fled when Israeli soldiers fired (first) in the air and warned them to stop? The article cannot reasonably be moved to "Murder of ..." I likewise question whether those same editors would be !voting keep, even if, say, officials from the Palestinian Authority were talking it up, in the hypothetically reversed situation. – OhioStandard (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure why when there are two versions of the event you decided to accept as a fact the non-Israeli version.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The non-Israeli version?" I was relying on what the IDF said, before any political statements were made to try to promote this as some kind of terrorism, as reported by Ynet. You might like to review my addition to the article's talk page. But leaving the specifics aside to forestall argument here, if you'd like to persuade me that you think a Palestinian who knowingly violated an Israeli checkpoint in the same way would not be shot, or would like to make me aware of anything I may have missed, feel free to post to my talk. In all sincerity, I'd be happy to learn more about your perspective on this, but there, not here, I think would be best. – OhioStandard (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the IDF version. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The non-Israeli version?" I was relying on what the IDF said, before any political statements were made to try to promote this as some kind of terrorism, as reported by Ynet. You might like to review my addition to the article's talk page. But leaving the specifics aside to forestall argument here, if you'd like to persuade me that you think a Palestinian who knowingly violated an Israeli checkpoint in the same way would not be shot, or would like to make me aware of anything I may have missed, feel free to post to my talk. In all sincerity, I'd be happy to learn more about your perspective on this, but there, not here, I think would be best. – OhioStandard (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per NOTNEWS and NOTMEMORIAL. This is covered in the articles where it should be covered. nableezy - 19:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Joseph's Tomb, and merge the meager content here (1-2 lines) to the relevant section. Two for the show (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:MEMORIAL.--TM 22:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've added refs: two wp:rs to the article itself, and four wp:rs refs to the talk page, and six that I'm uncertain about re wp:rs. I haven't expanded content at all, although there's plenty of material that could be used to do so. – OhioStandard (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nambia, others: NotNews, NotMemorial. One event. Israeli political officials are rattling sabers over it, and that's causing press attention, but that doesn't change the fundamental nature of the event. – OhioStandard (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete on the basis that Wikipedia is not a receptacle for everything that is in the news, Wikipedia is not a memorial site, the subject of the article is known for only one event, and notability is not automatically inherited by whom one has for relatives. That just about covers it. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Joseph's Tomb. Since the information on this incident is in that article, I see no reason there should not be a redirect to there, and no reason has been provided in the discussion. Rlendog (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Este sau nu este Ion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable book by Herta Müller. Only one line, no sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It looks as though a stream of AfD nominations for Müller's books are being created here. She won the 2009 Nobel Prize for Literature for her writings, so my view is that the presumption should be that her books are inherently notable and the articles should be kept (and of course expanded) rather than deleted. (This view applies equally to the further nominations which are being separately created below.)AllyD (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article has not been flagged as per AfD step 1. AllyD (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
we all know who used to burn books before, and this is not Fahrenheint whatever the movies was called. I vote to retain. If she has another page link to it. Nobel prize winner is, per se, notable. Thank you Pvujin (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please show me the the policy which states that a work is notable only because its author has received a price. This article contains no encyclopedic information and does not have a single source. I don't see a reason why this should be kept as a seperate article. Currently there is not the slightest sign in the form of third party sources that this work is notable. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and speedy keep. It's a very safe bet that literary works by Nobel laureates in literature will have received the coverage required to establish notability. The fact that an editor has established a comprehensive set of stub articles for the author's books, which other editors may expand at their convenience, is not at all a bad thing. The nominator makes no case whatever for deletion, and this long string of cookie-cutter nominations over a brief period of time, quite frankly, will lead most editors to the conclusion that the nominator has made no effort, whether per WP:BEFORE or otherwise, to assess whether the subjects are in fact notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:NBOOK as the author has won a Nobel in literature. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep to all of these. The books are prima facie notable and at minimum the titles are legitimate search terms. If the interested editors come to the conclusion, as an editorial matter, that some of these books should be covered at the author's bio page, a merge/redirect could be a legitimate editorial decision, but it wouldn't be a matter for AfD. I am not sure that WP:Speedy keep can be invoked here but in any case I feel a distinct touch of WP:SNOW in the air. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOTINHERITED. Prove the book is notable, just because a Nobel laureate wrote it does not mean that it contributed to the Nobel Prize. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. It would help to actually review WP:NOTINHERITED rather than mechanically invoking it. It's part of an essay, and can't be used to counter an SNG, like NBOOK #5, or the GNG. More important, it recognizes quite clearly that notability is generally shared between creators and their creative works, making express and unmistakeable exceptions for books, films, and music. And "prove it's notable" is not a valid argument in an AFD discussion claiming lack of notability, where the burden of proof is on the advocates of deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite right. Not the first time I have seen the burden of proof mistaken. This and other such erros occur because editors fail to notice the difference between inclusion of content and deletion of subject. Stick to the rules in WP:DEL, delete voters. Anarchangel (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Per rationales of each previous keep vote above. The Literature Nobel is given for an author's body of work to date, any item of which should be presumed to have been considered in the decision; subsequent works obviously were not, but are likely to receive attention sooner because of the author's recognition. This mass deletion listing seems only to have avoided (with the exception of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadirs, below), only those which won individual awards, were previously translated into English, or had been previously reviewed in the New York Times, Wikipedia:Systemic bias of foreign-language materials in WP:RS, at least those available online, which made possible development of specific articles about her work. The author was the subject of biographies, in 1992, 1993, 2002, and 2003, not because she was Romanian, wrote in German, or left Romania, but because of the quality and breadth of her writing as a dissident; while she was awarded the Nobel in 2009, she had been discussed as a possible candidate prior to 2009's The Land of Green Plums. If not kept, Redirect to 'Herta Müller' as valid search term. Dru of Id (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Result was keep; consensus that the book is notable under NBOOK #5. Rlendog (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Der König verneigt sich und tötet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable book by Herta Müller. Only one line, no sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and speedy keep. It's a very safe bet that literary works by Nobel laureates in literature will have received the coverage required to establish notability. The fact that an editor has established a comprehensive set of stub articles for the author's books, which other editors may expand at their convenience, is not at all a bad thing. The nominator makes no case whatever for deletion, and this long string of cookie-cutter nominations over a brief period of time, quite frankly, will lead most editors to the conclusion that the nominator has made no effort, whether per WP:BEFORE or otherwise, to assess whether the subjects are in fact notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:NBOOK as the author has won a Nobel in literature. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOTINHERITED. Prove the book is notable, just because a Nobel laureate wrote it does not mean that it contributed to the Nobel Prize. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. It would help to actually review WP:NOTINHERITED rather than mechanically invoking it. It's part of an essay, and can't be used to counter an SNG, like NBOOK #5, or the GNG. More important, it recognizes quite clearly that notability is generally shared between creators and their creative works, making express and unmistakeable exceptions for books, films, and music. And "prove it's notable" is not a valid argument in an AFD discussion claiming lack of notability, where the burden of proof is on the advocates of deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Per rationales of each previous keep vote above. The Literature Nobel is given for an author's body of work to date, any item of which should be presumed to have been considered in the decision; subsequent works obviously were not, but are likely to receive attention sooner because of the author's recognition. This mass deletion listing seems only to have avoided (with the exception of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadirs, below), only those which won individual awards, were previously translated into English, or had been previously reviewed in the New York Times, Wikipedia:Systemic bias of foreign-language materials in WP:RS, at least those available online, which made possible development of specific articles about her work. The author was the subject of biographies, in 1992, 1993, 2002, and 2003, not because she was Romanian, wrote in German, or left Romania, but because of the quality and breadth of her writing as a dissident; while she was awarded the Nobel in 2009, she had been discussed as a possible candidate prior to 2009's The Land of Green Plums. If not kept, Redirect to 'Herta Müller' as valid search term. Dru of Id (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Im Haarknoten wohnt eine Dame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable book by Herta Müller. Only one line, no sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and speedy keep. It's a very safe bet that literary works by Nobel laureates in literature will have received the coverage required to establish notability. The fact that an editor has established a comprehensive set of stub articles for the author's books, which other editors may expand at their convenience, is not at all a bad thing. The nominator makes no case whatever for deletion, and this long string of cookie-cutter nominations over a brief period of time, quite frankly, will lead most editors to the conclusion that the nominator has made no effort, whether per WP:BEFORE or otherwise, to assess whether the subjects are in fact notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:NBOOK as the author has won a Nobel in literature. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOTINHERITED. Prove the book is notable, just because a Nobel laureate wrote it does not mean that it contributed to the Nobel Prize. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. It would help to actually review WP:NOTINHERITED rather than mechanically invoking it. It's part of an essay, and can't be used to counter an SNG, like NBOOK #5, or the GNG. More important, it recognizes quite clearly that notability is generally shared between creators and their creative works, making express and unmistakeable exceptions for books, films, and music. And "prove it's notable" is not a valid argument in an AFD discussion claiming lack of notability, where the burden of proof is on the advocates of deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Per rationales of each previous keep vote above. The Literature Nobel is given for an author's body of work to date, any item of which should be presumed to have been considered in the decision; subsequent works obviously were not, but are likely to receive attention sooner because of the author's recognition. This mass deletion listing seems only to have avoided (with the exception of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadirs, below), only those which won individual awards, were previously translated into English, or had been previously reviewed in the New York Times, Wikipedia:Systemic bias of foreign-language materials in WP:RS, at least those available online, which made possible development of specific articles about her work. The author was the subject of biographies, in 1992, 1993, 2002, and 2003, not because she was Romanian, wrote in German, or left Romania, but because of the quality and breadth of her writing as a dissident; while she was awarded the Nobel in 2009, she had been discussed as a possible candidate prior to 2009's The Land of Green Plums. If not kept, Redirect to 'Herta Müller' as valid search term. Dru of Id (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hunger und Seide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable book by Herta Müller. Only one line, no sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and speedy keep. It's a very safe bet that literary works by Nobel laureates in literature will have received the coverage required to establish notability. The fact that an editor has established a comprehensive set of stub articles for the author's books, which other editors may expand at their convenience, is not at all a bad thing. The nominator makes no case whatever for deletion, and this long string of cookie-cutter nominations over a brief period of time, quite frankly, will lead most editors to the conclusion that the nominator has made no effort, whether per WP:BEFORE or otherwise, to assess whether the subjects are in fact notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:NBOOK as the author has won a Nobel in literature. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOTINHERITED. Prove the book is notable, just because a Nobel laureate wrote it does not mean that it contributed to the Nobel Prize. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. It would help to actually review WP:NOTINHERITED rather than mechanically invoking it. It's part of an essay, and can't be used to counter an SNG, like NBOOK #5, or the GNG. More important, it recognizes quite clearly that notability is generally shared between creators and their creative works, making express and unmistakeable exceptions for books, films, and music. And "prove it's notable" is not a valid argument in an AFD discussion claiming lack of notability, where the burden of proof is on the advocates of deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Per rationales of each previous keep vote above. The Literature Nobel is given for an author's body of work to date, any item of which should be presumed to have been considered in the decision; subsequent works obviously were not, but are likely to receive attention sooner because of the author's recognition. This mass deletion listing seems only to have avoided (with the exception of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadirs, below), only those which won individual awards, were previously translated into English, or had been previously reviewed in the New York Times, Wikipedia:Systemic bias of foreign-language materials in WP:RS, at least those available online, which made possible development of specific articles about her work. The author was the subject of biographies, in 1992, 1993, 2002, and 2003, not because she was Romanian, wrote in German, or left Romania, but because of the quality and breadth of her writing as a dissident; while she was awarded the Nobel in 2009, she had been discussed as a possible candidate prior to 2009's The Land of Green Plums. If not kept, Redirect to 'Herta Müller' as valid search term. Dru of Id (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Result was keep. Consensus that the book meets NBOOK. Nomination and delete !vote do not suggest to the contrary.Rlendog (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Drückender Tango (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable book by Herta Müller. Only one line, no sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and speedy keep. It's a very safe bet that literary works by Nobel laureates in literature will have received the coverage required to establish notability. The fact that an editor has established a comprehensive set of stub articles for the author's books, which other editors may expand at their convenience, is not at all a bad thing. The nominator makes no case whatever for deletion, and this long string of cookie-cutter nominations over a brief period of time, quite frankly, will lead most editors to the conclusion that the nominator has made no effort, whether per WP:BEFORE or otherwise, to assess whether the subjects are in fact notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:NBOOK as the author has won a Nobel in literature. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOTINHERITED. Prove the book is notable, just because a Nobel laureate wrote it does not mean that it contributed to the Nobel Prize. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response- WP:NOTINHERITED specifically links to the exceptions of WP:NBOOK, #5 of which is the most germane. The Literature Nobel is given for an author's body of work to date, any item of which should be presumed to have been considered in the decision; subsequent works obviously were not, but are likely to receive attention sooner because of the author's recognition. This mass deletion listing seems only to have avoided (with the exception of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadirs, below), only those which won individual awards, were previously translated into English, or had been previously reviewed in the New York Times, Wikipedia:Systemic bias of foreign-language materials in WP:RS, at least those available online, which made possible development of specific articles about her work. The author was the subject of biographies, in 1992, 1993, 2002, and 2003, not because she was Romanian, wrote in German, or left Romania, but because of the quality and breadth of her writing as a dissident; while she was awarded the Nobel in 2009, she had been discussed as a possible candidate prior to 2009's The Land of Green Plums. If not kept, Redirect to 'Herta Müller' as valid search term. Dru of Id
- Response. It would help to actually review WP:NOTINHERITED rather than mechanically invoking it. It's part of an essay, and can't be used to counter an SNG, like NBOOK #5, or the GNG. More important, it recognizes quite clearly that notability is generally shared between creators and their creative works, making express and unmistakeable exceptions for books, films, and music. And "prove it's notable" is not a valid argument in an AFD discussion claiming lack of notability, where the burden of proof is on the advocates of deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Per rationales of each previous keep vote above. Dru of Id (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, and I believe Toshio Yamaguchi deserves an apology for the besmirchment implied on his good faith for these nominations. His nominations here and at the other single-line, unsourced stubs, are completely valid. No sourcing, no article has been standard consensus at Wikipedia for as long as I've been here. There is no reason for an exception here. Redirecting the article, or deleting it outright would result in the loss of no information as long as it is mentioned on the author's article. Real, sourced articles containing real information are deleted daily here without accusations of bad faith. My personal philosophy is that Wikipedia should have such articles, but consensus has spoken loudly, clearly and consistently that it shouldn't. The very existence of the GNG proves the validity of this nomination. There are other projects at which this article would be welcome before it is substantial enough for Wikipedia. Consider this !vote to apply to the other nominations, if they are all as skimpy as this article. Dekkappai (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nadirs (autobiography) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable book by Herta Müller. Article has no sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on the same Nobel notability grounds as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Este sau nu este Ion. In addition for this one, I've added a reference to the article, drawn from a review of the English language edition of this book. AllyD (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and speedy keep. It's a very safe bet that literary works by Nobel laureates in literature will have received the coverage required to establish notability. The fact that an editor has established a comprehensive set of stub articles for the author's books, which other editors may expand at their convenience, is not at all a bad thing. The nominator makes no case whatever for deletion, and this long string of cookie-cutter nominations over a brief period of time, quite frankly, will lead most editors to the conclusion that the nominator has made no effort, whether per WP:BEFORE or otherwise, to assess whether the subjects are in fact notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:NBOOK as the author has won a Nobel in literature. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOTINHERITED. Prove the book is notable, just because a Nobel laureate wrote it does not mean that it contributed to the Nobel Prize. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two responses, the 1st general, the 2nd specific: (1) the Nobel citation appears to refer to her body of work rather than specifics, so it is not a case of Inherited Notability - it is the body of work that is notable; unless we have a reliable alternative criterion for NPOV/V, how can we second-guess what elements of that work was regarded as notable/non-notable? (2) as noted above and referenced in this particular article, this book has been published in translation and reviewed by a noted novelist. AllyD (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response- WP:NOTINHERITED specifically links to the exceptions of WP:NBOOK, #5 of which is the most germane. The Literature Nobel is given for an author's body of work to date, any item of which should be presumed to have been considered in the decision; subsequent works obviously were not, but are likely to receive attention sooner because of the author's recognition. This mass deletion listing seems only to have avoided (with the exception of this AfD), only those which won individual awards, were previously translated into English, or had been previously reviewed in the New York Times, Wikipedia:Systemic bias of foreign-language materials in WP:RS, at least those available online, which made possible development of specific articles about her work. The author was the subject of biographies, in 1992, 1993, 2002, and 2003, not because she was Romanian, wrote in German, or left Romania, but because of the quality and breadth of her writing as a dissident; while she was awarded the Nobel in 2009, she had been discussed as a possible candidate prior to 2009's The Land of Green Plums.
- Response. It would help to actually review WP:NOTINHERITED rather than mechanically invoking it. It's part of an essay, and can't be used to counter an SNG, like NBOOK #5, or the GNG. More important, it recognizes quite clearly that notability is generally shared between creators and their creative works, making express and unmistakeable exceptions for books, films, and music. And "prove it's notable" is not a valid argument in an AFD discussion claiming lack of notability, where the burden of proof is on the advocates of deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If kept, rename, since "nadirs" is the plural of nadir and should redirect there. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is undoubtably the primary use of the plural of an uncommon word that is unlikely to be pluralized except as a dicdef and the name of an as yet obscure band. If not kept, Redirect to 'Herta Müller' as valid search term. Dru of Id
- Keep- Per rationales of each previous keep vote above; additionally, this is the uncensored version of the author's first work, which has additional history of being smuggled out to the free world. Dru of Id (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Der König verneigt sich und tötet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable book by Herta Müller. Only one, unreliable source. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and speedy keep. It's a very safe bet that literary works by Nobel laureates in literature will have received the coverage required to establish notability. The fact that an editor has established a comprehensive set of stub articles for the author's books, which other editors may expand at their convenience, is not at all a bad thing. The nominator makes no case whatever for deletion, and this long string of cookie-cutter nominations over a brief period of time, quite frankly, will lead most editors to the conclusion that the nominator has made no effort, whether per WP:BEFORE or otherwise, to assess whether the subjects are in fact notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:NBOOK as the author has won a Nobel in literature. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOTINHERITED. Prove the book is notable, just because a Nobel laureate wrote it does not mean that it contributed to the Nobel Prize. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response- WP:NOTINHERITED specifically links to the exceptions of WP:NBOOK, #5 of which is the most germane. The Literature Nobel is given for an author's body of work to date, any item of which should be presumed to have been considered in the decision; subsequent works obviously were not, but are likely to receive attention sooner because of the author's recognition. This mass deletion listing seems only to have avoided (with the exception of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadirs, above), only those which won individual awards, were previously translated into English, or had been previously reviewed in the New York Times, Wikipedia:Systemic bias of foreign-language materials in WP:RS, at least those available online, which made possible development of specific articles about her work. The author was the subject of biographies, in 1992, 1993, 2002, and 2003, not because she was Romanian, wrote in German, or left Romania, but because of the quality and breadth of her writing as a dissident; while she was awarded the Nobel in 2009, she had been discussed as a possible candidate prior to 2009's The Land of Green Plums. If not kept, Redirect to 'Herta Müller' as valid search term. Dru of Id
- Keep- Per rationales of each previous keep vote above. Dru of Id (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Heimat ist das, was gesprochen wird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable book by Herta Müller. No sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and speedy keep. It's a very safe bet that literary works by Nobel laureates in literature will have received the coverage required to establish notability. The fact that an editor has established a comprehensive set of stub articles for the author's books, which other editors may expand at their convenience, is not at all a bad thing. The nominator makes no case whatever for deletion, and this long string of cookie-cutter nominations over a brief period of time, quite frankly, will lead most editors to the conclusion that the nominator has made no effort, whether per WP:BEFORE or otherwise, to assess whether the subjects are in fact notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:NBOOK as the author has won a Nobel in literature. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOTINHERITED. Prove the book is notable, just because a Nobel laureate wrote it does not mean that it contributed to the Nobel Prize. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response- WP:NOTINHERITED specifically links to the exceptions of WP:NBOOK, #5 of which is the most germane. The Literature Nobel is given for an author's body of work to date, any item of which should be presumed to have been considered in the decision; subsequent works obviously were not, but are likely to receive attention sooner because of the author's recognition. This mass deletion listing seems only to have avoided (with the exception of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadirs, above), only those which won individual awards, were previously translated into English, or had been previously reviewed in the New York Times, Wikipedia:Systemic bias of foreign-language materials in WP:RS, at least those available online, which made possible development of specific articles about her work. The author was the subject of biographies, in 1992, 1993, 2002, and 2003, not because she was Romanian, wrote in German, or left Romania, but because of the quality and breadth of her writing as a dissident; while she was awarded the Nobel in 2009, she had been discussed as a possible candidate prior to 2009's The Land of Green Plums. If not kept, Redirect to 'Herta Müller' as valid search term. Dru of Id
- Keep- Per rationales of each previous keep vote above. Dru of Id (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Der König verneigt sich und tötet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable book by Herta Müller. Only one line, no sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and speedy keep. It's a very safe bet that literary works by Nobel laureates in literature will have received the coverage required to establish notability. The fact that an editor has established a comprehensive set of stub articles for the author's books, which other editors may expand at their convenience, is not at all a bad thing. The nominator makes no case whatever for deletion, and this long string of cookie-cutter nominations over a brief period of time, quite frankly, will lead most editors to the conclusion that the nominator has made no effort, whether per WP:BEFORE or otherwise, to assess whether the subjects are in fact notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:NBOOK as the author has won a Nobel in literature. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOTINHERITED. Prove the book is notable, just because a Nobel laureate wrote it does not mean that it contributed to the Nobel Prize. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response- WP:NOTINHERITED specifically links to the exceptions of WP:NBOOK, #5 of which is the most germane. The Literature Nobel is given for an author's body of work to date, any item of which should be presumed to have been considered in the decision; subsequent works obviously were not, but are likely to receive attention sooner because of the author's recognition. This mass deletion listing seems only to have avoided (with the exception of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadirs, above), only those which won individual awards, were previously translated into English, or had been previously reviewed in the New York Times, Wikipedia:Systemic bias of foreign-language materials in WP:RS, at least those available online, which made possible development of specific articles about her work. The author was the subject of biographies, in 1992, 1993, 2002, and 2003, not because she was Romanian, wrote in German, or left Romania, but because of the quality and breadth of her writing as a dissident; while she was awarded the Nobel in 2009, she had been discussed as a possible candidate prior to 2009's The Land of Green Plums. If not kept, Redirect to 'Herta Müller' as valid search term. Dru of Id
- Keep- Per rationales of each previous keep vote above. Dru of Id (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In der Falle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable book by Herta Müller. Only one line, no sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and speedy keep. It's a very safe bet that literary works by Nobel laureates in literature will have received the coverage required to establish notability. The fact that an editor has established a comprehensive set of stub articles for the author's books, which other editors may expand at their convenience, is not at all a bad thing. The nominator makes no case whatever for deletion, and this long string of cookie-cutter nominations over a brief period of time, quite frankly, will lead most editors to the conclusion that the nominator has made no effort, whether per WP:BEFORE or otherwise, to assess whether the subjects are in fact notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:NBOOK as the author has won a Nobel in literature. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOTINHERITED. Prove the book is notable, just because a Nobel laureate wrote it does not mean that it contributed to the Nobel Prize. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response- WP:NOTINHERITED specifically links to the exceptions of WP:NBOOK, #5 of which is the most germane. The Literature Nobel is given for an author's body of work to date, any item of which should be presumed to have been considered in the decision; subsequent works obviously were not, but are likely to receive attention sooner because of the author's recognition. This mass deletion listing seems only to have avoided (with the exception of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadirs, above), only those which won individual awards, were previously translated into English, or had been previously reviewed in the New York Times, Wikipedia:Systemic bias of foreign-language materials in WP:RS, at least those available online, which made possible development of specific articles about her work. The author was the subject of biographies, in 1992, 1993, 2002, and 2003, not because she was Romanian, wrote in German, or left Romania, but because of the quality and breadth of her writing as a dissident; while she was awarded the Nobel in 2009, she had been discussed as a possible candidate prior to 2009's The Land of Green Plums. If not kept, Redirect to 'Herta Müller' as valid search term. Dru of Id
- Keep- Per rationales of each previous keep vote above. Dru of Id (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Angekommen wie nicht da (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable book by Herta Müller. Only one line, no sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and speedy keep. It's a very safe bet that literary works by Nobel laureates in literature will have received the coverage required to establish notability. The fact that an editor has established a comprehensive set of stub articles for the author's books, which other editors may expand at their convenience, is not at all a bad thing. The nominator makes no case whatever for deletion, and this long string of cookie-cutter nominations over a brief period of time, quite frankly, will lead most editors to the conclusion that the nominator has made no effort, whether per WP:BEFORE or otherwise, to assess whether the subjects are in fact notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:NBOOK as the author has won a Nobel in literature. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOTINHERITED. Prove the book is notable, just because a Nobel laureate wrote it does not mean that it contributed to the Nobel Prize. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response- WP:NOTINHERITED specifically links to the exceptions of WP:NBOOK, #5 of which is the most germane. The Literature Nobel is given for an author's body of work to date, any item of which should be presumed to have been considered in the decision; subsequent works obviously were not, but are likely to receive attention sooner because of the author's recognition. This mass deletion listing seems only to have avoided (with the exception of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadirs, above), only those which won individual awards, were previously translated into English, or had been previously reviewed in the New York Times, Wikipedia:Systemic bias of foreign-language materials in WP:RS, at least those available online, which made possible development of specific articles about her work. The author was the subject of biographies, in 1992, 1993, 2002, and 2003, not because she was Romanian, wrote in German, or left Romania, but because of the quality and breadth of her writing as a dissident; while she was awarded the Nobel in 2009, she had been discussed as a possible candidate prior to 2009's The Land of Green Plums. If not kept, Redirect to 'Herta Müller' as valid search term. Dru of Id
- Keep- Per rationales of each previous keep vote above. Dru of Id (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Der Wächter nimmt seinen Kamm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable book by Herta Müller. Only one line, no sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and speedy keep. It's a very safe bet that literary works by Nobel laureates in literature will have received the coverage required to establish notability. The fact that an editor has established a comprehensive set of stub articles for the author's books, which other editors may expand at their convenience, is not at all a bad thing. The nominator makes no case whatever for deletion, and this long string of cookie-cutter nominations over a brief period of time, quite frankly, will lead most editors to the conclusion that the nominator has made no effort, whether per WP:BEFORE or otherwise, to assess whether the subjects are in fact notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:NBOOK as the author has won a Nobel in literature. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOTINHERITED. Prove the book is notable, just because a Nobel laureate wrote it does not mean that it contributed to the Nobel Prize. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response- WP:NOTINHERITED specifically links to the exceptions of WP:NBOOK, #5 of which is the most germane. The Literature Nobel is given for an author's body of work to date, any item of which should be presumed to have been considered in the decision; subsequent works obviously were not, but are likely to receive attention sooner because of the author's recognition. This mass deletion listing seems only to have avoided (with the exception of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadirs, above), only those which won individual awards, were previously translated into English, or had been previously reviewed in the New York Times, Wikipedia:Systemic bias of foreign-language materials in WP:RS, at least those available online, which made possible development of specific articles about her work. The author was the subject of biographies, in 1992, 1993, 2002, and 2003, not because she was Romanian, wrote in German, or left Romania, but because of the quality and breadth of her writing as a dissident; while she was awarded the Nobel in 2009, she had been discussed as a possible candidate prior to 2009's The Land of Green Plums. If not kept, Redirect to 'Herta Müller' as valid search term. Dru of Id
- Keep- Per rationales of each previous keep vote above. Dru of Id (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 11:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Eine warme Kartoffel ist ein warmes Bett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable book, no sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and speedy keep. It's a very safe bet that literary works by Nobel laureates in literature will have received the coverage required to establish notability. The fact that an editor has established a comprehensive set of stub articles for the author's books, which other editors may expand at their convenience, is not at all a bad thing. The nominator makes no case whatever for deletion, and this long string of cookie-cutter nominations over a brief period of time, quite frankly, will lead most editors to the conclusion that the nominator has made no effort, whether per WP:BEFORE or otherwise, to assess whether the subjects are in fact notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:NBOOK as the author has won a Nobel in literature. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOTINHERITED. Prove the book is notable, just because a Nobel laureate wrote it does not mean that it contributed to the Nobel Prize. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response- WP:NOTINHERITED specifically links to the exceptions of WP:NBOOK, #5 of which is the most germane. The Literature Nobel is given for an author's body of work to date, any item of which should be presumed to have been considered in the decision; subsequent works obviously were not, but are likely to receive attention sooner because of the author's recognition. This mass deletion listing seems only to have avoided (with the exception of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadirs, above), only those which won individual awards, were previously translated into English, or had been previously reviewed in the New York Times, Wikipedia:Systemic bias of foreign-language materials in WP:RS, at least those available online, which made possible development of specific articles about her work. The author was the subject of biographies, in 1992, 1993, 2002, and 2003, not because she was Romanian, wrote in German, or left Romania, but because of the quality and breadth of her writing as a dissident; while she was awarded the Nobel in 2009, she had been discussed as a possible candidate prior to 2009's The Land of Green Plums. If not kept, Redirect to 'Herta Müller' as valid search term. Dru of Id
- Keep- Per rationales of each previous keep vote above. Dru of Id (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per NBOOK 5, and per the above. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 11:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Der Fuchs war damals schon der Jäger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable book by Herta Müller. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and speedy keep. It's a very safe bet that literary works by Nobel laureates in literature will have received the coverage required to establish notability. The fact that an editor has established a comprehensive set of stub articles for the author's books, which other editors may expand at their convenience, is not at all a bad thing. The nominator makes no case whatever for deletion, and this long string of cookie-cutter nominations over a brief period of time, quite frankly, will lead most editors to the conclusion that the nominator has made no effort, whether per WP:BEFORE or otherwise, to assess whether the subjects are in fact notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:NBOOK as the author has won a Nobel in literature. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOTINHERITED. Prove the book is notable, just because a Nobel laureate wrote it does not mean that it contributed to the Nobel Prize. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response- WP:NOTINHERITED specifically links to the exceptions of WP:NBOOK, #5 of which is the most germane. The Literature Nobel is given for an author's body of work to date, any item of which should be presumed to have been considered in the decision; subsequent works obviously were not, but are likely to receive attention sooner because of the author's recognition. This mass deletion listing seems only to have avoided (with the exception of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadirs, above), only those which won individual awards, were previously translated into English, or had been previously reviewed in the New York Times, Wikipedia:Systemic bias of foreign-language materials in WP:RS, at least those available online, which made possible development of specific articles about her work. The author was the subject of biographies, in 1992, 1993, 2002, and 2003, not because she was Romanian, wrote in German, or left Romania, but because of the quality and breadth of her writing as a dissident; while she was awarded the Nobel in 2009, she had been discussed as a possible candidate prior to 2009's The Land of Green Plums. If not kept, Redirect to 'Herta Müller' as valid search term. Dru of Id
- Keep- Per rationales of each previous keep vote above. Dru of Id (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 11:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Der Teufel sitzt im Spiegel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable book, only one line, no sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and speedy keep. It's a very safe bet that literary works by Nobel laureates in literature will have received the coverage required to establish notability. The fact that an editor has established a comprehensive set of stub articles for the author's books, which other editors may expand at their convenience, is not at all a bad thing. The nominator makes no case whatever for deletion, and this long string of cookie-cutter nominations over a brief period of time, quite frankly, will lead most editors to the conclusion that the nominator has made no effort, whether per WP:BEFORE or otherwise, to assess whether the subjects are in fact notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:NBOOK as the author has won a Nobel in literature. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOTINHERITED. Prove the book is notable, just because a Nobel laureate wrote it does not mean that it contributed to the Nobel Prize. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response- WP:NOTINHERITED specifically links to the exceptions of WP:NBOOK, #5 of which is the most germane. The Literature Nobel is given for an author's body of work to date, any item of which should be presumed to have been considered in the decision; subsequent works obviously were not, but are likely to receive attention sooner because of the author's recognition. This mass deletion listing seems only to have avoided (with the exception of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadirs, above), only those which won individual awards, were previously translated into English, or had been previously reviewed in the New York Times, Wikipedia:Systemic bias of foreign-language materials in WP:RS, at least those available online, which made possible development of specific articles about her work. The author was the subject of biographies, in 1992, 1993, 2002, and 2003, not because she was Romanian, wrote in German, or left Romania, but because of the quality and breadth of her writing as a dissident; while she was awarded the Nobel in 2009, she had been discussed as a possible candidate prior to 2009's The Land of Green Plums. If not kept, Redirect to 'Herta Müller' as valid search term. Dru of Id
- Keep- Per rationales of each previous keep vote above. Dru of Id (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per NBOOK 5, and per above. We really could have combined these nominations into one AFD. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 11:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wie Wahrnehmung sich erfindet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable book, no sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and speedy keep. It's a very safe bet that literary works by Nobel laureates in literature will have received the coverage required to establish notability. The fact that an editor has established a comprehensive set of stub articles for the author's books, which other editors may expand at their convenience, is not at all a bad thing. The nominator makes no case whatever for deletion, and this long string of cookie-cutter nominations over a brief period of time, quite frankly, will lead most editors to the conclusion that the nominator has made no effort, whether per WP:BEFORE or otherwise, to assess whether the subjects are in fact notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:NBOOK as the author has won a Nobel in literature. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOTINHERITED. Prove the book is notable, just because a Nobel laureate wrote it does not mean that it contributed to the Nobel Prize. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response- WP:NOTINHERITED specifically links to the exceptions of WP:NBOOK, #5 of which is the most germane. The Literature Nobel is given for an author's body of work to date, any item of which should be presumed to have been considered in the decision; subsequent works obviously were not, but are likely to receive attention sooner because of the author's recognition. This mass deletion listing seems only to have avoided (with the exception of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadirs, above), only those which won individual awards, were previously translated into English, or had been previously reviewed in the New York Times, Wikipedia:Systemic bias of foreign-language materials in WP:RS, at least those available online, which made possible development of specific articles about her work. The author was the subject of biographies, in 1992, 1993, 2002, and 2003, not because she was Romanian, wrote in German, or left Romania, but because of the quality and breadth of her writing as a dissident; while she was awarded the Nobel in 2009, she had been discussed as a possible candidate prior to 2009's The Land of Green Plums. If not kept, Redirect to 'Herta Müller' as valid search term. Dru of Id
- Keep- Per rationales of each previous keep vote above. Dru of Id (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per NBOOK 5. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 11:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Barfüßiger Februar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable book, no sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Toshio what would motivate you to strike several books of an author when you probably never wrote one? I vote to retain. Thank you Pvujin (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is irrelevant if I ever wrote a book myself or not. Per WP:NBOOK, in order to be notable, a book must satisfy at least one of the criteria in WP:NBOOK#Criteria. Currently, there is not the slightest sign of verification through any third party sources that this book does. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article was not tagged with the AFD1 template; I went ahead and did this. As for the merits - surely there's a viable redirect target somewhere? It's likely that this book is not, itself, notable; perhaps it should be listed as part of the author's body of work? Nothing here would prevent an expansion, if sourcing could be found to back such expansion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and speedy keep. It's a very safe bet that literary works by Nobel laureates in literature will have received the coverage required to establish notability. The fact that an editor has established a comprehensive set of stub articles for the author's books, which other editors may expand at their convenience, is not at all a bad thing. The nominator makes no case whatever for deletion, and this long string of cookie-cutter nominations over a brief period of time, quite frankly, will lead most editors to the conclusion that the nominator has made no effort, whether per WP:BEFORE or otherwise, to assess whether the subjects are in fact notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:NBOOK as the author has won a Nobel in literature. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Forgot about NBOOK 5 - put me down as a keep. That said, I don't think a combined article for these works would be that terrible, especially if it consolidates the editors working on this author's books. I don't imagine this is a high traffic area; more collaboration is always good. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOTINHERITED. Prove the book is notable, just because a Nobel laureate wrote it does not mean that it contributed to the Nobel Prize. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response- WP:NOTINHERITED specifically links to the exceptions of WP:NBOOK, #5 of which is the most germane. The Literature Nobel is given for an author's body of work to date, any item of which should be presumed to have been considered in the decision; subsequent works obviously were not, but are likely to receive attention sooner because of the author's recognition. This mass deletion listing seems only to have avoided (with the exception of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadirs, above), only those which won individual awards, were previously translated into English, or had been previously reviewed in the New York Times, Wikipedia:Systemic bias of foreign-language materials in WP:RS, at least those available online, which made possible development of specific articles about her work. The author was the subject of biographies, in 1992, 1993, 2002, and 2003, not because she was Romanian, wrote in German, or left Romania, but because of the quality and breadth of her writing as a dissident; while she was awarded the Nobel in 2009, she had been discussed as a possible candidate prior to 2009's The Land of Green Plums. If not kept, Redirect to 'Herta Müller' as valid search term. Dru of Id (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Per rationales of each previous keep vote above. Dru of Id (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Dru of Id and others. Inherited notability, it's almost certain that there is content out there, and there's no deadline on Wikipedia. Bob talk 08:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk to me 18:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Martina Del Bonta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indications that this biography meets criteria for inclusion. A local sports reporter in a fairly small market. Claim of notability as being "the first female full time sports anchor in that market" are 1) unverified and 2) not necessarily notable. If she were the first female full time sports anchor in any market, or in the entire country, etc, that might be notable, but this minor claim is not. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I found it interesting that you found nothing noteworthy about an individual who is a Sports Anchor in a "small market," let alone a woman. Obviously your familiarity with the world of sports journalism is more limited than mine. I actually deleted the comment on being the first women in her market becasue there is no written citation. However the timing is interesting when you consider that she will be speaking to a graduate course at the University of Missouri on Monday on her experiences in a male dominated profession. She was asked to do so by Professor Rick McGwire who is a professor of Sports Psychology and also the coach of Track and Field at Mizzou. A little about him:
"Dr. McGuire has provided leadership and service to the coaches and athletes of track and field throughout his career. In 1983 he founded - and for 26 years has led - the sport psychology program for USA Track and Field. Now with a staff of more than 30 sport psychology professionals, this program is considered the finest sport psychology service delivery program in the world today and serves as a model for USOC national sport governing bodies. McGuire also serves as curriculum coordinator and lead instructor for USA Track and Field's Coaches Education Program.
Coach McGuire has served on the staff for nine United States National Track and Field Teams, including the 1992 and 1996 Olympic Team staffs for Barcelona and Atlanta. He has also served with our national teams at the 1995 World Championships, the 1990 World Cup, the 1988 and 1986 World Junior Championships, the 1986 Junior Pan American Games, and for dual meet competitions with Cuba in 1987 and Romania in 1986.
In December 2006, McGuire was elected as President of the NCAA Division I branch of the U.S. Track and Field and Cross Country Coaches Association (USTFCCCA). In addition, he recently completed his four-year term as a member of the NCAA Track and Field Committee. In 2000, McGuire served as president of the Missouri Track and Cross County Coaches Association (MTCCCA)."
I find it interesting that a man with his credentials would find what martina is doing "noteworthy" while you do not.
I also found that there are five other news people amongst the twenty-seven "Famous Residents" in her home town. MrDel71 (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)MrDel71 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDel71 (talk • contribs) — MrDel71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment The fact that Dr. McGuire finds Del Bonta to be suitable speaker to his graduate course is hardly a sign of notability. MrDel is advised to read the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion more carefully. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No newspaper or other Reliable Source seems to have taken note of her. Literally none [10]. MrDel, please understand that Wikipedia has a very precise definition of "notable" which you can read HERE. It requires that independent, reliable sources have provided significant coverage about the person. It's not a value judgment on her, or a criticism of her career; it's just a reflection of what has (or hasn't) been said about her by independent sources. I know this can be frustrating to new users, but Wikipedia has to have standards. Regardless of what happens with this nomination, please do stick around and continue to contribute to articles about which you have an interest. --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not make her verify it and then reconsider. I say -suspend judgment until she improves, within a reasonable time-frame. Thank you Pvujin (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC) ps. being a woman is hard in the US, especially in sports.[reply]
- Comment Because, even if verified, the fact would not make her notable. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've done a few searches and have to disagree with MrDel. Subject is not notable enough for Wikipedia yet. See WP:CREATIVE which gives the criteria for journalists - the only feasible one would be: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" which has not been demonstrated.Asnac (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. There is a consensus below that this is an important, formative project of a notable director and should receive coverage on Wikipedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nýtt líf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Donno how to handle this. I cannot find a single English source for this, it has no sources now, it seems like it might be notable, but I have no way of really knowing. Björk apparently had a minor role in it, before she hit big, but I can't even verify that. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not trivial to find reliable sources, I agree. However, it is fairly clear that the film exists (besides IMDB, other sources mention that Björk was involved, e.g. this Icelandic shopping site: [11]). Basic info also here. As Þráinn Bertelsson, the director, is reasonably notable, I'd say this is a keep. Merging with the director's article is probably not so good, as he is notable also for crime novels and as a politician. Anyway, when in doubt, do not delete. —Кузьма討論 22:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep It's mentioned over and over again in articles about the director, but I did not find much in-depth coverage. I added 2 refs. It's possible that there may be material in newspaper archives, but 1983 is a bit far back for it to be indexed; however, it does get mentioned a lot, so I incline towards keeping it. IMO what would be best would be to combine it with the 2 other films about Þór and Danni in a single article. One of the reasons the title comes up so much is it was the first of a popular series. The other is that he founded a production company the year before with the the same name, but I only looked at material about the film. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Yngvadottir.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deryck C. 19:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Explocity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:Notability. Most of the references are Press Releases. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Keep. Not true. There was just one reference which was a press release. The second one was a video of a reputable news channel's press coverage of an event. I have added another citation which is a clipping of an article carried in another reputable Newspaper. Varunr (talk) 07:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The video of the press coverage doesn't mention Explocity at all. The text of the news clipping is too small for me to read, but it appears that although Murdoch was interested in the Explocity website, he never actually did anything about it. (Not sure if this is Rupert Murdoch or someone else.) A media mogul once being reportedly interested in your company does not make it notable. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The video definitely mentions Explocity. If you wait for the 44th second of the video, you will hear the designated spokesperson of the restaurant that made the Crostini mention that Explocity approached them for this. With regard to Murdoch's interest, I have added another citation / note that has a bigger font size and clearly mentions which Murdoch we're talking about here and the fact that his company did take up 25% stake in Explocity. Varunr (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, you're right - I missed it because of the pronunciation. It is just a small mention, though, and hardly proof of notability. The other video you linked to is the same - they are covering other events, and Explocity is only mentioned tangentially. To be good evidence for notability, the sourced should actually be about the company, not some other thing. The article from The Hindu that I linked to below is much better in this respect. The new newspaper clipping is also good, though it looks like a local newspaper and not a national one. Is that right? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The video definitely mentions Explocity. If you wait for the 44th second of the video, you will hear the designated spokesperson of the restaurant that made the Crostini mention that Explocity approached them for this. With regard to Murdoch's interest, I have added another citation / note that has a bigger font size and clearly mentions which Murdoch we're talking about here and the fact that his company did take up 25% stake in Explocity. Varunr (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The video of the press coverage doesn't mention Explocity at all. The text of the news clipping is too small for me to read, but it appears that although Murdoch was interested in the Explocity website, he never actually did anything about it. (Not sure if this is Rupert Murdoch or someone else.) A media mogul once being reportedly interested in your company does not make it notable. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Change !vote to weak keep (see below). The only news source that I found which was remotely of interest was this, and even then Explocity is not the main topic of the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Please refer http://aboutus.explocity.com/ for information on the company. Varunr (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my vote to a weak keep because of this source from the Hindu Times, found on the Ramjee Chandran page. Getting an article in the Hindu Times is enough to sway me - I'd now say Explocity is borderline notable. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate it. Thank you. Varunr (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems to be a liberal outlet in a strictly Muslim country. Why not abridge to one sentence and keep? thanx Pvujin (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the article, Explocity is India based. India is not a muslim country (Secular - No state religion with Hindu Majority) - seems to be some misunderstanding. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 10:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Exaplained above by सत्यमेव जयते. Varunr (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I remove the Afd tag? If everybody agrees, can I remove the Afd tag? Varunr (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not yet. You should wait for the discussion to be closed by an admin. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Will wait. Varunr (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not yet. You should wait for the discussion to be closed by an admin. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn NW (Talk) 03:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unit cohesion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A ridiculously POV article that seems to only serve as an anti "homosexuality in the military" coatrack. It doesn't look like the term is used for anything other than "this can undermine unit cohesion" claims from DADT debates. With all the DADT stuff removed, it's nothing more than a quotefarm and dictdef. Yaksar (let's chat) 00:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - article, if anything, is biased in the opposite direction claimed by nominator. It needs to be fleshed out, not deleted. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is an important milihist topic, particular in the long line of "human vs material" (or "Red vs. Expert") debate in military science. Scholars has devoted great studies in this topic with regards to the Soviet Red Army, Imperial Japanese Army and Chinese People's Liberation Army and their tendency to launch mass suicide attacks. If the nominator is offended by homosexual reference, s/he is more than welcome to remove it rather than proposing outright deletion. Jim101 (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: the following comment by the nominator was deleted from the discussion rather than overstruck; the nominate cited Hrafn's Delete opinion immediately following (see edit summary on [12]).
Considering that this article has changed considerably, and that twinkle hiccuped with the nomination anyway, I'm willing to withdraw this. --Yaksar (let's chat) 03:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:DISCUSSAFD, it's better to overstrike when changing one's mind. But more to the point of AfD standard procedure, doesn't withdrawal of the nomination automatically terminate the process with a Keep result? Admittedly, "I'm willing to withdraw" isn't exactly "I'm withdrawing." But if you're willing to nominate in the first place, you should either stick to your guns or clearly lay them down; if you pick them back up again, you should be clear about that, too. Yakushima (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as it stands this article is simply the concatenation of (i) a WP:DICTDEF, (ii) a WP:QUOTEFARM & (iii) material already covered, in context, at Don't ask, don't tell. No non-duplicative encyclopaedic content. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect on point (iii), Hrafn: this article cites Relooking Unit Cohesion: A Sensemaking Approach, which I don't see in the DADT article. Yakushima (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Incorrect" yourself -- Relooking Unit Cohesion: A Sensemaking Approach was covered under point (ii) not point (iii). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- !vote changed to moot(≈'keep') as nominated article substantially no longer exists, and replacement does a sufficient job of establishing notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Incorrect" yourself -- Relooking Unit Cohesion: A Sensemaking Approach was covered under point (ii) not point (iii). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Request to closing admin: If this article does not survive AfD, please move it to my user space so I can keep working on it. I intend to make it much more that a dictdef or quote farm. --Uncle Ed (talk) 05:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTWEBHOST & this already overly-large collection may be relevant to this request. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well now, we don't have to be that strict, if the user really does have an intention to continue to work on it I can't see any issue with userification.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Morever, Hrafn, see WP:ADHOM. I don't care what Ed Poor's written before; I don't care who wrote this article. A broken clock, and all that. If Ed Poor is transgressing WP:NOTWEBHOST, take it up in the appropriate venue for such problems. AfD is hardly an efficient mechanism for whittling down such excesses. Yakushima (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Morever" Yakushima, I was not making an argument for/against deletion, but on the issue userfication -- for which the editor's record of abandoned projects in his user space would appear entirely relevant. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The subject is notable. The article was created on 15:29, 23 April 2011 and was continuously worked on. It will most likely continue to improve. Dream Focus 06:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But is the topic of "Unit Cohesion", outside of the multiple terms that mean the same thing, covered as anything outside of a term thrown around in the DADT debate?--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most certainly. Unit cohesion was the reason given by opponents of military integration back in the 1940s. See this. Raul654 (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (i) Notability has simply been asserted, not demonstrated. (ii) The work to date has resulted in no non-duplicative encyclopaedic content -- so deletion and restarting from scratch would not eliminate any encyclopaedic content. (iii) Asserting that it "will most likely continue to improve" assumes that there has been some improvement to date -- which is contradicted by (ii). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- References have the term used in discussions of gender & racial integration, religious differences, high turnover rate in short tours, differing tour lengths between services, impact of casualties, death and suicides on deployed units, relieving commanders, reported sexual assault and harassment incidents (confirmed and those deemed false)... Dru of Id (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic is notable, and has ample coverage, as others have already found and mentioned in this AFD. And yes, it has improved, there changes to it and references added from when it was nominated to date, and will most likely continue to do so. Just the information others found and linked to in this AFD would improve the article greatly. Dream Focus 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Frankly, WP:IDONTLIKEIT either, but let's keep in mind that AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP, nor is it about getting rid of WP:UGLY articles. It's about WP:NOTABILITY of the topic itself, irrespective of content. Perhaps the term "unit cohesion" has picked up some unfortunate dog-whistle frequencies in the debates over DADT (and over overt expressions of minority sexual orientation in the U.S. military.) I wouldn't know. Nevertheless, it's a significant military concept, per comments above. As for remedies suggested above: I oppose deleting the references to the DADT debate, since this aspect of the topic is hardly insignificant -- if anything, there's probably a notability argument for a debate over unit cohesion vs gays in the U.S. military article, as suggested by (yes, gay-friendly) sources like this one: [13] Yakushima (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's about more than just WP:NOTABILITY -- it's about having content that is encyclopaedic (WP:NOT, which WP:QUOTEFARM would appear to come under at WP:INDISCRIMINATE) and non-duplicative (WP:CFORK). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Try adding "von Clausewitz" to your searches on "unit cohesion" at Google books and Google Scholar, Hrafn.[14][15] Then substitute "Sun Tzu" to go back another couple thousand years. Unit cohesion has been understood as a concept for a very long time, and in the U.S. military, the debates over whether racial integration of forces might be deleterious to unit cohesion (worthy of an article section in itself) long predate those for DADT. Consider putting the question to folks over at the Military History wikiproject. I predict they'll answer unanimously, and in the affirmative. Yakushima (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Try addressing my points -- lack of encyclopaedic & non-duplicative content. Try reading the article, which has almost nothing to do with the topic as you're describing it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm adding encyclopedic content, there already was some before the AfD, and as for "non-duplicative content", you're welcome to go look at where it's all duplicated somewhere else. It's not, and it's moving toward being less of a duplication of DADT material on Wikipedia (which has WP:UNDUE weight in this article, biased as it is toward recency.) Yakushima (talk)
- I noticed -- and I suspect that, if this article does survive, it is likely to do so with little or none of its pre-AfD content. Which does tend to validate the original nomination. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems you didn't know anything about what unit cohesion was before reading this article, and got confused about what it was based on the article. I had a better chance of knowing what it was really about, because (as someone once said) chance favors the prepared mind: I lived through the debates about unit cohesion and the lack thereof among ground troops in Vietnam. In any case, just clicking on the links above for Google news, books and scholar searches should have established WP:NOTABILITY in your mind; as for all your other objections (save perhaps "non-duplicative content"), none are grounds in themselves for deletion. And "non-duplicative content", as I point out above, you simply failed to notice that there was content not duplicated from the DADT and other articles, in particular the Van Epps quote and citation -- which was in the article [16] prior to your delete nom, so you have no excuse for overlooking it. Yakushima (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (i) Last I checked AfDs were about article compliance with basic policy, not 'what I knew about the topic before reading the article'. (ii) "it's about more than just WP:NOTABILITY -- it's about having content that is encyclopaedic ... and non-duplicative" (iii) And I addressed "the Van Epps quote and citation" -- WP:QUOTEFARM, thus WP:INDISCRIMINATE, thus WP:NOT encyclopaedic. Has this "established" these points "in your mind"? -- because you seem to be having a bit of difficulty keeping track of them. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:QUOTEFARM is arguing from WP:UGLY, in this case, since all the quotes are directly relevant to the topic. Van Epps looks like a good source for the topic, even if a full quote is a bit much; and citations are also part of article content. Quoting Van Epps is hardly WP:INDISCRIMINATE in the context of the topic, since he addresses the topic directly. So that leaves whether the topic itself violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Unit cohesion is an established concept in military thought, one that's relevant on a number of levels, from clinical psychology of the individual soldier up to tactics and strategy and the social role of the military in democracies.) The literature establishes that: click the links above for news, scholar and books. If there were "Cohesion (military)" article, then fine, I might be persuaded that it would a good merge target for this article. But there isn't. Yakushima (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, WP:QUOTEFARM is NOT "arguing from WP:UGLY" -- a quotefarm is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, the information in question being specifically quotes. This is true no matter how prettily-formatted or well-written the quote-farm may be. Collections of quotes belong on Wikiquotes, not Wikipedia. This is a rather simple and obvious point, but you seem to want to knit-pick. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:QUOTEFARM is arguing from WP:UGLY, in this case, since all the quotes are directly relevant to the topic. Van Epps looks like a good source for the topic, even if a full quote is a bit much; and citations are also part of article content. Quoting Van Epps is hardly WP:INDISCRIMINATE in the context of the topic, since he addresses the topic directly. So that leaves whether the topic itself violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Unit cohesion is an established concept in military thought, one that's relevant on a number of levels, from clinical psychology of the individual soldier up to tactics and strategy and the social role of the military in democracies.) The literature establishes that: click the links above for news, scholar and books. If there were "Cohesion (military)" article, then fine, I might be persuaded that it would a good merge target for this article. But there isn't. Yakushima (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (i) Last I checked AfDs were about article compliance with basic policy, not 'what I knew about the topic before reading the article'. (ii) "it's about more than just WP:NOTABILITY -- it's about having content that is encyclopaedic ... and non-duplicative" (iii) And I addressed "the Van Epps quote and citation" -- WP:QUOTEFARM, thus WP:INDISCRIMINATE, thus WP:NOT encyclopaedic. Has this "established" these points "in your mind"? -- because you seem to be having a bit of difficulty keeping track of them. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems you didn't know anything about what unit cohesion was before reading this article, and got confused about what it was based on the article. I had a better chance of knowing what it was really about, because (as someone once said) chance favors the prepared mind: I lived through the debates about unit cohesion and the lack thereof among ground troops in Vietnam. In any case, just clicking on the links above for Google news, books and scholar searches should have established WP:NOTABILITY in your mind; as for all your other objections (save perhaps "non-duplicative content"), none are grounds in themselves for deletion. And "non-duplicative content", as I point out above, you simply failed to notice that there was content not duplicated from the DADT and other articles, in particular the Van Epps quote and citation -- which was in the article [16] prior to your delete nom, so you have no excuse for overlooking it. Yakushima (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed -- and I suspect that, if this article does survive, it is likely to do so with little or none of its pre-AfD content. Which does tend to validate the original nomination. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm adding encyclopedic content, there already was some before the AfD, and as for "non-duplicative content", you're welcome to go look at where it's all duplicated somewhere else. It's not, and it's moving toward being less of a duplication of DADT material on Wikipedia (which has WP:UNDUE weight in this article, biased as it is toward recency.) Yakushima (talk)
- Try addressing my points -- lack of encyclopaedic & non-duplicative content. Try reading the article, which has almost nothing to do with the topic as you're describing it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: I have edited the above discussion in two ways: (1) I formatted it to be closer to what the adjudicating admin will expect (this is explicitly encouraged in AfD guidelines), and (2) I changed two "Oppose" votes above to "Keep", the usual word for the sense expressed (iffy, but I believe justifiable here, because "Oppose" is ambiguous in this context). I hope the latter is WP:GTD-conformat, see Discussion: "It is acceptable to correct the formatting in order to retain consistency with the bulleted indentation. Yakushima (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Hooray, WP:QUOTEFARM. This article is a canvas for points-of-view on a topic that is closer to a definition than an actual encyclopedic topic. There is no history to "unit cohesion," and no practical distinction between it and "teamwork" or any number of valid redirects. If someone can convince me that "unit cohesion" is so notably distinct a topic on its own from "teamwork" or any number of possible merge options under the umbrella of the military, I might change my vote, but I don't see any compelling arguments above. You can use a pile of quotes to make just about any phrase notable. Doesn't mean it's notable as a topic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Unit cohesion" is not "teamwork". It's a specifically military term, as you would have discovered instantly if you had simply tried the Google Scholar link above. WP:QUOTEFARM is a reasonable criticism of this article's style. It does not, in itself, make the topic non-notable. In particular, there is no mention of quote-farming in the AfD grounds for deletion guidelines. So your argument for deletion comes down to the non-argument, WP:UGLY. I concur on your stylistic judgment, not on your deletion judgment. Yakushima (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to keep based on the excellent improvements to the article since last I looked at it. Very, very well done. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It's a pretty awful article at the moment, being largely a collection of quotes from various people, and presented in a particularly ugly way. I'm sure it can be saved with some effort, though. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Since some of those weighing in here seem unable to see past certain objections, like the problematic provenance of the original and its distressingly low quality as an article, I've rewritten it so that it's no longer a WP:QUOTEFARM. I've also added a little more historical context for those who seem to think the term is a product of the DADT controversies and simply a conservative "code" word for "we ain't gonna have no queers in our Army." Apart from these changes, however, the present article does rely mostly on the original sources, and mostly just paraphrases what it formerly quoted. It has not (as I'm sure at least one of you will object) become an article about some other topic entirely. It's just an amplification and contextualization of what the article was already about. And if you don't think so, well ... book up. Don't want to book up? Then remember: you're entitled to your own opinion (someone once said) but not your own facts. Yakushima (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - concerns about WP:QUOTEFARM, largely addressed by recent edit, are ones that are best addressed by an edit. "Unit cohesion" has reasonable sources as an issue in military effectiveness - the topic is definitely one that could have a good article on it, and the article as is seems to be sufficiently fertile ground. The cited articles on unit cohesion establish its notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are more than enough sources available to demonstrate the notability of the topic. It looks like this article has seen a lot of improvement over the past few days, any additional problems are surely fixable through regular editing rather than outright deletion. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. "Unit Cohesion" is not a term specific to the DADT debate. It was also used back in the 40s by opponents of military integration, and I suspect has applications outside of that discussion as well. Raul654 (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Clearly encyclopedic topic. If there are content issues, they should be fixed through the normal editing process, not by trying to frag the entire article here. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by AfD nominator - The substantial rewrite of this article has proven that the term has been used more than just as something thrown around in POV contexts. Since this also made the article more than a mess of quotes, I change my opinion and no longer !vote delete. That said, while I withdraw the nomination, there is at least 1 other delete !voter, so this can not yet be closed right away I guess?--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Demonstrably a significant topic in military science. Article has improved already. There is still one delete vote outstanding but in light of the nominator's change of position, maybe WP:SNOW could be invoked after this has been left open for 24 hours or so? --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Best to let things play out. I'm glad this article could be rescued. Dream Focus 19:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by AfD nominator - Looking at it, given that the one delete !vote seems to be related to this being a quote farm, which it no longer is anymore, this could probably be closed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is an important topic in military science and it is easy to turn up substantial sources which are specifically devoted to it. The current state of the article is irrelevant because it is our editing policy to improve such topics rather than to delete them. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Appears to satisfy notability requirements in its current form.—RJH (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This article is much improved from the nomination of AfD, and is clearly a Military science concept of substantial importance. Disagreement about the policy implications must be included in the article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 11:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Raj Hamsa Ultralights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Despite the longevity of this article, it doesn't cite any significant coverage in reliable sources. Directory entries don't establish notability, nor do brief mentions of products made by the company. I have been unable to find any in-depth company profiles (which would directly establish notability of the company), or even any in-depth reviews or description of the company's products (which could be used to imply notability). Bongomatic 05:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete despite a 30 year existence of the company, claims of being the largest in India, one gnews hit says it all [17]. fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Note: Notification of this deletion discussion has been made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation, within which scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raj Hamsa Ultralights still stand - this remains India's largest light aircraft manufacturer, having produced thousands of aircraft. I believe the refs currently listed do show notability, but it will also have multiple complete entries in Janes All The World's Aircraft which is the final say in aircraft manufacturer notability. Our central library has a large collection of these and as soon as I can get downtown I will add complete references to show notability to anyone's satisfaction. - Ahunt (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two points:
- You write "I believe the refs currently listed do show notability". Which one or ones? Explain why.
- Per Listing in a directory, or any list intended to be complete, doesn't demonstrate notability. Bongomatic 16:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather than a point-by-point defence of the existing refs, I intend to, instead, supply a quantity of new refs that will unquestionably establish notability. I am hoping to be able to do that later today, once the weather allows the trip. - Ahunt (talk) 11:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Okay I made the trip to the central library and obtained complete references from some of the latest editions of Janes, which, as predicted contain complete and detailed profiles on the company and its aircraft. I have added these and made some additions to the article based on them. Admittedly the article is now somewhat over-referenced, but there can be no contention about notability, so please withdraw the AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There can be contention about notability. Listings in directories do not confer notability. See footnote 5 in WP:N. Bongomatic 22:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind if you let this run to its inevitable conclusion, but are you saying that Janes All The World's Aircraft does not confer notability? - Ahunt (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. A publication that purports to provide "exhaustive technical detail on more than 1,000 civil and military aircraft currently under development or being produced by more than 600 companies in 48 countries" does not confer notability to each of those 1,000 aircraft and 600 companies. The word "exhaustive" is relevant here—Wikipedia doesn't strive for exhaustion, but to cover notable topics. Bongomatic 01:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't consider that Janes is a WP:RS that shows subject notability then you really need to bring that up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I think you may find some disagreement on that point. Janes is widely considered in the aviation, naval, defence and intelligence communities to be the premier source of reliable information. Despite what you may have read it does not cover all aircraft, just ones that the editors consider notable enough for publication. If Janes does not confer notability then I am afraid we will have to delete almost all aircraft manufacturer and aircraft type articles on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As it states at RS/N, the noticeboard is about discussing sources' reliability for verification purposes. If you read the above-referenced footnote at WP:N, it states that:
- not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability ... despite [being in] reliable sources.
- The hand-wringing about deleting "almost all aircraft manufacturer" articles seems somewhat hyperbolic. An instructive (if not terribly statistically significant) review of the other two articles in Category:Aircraft manufacturers of India gives rise to the opposite conclusion, as they appear to have received significant coverage in sources that are not directory-like. Bongomatic 13:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As it states at RS/N, the noticeboard is about discussing sources' reliability for verification purposes. If you read the above-referenced footnote at WP:N, it states that:
- If you don't consider that Janes is a WP:RS that shows subject notability then you really need to bring that up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I think you may find some disagreement on that point. Janes is widely considered in the aviation, naval, defence and intelligence communities to be the premier source of reliable information. Despite what you may have read it does not cover all aircraft, just ones that the editors consider notable enough for publication. If Janes does not confer notability then I am afraid we will have to delete almost all aircraft manufacturer and aircraft type articles on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. A publication that purports to provide "exhaustive technical detail on more than 1,000 civil and military aircraft currently under development or being produced by more than 600 companies in 48 countries" does not confer notability to each of those 1,000 aircraft and 600 companies. The word "exhaustive" is relevant here—Wikipedia doesn't strive for exhaustion, but to cover notable topics. Bongomatic 01:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind if you let this run to its inevitable conclusion, but are you saying that Janes All The World's Aircraft does not confer notability? - Ahunt (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There can be contention about notability. Listings in directories do not confer notability. See footnote 5 in WP:N. Bongomatic 22:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Okay I made the trip to the central library and obtained complete references from some of the latest editions of Janes, which, as predicted contain complete and detailed profiles on the company and its aircraft. I have added these and made some additions to the article based on them. Admittedly the article is now somewhat over-referenced, but there can be no contention about notability, so please withdraw the AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's an established manufacturer of ultralight aircraft. The sourcing issue can be addressed, and Ahunt has stated that he intends to do this. Mjroots (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This company does merit to be mentioned on these pages. The article could perhaps do with some improvement, but so do many. I hate to see the negativism of "it is no good, away with it!" - what we really want is a constructive approach like "this article is less than perfect, what can we do to improve it?". Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This AfD discussion has been pointed out at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft. While this is permissible under WP:CANVAS, it clearly skews participation in the discussion, as can be seen by the above three opinions (offered without supporting evidence and demonstrating a particular POV). Bongomatic 01:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, notifiying Wikiprojects germane to the article is not canvassing or inappropriate. Personally, I don't see why the name of the nominator is necessary. My arguments are based on the existance for a number of years of a major manufacturer of microlight and ultralight aircraft. Notifications should be neutrally worded though. Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia:AfD#Notifying_interested_people says "WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the AfD." In this instance the notice placed on both WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft was "This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion for a second time, in this instance by User:Bongomatic. Interested editors are encouraged to voice their views at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raj Hamsa Ultralights (2nd nomination)." I also placed a notice here (see above) to let other editors know that the notices had been placed. This practice is not only permissible, it is encouraged by AFD policies, so that articles in a particular area of WikiProject expertise cannot go though a stealth deletion process without editors with interest and expertise in the area in question being consulted. If you think that alerting editors with expertise in the field "clearly skews participation in the discussion" then that really calls into question the reason for the AFD in the first place. AFDs are commenced for only one reason, because Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject nominated. If the nominator truly believes that the nomination is for that reason and has made a good case for deletion on that basis, then they should welcome participation by editors in the relevant field because obviously they would agree with the deletion nomination and that is precisely why the AFD policy openly encourages the notification of WikiProjects in the relevant area . - Ahunt (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The comment that has elicited these impassioned defenses didn't suggest there was anything wrong with the notices—in fact, it specifically mentioned that the practice is consistent with policy. The fact that notification to the projects skews participation in the AfD is obvious and uncontroversial—just as it the fact that it is permissible. Bongomatic 22:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is clearly permissible and there is nothing wrong with it, then why bring it up? - Ahunt (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the logic there? The comment wasn't at ANI or any other place to lodge complaints for problematic edits or violations of policy. Factors other than impressible behavior may be relevant to other commentators or closers. Bongomatic 01:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So your intention in bringing up a policy-encouraged practice was to alert the closing admin to disregard, or at least weight-down, the opinions of members of these two WikiProjects? - Ahunt (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the logic there? The comment wasn't at ANI or any other place to lodge complaints for problematic edits or violations of policy. Factors other than impressible behavior may be relevant to other commentators or closers. Bongomatic 01:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is clearly permissible and there is nothing wrong with it, then why bring it up? - Ahunt (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The comment that has elicited these impassioned defenses didn't suggest there was anything wrong with the notices—in fact, it specifically mentioned that the practice is consistent with policy. The fact that notification to the projects skews participation in the AfD is obvious and uncontroversial—just as it the fact that it is permissible. Bongomatic 22:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per comments from the first nomination, no doubt it could do with more sourced content but article improvemnet not deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sure, sources is needed. But you don't just delete an article cause it not perfect. --KzKrann (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Add more sources and relevant information. Guide the editor to make the article perfect. Haribhagirath (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this isn't a discussion of the article being perfect. it's about it meeting WP:CORP. many of the keep arguments fails to expand on the "just more sources needed" argument. LibStar (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An aircraft manufacturer in existence for 25 years and producing over 1,000 aircraft failing WP:CORP? . Mjroots (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- that isn't a criterion. the main criterion is here. LibStar (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is easily met by the year-on-year coverage in Jane's. Mjroots (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep May need to be tagged for additional citations, however enough refs to prove notability. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of WWE pay-per-view events. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WWE Capitol Punishment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Future event, which does not yet meet notability requirements - per WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL. It was redirected, but the redirect was undone [18]. Chzz ► 04:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy redirect if it exists. I've heard of the event, but if it hasn't taken place yet, a redirect is better until more details are established for an article. CycloneGU (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Redirect as per above Five Years 08:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for God sakes how many times do I have to say this WWE does one PPV at a time that's how every company does it, that's how it's always been done. For God sakes there's two other PPV's before this so get anything right now. You gotta give these articles time to grow don't kill them. Someone from WP:PW is just gonna put it back up even if you delete it.--Voices in my Head WWE 14:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh look what do we have here? A link to Ticketmaster.com about WWE Capitol Punishment on June 19. [19] And what's this? VerizonCenter.com link to events that says WWE Capitol Punishment June 19. [20] And look at this, a calendar on Verizon Center's website if you go to June, you'll find WWE Capitol Punishment. [21]--Voices in my Head WWE 14:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You have failed to give an argument for how the event is notable now. Yes, it will exist in the future, hence why a redirect is the recommendation, not outright delete. CycloneGU (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy redirect as per the arguments above. These are fictional/scripted events, not actual competitions, and should be governed by the same standards applied to movies, TV shows, etc. There isn't even a cast list yet. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect--Voices in my Head WWE 16:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Geez Who the heck keeps creating these things way to early its WP:PW policy to redirect it to List of WWE pay-per-view events--SteamIron 20:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A show of hands, anyone interested in checking all of the histories? Anyone? Anyone? Hears crickets. CycloneGU (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect events of the future aren't encyclopedic, encyclopia's are current and past, not future. not to mention, assuming the event will be notible, do they know something we don't? hope they can reference to it if they do. Alan - talk 04:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Review- Actually, people need to review WP:CRYSTAL. This is the next currently scheduled event. Barring a natural disaster or major disruption, and not as certain as Solar eclipse of July 1, 2011, it is a future event that will take place, and this is the announced title. A venue has been reported in reliable sources, as have broadcasters and their broadcast times. The lead must be carefully worded with synonyms of 'scheduled' as opposed to 'will take place' and speculation (particularly ticket cost) and rumors (especially 'characters', except where officially verified, i.e. independent and 'official' ) must be removed if inserted. For the furthest sourced sports example ready at hand, see 2028 Summer Olympics. Dru of Id (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Show me the links to reliable third-party sources and I will have reason to perhaps change my opinion. CycloneGU (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry; for venue/date/time, this is an independent, reliable source; I meant to include it above. It's not AP or Reuters, but they are independent, third party, and accurate. Reference citation linking is not required. Dru of Id (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still not seeing the notibility of the event which hasn't even happened yet (hence, can't be notible until it does happen and there is sufficient coverage).. this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site.. go ask the publishers of brittanica if they'll include future events in their encyclopedia, let me know what they respond. Alan - talk 22:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They would tell me they're a paper publication with limited page space, unlike WP:PAPER; I'll trout myself becaue otherstuffexists, but MLB 2013 World Series; NBA 2012 NBA All-Star Game; NFL 2014 Super Bowl XLVIII; NHL 2011–12 NHL season; Soccer UEFA Euro 2020 bids... and (2011 Tōhoku earthquake) Gymnastics, delayed? announcement in May 2011 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships. I don't care about sports; do you want to see elections? Dru of Id (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD is not about 2013 World Series or 2012 NBA All-Star Game - it's about WWE Capitol Punishment. If you believe the other articles have reason to be deleted and not exist yet, then nominate them in a separate discussion. CycloneGU (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They would tell me they're a paper publication with limited page space, unlike WP:PAPER; I'll trout myself becaue otherstuffexists, but MLB 2013 World Series; NBA 2012 NBA All-Star Game; NFL 2014 Super Bowl XLVIII; NHL 2011–12 NHL season; Soccer UEFA Euro 2020 bids... and (2011 Tōhoku earthquake) Gymnastics, delayed? announcement in May 2011 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships. I don't care about sports; do you want to see elections? Dru of Id (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still not seeing the notibility of the event which hasn't even happened yet (hence, can't be notible until it does happen and there is sufficient coverage).. this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site.. go ask the publishers of brittanica if they'll include future events in their encyclopedia, let me know what they respond. Alan - talk 22:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry; for venue/date/time, this is an independent, reliable source; I meant to include it above. It's not AP or Reuters, but they are independent, third party, and accurate. Reference citation linking is not required. Dru of Id (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect(Duplicate vote struck - CycloneGU (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)) Don't you just love the bureaucratic process of Wikipedia? Give this 3 weeks and 6 days and there will be more on this but for now I can settle for redirect.--Voices in my Head WWE 23:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect, to WWE, non notable future event. The one "reference" supplied is to a ticket sales site. No assertion or evidence of notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This wouldn't be redirected to WWE, it be redirected to List of WWE pay-per-view events.--Voices in my Head WWE 01:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I pretty much think we have a consensus at this point to redirect to List of WWE pay-per-view events.--Voices in my Head WWE 01:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect. NXT Fan (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Given this repeated disruptive creating of non-notable future events regarding this topic, I would prefer "delete then redirect". Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Chzz ► 16:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was userfy for now. When it is ready to be moved back to article space the title can be corrected. If you need help with that move I or any other admin can assist, or you can file at WP:RM. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pilgrim Cemetery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Small cemetery in Texas. Nearly all of the references I found are obituaries of people buried there, nothing non-trivial about the cemetery itself, and nothing that warrants more than a merger with Elkhart, Texas. The references included in the article are, for the most part, about the church nearby. Delete. Userfy/move. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The cemetery is located at 31°35′24.9972″N 95°35′20.9976″W / 31.590277000°N 95.589166000°W / 31.590277000; -95.589166000. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMove. I also searched for references and came up empty-handed. It doesn't seem to be notable in its own right. Also, after the basic info about the cemetary, the article is just a list of people that were buried there, which fails WP:DIRECTORY. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]- TexanFamilyGunnels's evidence is convincing, but the notable entity here is the church, not the cemetery. I think the article should be moved to Pilgrim Church or similar. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 21:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Mr. Stradivarius, I do agree to change the name and focus more toward the church but the cemetery is important in someways. I did some research and see how other Wikipedia pages referrenced the cemetery, by just showing the head stones. I believe that would address your issues as well as providing information about the site. This would be a work in progress type of thing. I have two questions; how do you get a site that uses the words Pilgrim Cemetery to redirect to this page when it applies and how can I change the name or move information under a different name? Thanks for your feedback, Paul Gunnels 00:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexanFamilyGunnels (talk • contribs)
- TexanFamilyGunnels's evidence is convincing, but the notable entity here is the church, not the cemetery. I think the article should be moved to Pilgrim Church or similar. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 21:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I know this place was and is a very significant place in Texas History. Several Wikipedia pages referrence Pilgrim in regards to this place, but no where else can someone learn about it on WikiPedia. I wished I would have named this page Old Pilgrim Church and Cememtery, because that is really what it is. Please review these Wikipedia pages for Pilgrim Church; Baptist General Convention of Texas, Daniel Parker, James W. Parker, and Fort Parker massacre. Each of these has ties to Pligrim Cemetery in many different ways. Reveiw the book Frontier Blood [22], In this book search for Pilgrim Church and Pilgrim Regular Predestinarian Baptish Church and it will provide some more insight to this place. I have listed more referrences below for you to review for factual information about this place. I would ask you consider not deleting this because this place is referred to in many different types of published literature. Currently there is nothing to show this place in Wikipedia, but putting it under the Elkhart, Texas page, does not give its on idenity, which it deserves. I know that because of the brave actions of these families leaving Clark County, Illinois in the early 1800's and traveling to Texas to establish the first non-cathloic church which was against Mexican law is plent of reasons for Wikipedia to allow this referrence page. Their brave actions would play signficatant influence in the development of Texas, which would orgionally center on the Pilgrim Churchlocation. If you researched all of the orgional families that came to this location you would see that this place had a major impact on Texas. This place is very significant to them because it was the first place where they begin to establish other communities in Texas and would play major roles in many other areas of Texas from here. I believe and know this is a great place, because I am from Elkhart, Texas. I am also kin to the majority of folks buried in Pilgrim Cemetery, on the land of the orgional church site was established in 1833. I do see some of your points but I don't believe you may see the importance of this place, I understand being a cemetery only may not meet all of Wikipedia standards, but it is also the orginal site of the first non-catholic church in Texas. I do plan to continue to work to develop this website and move it forward to reflecting its historical value. If possible, I would like to change the name to Old Pilgrim Church and Cemetery. Please review the links below, and thanks for your consideration in not deleting this site. Have a great day, Paul
- Thanks, to all whom offered or assisted in helping this become an established Wikipedia web page. I do believe that the suggestions that were offered all have merit and I will make sure they are included to some degree. Thanks for your time. Paul Gunnels 14:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexanFamilyGunnels (talk • contribs)
- First Baptist Church in Texas, est 1833, [[23]] which was first non-catholic church established in Texas, even though it was against Mexican Law.
- Texas State Historical Assoication in 1907 called it historical place, [[24]]
- Another Historical Marker in 1936, [[25]]
- Bob Bowman,[[26]]
- Memorial to Daniel Parker,[[27]]
- Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists
- Bethal Baptist Church, [28]
- Texas History Portal about Pilgrim Church, [[29]]
Paul Gunnels 18:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexanFamilyGunnels (talk • contribs)
- Comment. User:TexanFamilyGunnels has made some valid points here. The Handbook of Texas Online has an article entitled "Pilgrim Primitive Baptist Church", which backs up the assertion that this was the first Baptist church in Texas, and in my view that makes the church's notability pretty clear.[30] Maybe userfication would be in order to allow TexanFamilyGunnels to rename and shift the article's focus as suggested. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks [[User:Arxiloxos|], for your feedback and I do believe this page can be better in many ways.Paul Gunnels 00:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexanFamilyGunnels (talk • contribs)
- Userfy- Per above; request reformatting of findagrave to standardized *{{findagrave|214657}} (White section) and add *{{findagrave|2319689}} (Black section) & include separation info where establishment date/year is discussed. (Note that the reference is separated this way, as the sections were separate; include legal requirement reference if found (check similar period Texas cemeteries.) Dru of Id (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Dru of Id, for your feedback and I see your points here. The first person buried here was Rachel Parker Bennet, in 1844 [[31]] which made it a family cemetery. This cemetery started out as a family cemetery and at some point non-family members begin to be buried here, but I am not sure of the date that started, it would have to be researched. I did research the black section per Find A Graveand discovered that a child named, Hugh L. Jackson, was buried there in 1905 [32], and the records show that ten individuals with the last name Jackson have been buried there, the last one in 2008. I believe all sections should be added to allow any family no matter who they are to research their familys history. One thing to note here is the fact that most family areas are by name and there are very few spots vacant in the older sections, meaning that most families have purchased complete rows for their families. The newer part of the cemetery accross the street has spots but it even has limited areas available. Having this web page up can allow people to research it and place the facts about it, in one central location. If having Find A Grave.Com on this sight as a referrence has some type of legal issue, then that is very simple, it won't be on it. I do believe this web page on Widipedia would be good today for people find and learn about it, but as more information is added with the information being refined, will help future researchers in finding the facts of its history. One thing I point out is that, as older generations pass away, more common verbal knowledge (information) is lost about any historical situation or site. That is why I believe it is important to capture history today and refuse to put it off until tomorrow. Thanks again for your feedback. Paul Gunnels 00:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexanFamilyGunnels (talk • contribs)
- Findagrave is not only permissable, it's been 'templated' to standardize the display as much as possible (it mimics the article title - see where I added it to Daniel Parker earlier); we have it in most bios of deceased politicians and celebrities, and information visible in/on markers, etc. can be cited. Dru of Id (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Again, Dru of Id, I get it Findagrave not permissable on Wikipedia, but can be cited such as findagrave. Paul Gunnels 00:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexanFamilyGunnels (talk • contribs)
- Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear; copying the {}'d items above will display all data in the standardized format, linking to the findagrave.com entry and supplying the [article]. Dru of Id (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Again, Dru of Id, I get it Findagrave not permissable on Wikipedia, but can be cited such as findagrave. Paul Gunnels 00:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexanFamilyGunnels (talk • contribs)
- Findagrave is not only permissable, it's been 'templated' to standardize the display as much as possible (it mimics the article title - see where I added it to Daniel Parker earlier); we have it in most bios of deceased politicians and celebrities, and information visible in/on markers, etc. can be cited. Dru of Id (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Dru of Id, for your feedback and I see your points here. The first person buried here was Rachel Parker Bennet, in 1844 [[31]] which made it a family cemetery. This cemetery started out as a family cemetery and at some point non-family members begin to be buried here, but I am not sure of the date that started, it would have to be researched. I did research the black section per Find A Graveand discovered that a child named, Hugh L. Jackson, was buried there in 1905 [32], and the records show that ten individuals with the last name Jackson have been buried there, the last one in 2008. I believe all sections should be added to allow any family no matter who they are to research their familys history. One thing to note here is the fact that most family areas are by name and there are very few spots vacant in the older sections, meaning that most families have purchased complete rows for their families. The newer part of the cemetery accross the street has spots but it even has limited areas available. Having this web page up can allow people to research it and place the facts about it, in one central location. If having Find A Grave.Com on this sight as a referrence has some type of legal issue, then that is very simple, it won't be on it. I do believe this web page on Widipedia would be good today for people find and learn about it, but as more information is added with the information being refined, will help future researchers in finding the facts of its history. One thing I point out is that, as older generations pass away, more common verbal knowledge (information) is lost about any historical situation or site. That is why I believe it is important to capture history today and refuse to put it off until tomorrow. Thanks again for your feedback. Paul Gunnels 00:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexanFamilyGunnels (talk • contribs)
- Userfy in the hope of moving, merging, or keeping. It appears to be a notable church and churchyard. Bearian (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Bearian, for your feedback it is nice to see #687 [33] most prolific Wikipedians here offering your advise on this Wikipedia web page.Paul Gunnels 04:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexanFamilyGunnels (talk • contribs) [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Contact me or any admin directly if you wish the article to be userfied. Thanks Wifione ....... Leave a message 11:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Herp derp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. I can't find reliable sources describing this phrase. The listed references are to urbandictionary.com and knowyourmeme.com, which are useful sites for recreational purposes, but lack the editorial oversight to pass Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I don't know Wiktionary's policies, but I'm guessing it wouldn't be appropriate there, either. Melchoir (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable, as it is not discussed in depth in reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per Cullen. Why would it be suitable for an article? It's a phrase, nothing else. CycloneGU (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, some phrases are suitable for articles. This one probably isn't, but that's an empirical matter; it depends on sources. Melchoir (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken, thanks for that. I didn't think there were that many. My main point stands, however; this isn't suitable for an article. CycloneGU (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, some phrases are suitable for articles. This one probably isn't, but that's an empirical matter; it depends on sources. Melchoir (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I searched for sources, but could only find blog comments and newspaper article comments that contained the phrase. I didn't see any reliable sources either using or discussing it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete popular on certain websites (Reddit, etc.) but has not yet been covered by secondary sources. GabrielF (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reliable sources that actually define it or its use. I am familiar with phrase, and was not aware of this specific meaning, so its most likely not so ubiquitous that "everyone" knows what it means, which if it was MIGHT make it a potential candidate for a wiktionary listing.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.I found an article saying "The Oregon Tea Party Facebook page was quickly subjected to an onslaught of image macros, desus, flames and herp derps, along with at least one message explaining why it was being smacked around."[34] Hoping that knowledge of this phrase might initiate me to secret clandestine powers of Anonymous, I looked it up here ... only to find an article that is not very informative. At least one aspect of it - the "herp derp" userbox - seems more or less fabricated for the occasion. I am still uncertain whether the phrase has a consistent specific meaning, beyond general stupidity. Wnt (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps read the talk page before coming to an agreement. @Wnt I have seen this herp derp user box once before; in fact that is the reason I researched this termUser:Mr. Popo8 (talk) 2:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete I, as the maker of the article in question, am against the deletion or "speedy deletion" of this article. The article is not, as was hinted at by some users, merely a definition. It is an encyclopedic entry regarding the existence of a meme known as herp derp. The definition in the article is not the only use, it is however a widely used term, with several different uses. This is merely one of them. With that being said, let it be known that the article is a work in progress. The other uses, and their etymologies/ histories of use, current uses, proper uses, etc. will be added. Remember that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, and not Dictionary. Note the differences: the the latter describes the linguistic use of a term, the prior describes the term. The intent of this article, in both its current and final forms, is not merely to describe the linguistics of the term "Herp Derp." Wikipedia describes the difference with an encyclopedia describing "a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote," while a dictionary describes "the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote." The different uses of Herp Derp are different manifestations of the same thing. They do not warrant different articles either, another key indicator of a dictionary article, as outlined by Wikipedia ([[35]]). Further, and lastly Wikipedia states that an "encyclopedic dictionary entry would contain illustrative quotations for each listed meaning; etymologies; translations; inflections; links to related and derived terms; links to synonyms, antonyms, and homophones; a pronunciation guide in various dialects, including links to sound files; and usage notes; and can be very long indeed." This counters any argument to this regard; containing these elements does not make an article a dictionary entry. I hope that this argument will be taken into account, and that the article will be given the ability to grow and prosper.
- As it's a work in progress, would you be willing to have it userfied if consensus decides the article is not ready for encyclopedic inclusion? CycloneGU (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the consensus determines that to be the best option then so be it. User:Genexally7557 (talk) 3:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- As it's a work in progress, would you be willing to have it userfied if consensus decides the article is not ready for encyclopedic inclusion? CycloneGU (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G5 Courcelles 06:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Meep Sheep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable book lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is in fact very notable. I will return to this page soon with a list of sources. --Qeeet (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Baseball Watcher 21:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dmytro Blazheyovskyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail Academic notability without additional references to establish notability. The only link provided is to a museum that the subject opened. The museum does not appear to be notable enough for an article, so it is unclear that the person who opened the museum (if that is the primary claim to notability) is notable. If there can be some reliable sources found to document his notability then I will be happy to remove the nomination. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The inline ref I've added from the Ukranian WP seems to indicate notability, via a rough translation in Google. Lugnuts (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The ref you have added is an obit posted on the Religious Information Service of Ukraine, which is a project of the Institute of Religion and Society of the Ukrainian Catholic University, and does not appear to really establish notability. He still seems to fail WP:Academic. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep From the latest source, his surname is Blazejowskyj, so I think the title of the page should change accordingly. You can search for sources according to that surname at: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. There are a lot of sources out there but only in his name in Cyrillic alphabet which makes it difficult to add sources. According to this source, for example, he received some kind of a medal. I don't think the article should be deleted, it only needs some help from Ukrainian Wikipedians. Nimuaq (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep assuming that the claim of receiving the Shevchenko National Prize is correct. That indicates quite sufficient notability. Rd232 talk 22:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as it stands at this moment he doesn't seem to meet the threshold for notability, Also the following categories (Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States, Category:Alumni of the Pontifical Urbaniana University and Category:Alumni of the Pontifical Gregorian University) are not sourced. I know sources are not required to be in the vernacular, but without some sort of translation it is hard to vote to keep. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By that logic shouldn't it be just as hard to vote to delete? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as it stands at this moment he doesn't seem to meet the threshold for notability, Also the following categories (Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States, Category:Alumni of the Pontifical Urbaniana University and Category:Alumni of the Pontifical Gregorian University) are not sourced. I know sources are not required to be in the vernacular, but without some sort of translation it is hard to vote to keep. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Passes muster at Ukrainian Wikipedia, which isn't a bad benchmark for lesser-known national figures. Дмитро Блажейовський is the spelling in Ukrainian, which I will add to the article. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also is the recipient of the Shevchenko Prize, a very high national award in Ukraine. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure). RadioFan (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Anime Boston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A large event but ihe article has been tagged for nearly a year with reference concerns with no improvement. Not clear how this might meet WP:GNG. Searching for 3rd party reliable sources has not brought up much, a single event calendar type mention in a Boston newspaper plus some mention in various blogs of questionable reliability. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Convention has major guests such as Stereopony[36] and has over 19,000 attendees. Seeing that the convention brings notable Japanese guests there could be a reference over at google.jp. and/or other major guests websites. I also see references on the article's talk page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are references in the article but as noted in the nomination they are questionable. For convention with such large numbers, it's surprising that there isn't more mention of it in traditional newspaper and magazine sources.--RadioFan (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of potential sources on the article's talk page including Newtype USA and the Boston Globe, which have been listed there since 2007. A search though Anime Conventions Mailing List will also turn up additional coverage in one of Isaac Alexander's media reports. —Farix (t | c) 13:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Knowledgekid87 and Farix – Allen4names 14:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- withdrawn - I'm withdrawing this nomination based on one of the external links mentioned on the article's talk page where the convention is the focus of a Boston Globe article, the confidence of editors here that more quality reliable sources like this are available and that these editors will work to improve this article. I still have questions about the reliability of the other external links mentioned on the talk page including the primary sources which do nothing to establish notability here. This article sat for a year with reference problems and still has them, let's turn the energy put into defending it here into improving the article.--RadioFan (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 11:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lavonne Jayne Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable author lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Female native american poet - a rare bird! Could u give her a chance to improve, please? thanx Pvujin (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - She's not Native American by the way, Pvujin - not that that should matter! I can't see how this subject could ever meet the criteria. The article in question was written by a one-time contributor which does ring alarm bells. Anyway, the question is, is the subject notable? I can't find online refs that would support notability, I agree that fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE as Ttonyb1 has proposed. Asnac (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The author of the page has read the notability requirements, and says that the subject fits within those paramaters. I think per ||WP:BITE|| and ||WP:AGF|| it's inappropriate to delete this page immediately. Give the author some time to work on this page, and let's give the author help and guidance until the article meets standards Thomrenault (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Just because the editor has indicated the article subject is notable is not a reason to keep the article. The author has the WP:BURDEN of proof to show it meets notability requirements - something that has not occurred. The author was given 7 days per a PROD, which you removed, to provide support for the article, so there is no WP:BITE or WP:AGF issue. I would highly suggest you better acquaint yourself with any and all guidelines you might be inclined to refer to in an AfD. In addition, I suggest you familiarize yourself with how PROD and AfD work. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. ttonyb (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete what is given is not enough to meet notability. presumably the creator would give us any really strong evidence they had for notability. Easily recreated if she becomes notable at any time in future. I also checked and found no significant signs of her on the internet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delay Verdict As I am fairly busy, it will take me some time to continue improving this article; please be patient. Back in the day, this is how a lot of articles started (that is, slowly), though now Wikipedia jumps on everything so quickly. On a side note, this poet is sometimes referred to as "Lavonne Adams" or "Lavonne J. Adams," which may yield more search results for those who base their opinions on quantity of Google hits. Smilesplash (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – AfDs typically last 7 days. That should be enough time to provide reliable sources for the article. If not, the article can always be recreated at a latter date. BTW - Where do you see someone base any opinions on the quantity of GHits or GNEWS. What I see is someone referring to "GHits and GNEWS of substance." Hence quality, not quantity. ttonyb (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Adams has been published in over 50 different literary reviews/journals; does this support notability? And if so, what would be the best way to cite this in the article? (and I apologize for my unfounded comment about quantity-based opinions) Smilesplash (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- These do not necessarily support notability. What is required is to show some sort of impact, as demonstrated in any one of a number of ways: substantive write-ups about her, citations by others to her work, winning significant awards, substantial holding of her works by institutions, holding of a top post in academia, learned society, etc. I'm afraid there's no obvious evidence of any of these. Adams seems to be a very average (i.e. non-notable) academic. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. None of the impact indicators that we take as demonstrative of notability are here: no Gnews, no GS citations, very meager book holdings according to WorldCat (e.g. 12 for the Glorieta Pass, 3 for Everyday Still life, 3 for In the Shadow of the Mountain, 1 each for her 2 theses). This is pretty clear case of having much output, but little impact – the latter being what is required for "notability" under WP:PROF#1. Uncontroversial delete. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete Hmm. It seems the impact of her work may be too local and/or undocumented currently, despite her widespread published poems. I concede. But I shall save a copy of this article in case her writing gains more prominence in the future. Thank you, everyone, for your input and faithful adherence to Wikipedia's standards. Though, I must admit, I don't have the heart to be the one who pulls the plug on this article. Please make it quick and painless ;) Smilesplash (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can be restored for merging or userfied for improvement. Sandstein 19:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hindu and Buddhist heritage of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am nominating this article for deletion because it is basically a duplication of the purpose, scope and work of Hinduism in Pakistan and Buddhism in Pakistan, as well as Culture of Pakistan and History of Pakistan. There is hardly any distinguished content that justifies this article on its own. Shiva (Visnu) 08:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes After approximately one year, the content is still poor and undeveloped, not establishing the need for this particular article as opposed to the already existing main articles. In additoin,
- "Tangible and intangible heritage" - an observation about the existence of heritage and artifacts, and a quote from the Pakistani Foreign Ministry.
- The "Social and cultural influences" sub-section has no citations or references and offers a few random observations.
- "See also" and "Further reading" are redundant - links to other articles and a google book.
- "Antiquity" states that Hinduism originated in the areas now in Pakistan. No further information, or anything that actually builds a section. Shiva (Visnu) 08:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a POV fork of Hinduism in Pakistanm Buddhism in Pakistan, Culture of Pakistan, and History of Pakistan, per nominator. Carrite (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this article is redundant as per the nominator. However an article on Religious or Ethnic minorities in Pakistan would pass muster, but would require massive editing to be kept.Thisbites (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep or redirect content to appropriate articles - Article has a useful place in describing the Buddhist/Hindu history of Pakstian. However if it is kept, requires urgent copyediting, restructuring and notable citations from sources. As nominator already mentioned there are articles on related topics e.g. Hinduism in Pakistan and Buddhism in Pakistan.
I think article requires major sources to back up the information in the article. --Visik (Chinwag Podium) 07:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- @Visik: But how does the article have a "useful place" in a sense any different from the one that Hinduism in Pakistan/Buddhism in Pakistan already possess? What content matter would be exclusive to this article? Shiva, Lord Black Adder 16:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't think the time commitment needed in saving this would be justifiable given that it is redundant anyway. Kansan (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 William Fitzhugh. Wifione ....... Leave a message 11:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ann Bolling Randolph Fitzhugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BASIC. She has notable ancestors, brother and descendants, but she herself is not notable (WP:NOTINHERITED). GcSwRhIc (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to her husband, William Fitzhugh. There is nothing in the article to suggest that she was notable in herself, and Google Books doesn't come up with anything. --MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Melanie. There is almost nothing here but genealogical information. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Antony Wolfson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Musician not yet notable. GNews hits for "The singing policeman" seem to discover a different singing policeman, and searches for his name produce no relevant hits. Article in its current form is full of WP:WEASEL and is quite promotional, as well as having no references at all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as WP:SPAM, and as a person with no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Claims of charting are rather exaggerated as it was on SoundClick which is a social media site for music, and they are not a recognized music chart. None of the vague claims in the article can be sourced to a reliable source, as there is simply no reliable sources writing about him that I am able to find. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The City of London Police does indeed have a singing policeman called Antony Wolfson who has launched a single called So Do I which will be on worldwide release from 6 June 2011. This can be verified by Plaza Records www.plazarecords.net who is run by Roberto Danova. In addition he is being covered by the Jewish Chronicle and has had articles in the national newspaper. This can be verified by Robyn at the Jewish Chronicle. An iTunes search shows he has an album available to purchase. He has been working with the national corporate comms team at Victim Support and Claudine Piggott in the national office can be contacted to verify. Interest has been shown by BBC Radio 2, and Smooth FM in Antony Wolfson. He has recently broadcasted on Jnet radio to an estimated 2M listeners worldwide. Jnet Radio presenter Mike Segal at www.jnetradio.com can verify this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.45.109 (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A google search for Antony Wolfson shows the following links which verify:
http://www.policereview.com/news/funnies/antony-wolfson-0 http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/About/CharityEvents/anthonywolfson.htm http://www.victimsupport.com/About%20us/News/2011/03/London%20musical%20cabaret http://www.jeneration.org/component/option,com_eventlist/Itemid,60/did,2846/func,details/ http://youandus.theus.org.uk/features-and-fun/sport-and-leisure/borehamwood-and-elstree-shul-purim-extravaganza-friday-18th-sunday-20th-march/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.45.109 (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Pretty spammy. Needs clean-up if retained, no opinion as to inclusion-worthiness. Carrite (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete reeks of self promotion and advertising, if he can be sourced properly keep but as it stands, delete.
- Weak Delete A policeman singing for charity might be notable but the article lacks the proper sources (the entire article is copied & pasted from the myspace page [37]) and it also fails WP:MUS. Nimuaq (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Whpq. Vanity article of a on-notable 'musician'. Keb25 (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- DeAnne Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Concern was: "Research for sources returns self populated blogs, social networking sites, and box-office sales. Awards are not confirmed. Sources do not meet criteria at WP:ENT. " The only ref on the page is the subject's own web site. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative keep Wouldn't a Barry Award satisfy notability? The award and the festival it takes place at are both notable, it is only given to one person, and includes a trophy and a cash payout. Her one other award (Sydney Comedy Festival - Time Out Best Newcomer), and the two other 'nominated' are weak, but the Barry Award would appear to put her just passed the bar. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem is, verifiability, not truth is our policy, and any of these awards needs proving through a very reliable source, such as a list of winners on the Barry Award website - a mention just somewhere else would't do. We still also need extensive news coverage about the subject. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Barry nomination and other citations have been added. Is this enough for the article to be kept? 19:52, 20 April 2011 (AEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaphase27 (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per citations added for the awards. A little research and adding of sources might have prevented an unneccessary AFD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nik and Sam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested speedy. I did some research on this group and notability looks plausible so I'm going to put it here to get more input. –BuickCenturyDriver 17:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I spent about 5 minutes and found plenty of coverage in reliable sources, added some of it. Add the word 'music' (outside of the quoted "Nik and Sam") to the search above and you can find coverage easier. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And yes, the tone was terrible. I cleaned up a little, but it still needs more work. Those are issues of editing, not of notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.111.111.46 (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Parodies of Harry Potter#UK television. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Harry Potter and the Secret Chamberpot of Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not finding any reviews for this. There is no reception in the article and efforts to find anything outside of torrent sites seem futile. « ₣M₣ » 20:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep & Comment - I made the article, I made it as I believed it to be notable as a parody of Harry Potter. I would also like to point out the existence of the Spider-Plant Man article, also a Comic Relief sketch which is similar to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilgidgit (talk • contribs)
- Keep - there are plenty of parodies of Harry Potter around. Should be listed on Parodies of Harry Potter ... Whiteguru (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: So far the keep arguments sound like "other stuff exists." The problem with this article (and Spider-Plant Man and so many others like them) is that they are unreferenced. Wikipedia is not for plot-only descriptions of fictional works (see WP:PLOT). If this sketch is notable, the author is obligated to find commentary in reliable sources. The article needs to be supported by more than links to fan sites. -MrFizyx (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per MrFizyx; lack of sources and it's virtually all plot. Sergecross73 msg me 17:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per the keep comment, yes, it could go to Parodies of Harry Potter, but doesn't need a separate article. CycloneGU (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Parodies of Harry Potter#UK television where this parody is already discussed. If reliable sources turn up later, the article can be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete' - Independent notability not established, appears to be a one time performance. As pointed out above the fact that there are similar articles is not a reason to include this one as much as to take a look at the others for notability as well.SeaphotoTalk 01:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect any noteworthy, referenced content (not much here at present) to Parodies of Harry Potter#UK television. Bob talk 10:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, is there any noteworthy, referenced content at present? Where is the evidence to suggest there would be later? -MrFizyx (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there isn't much, is there? The implication was just to redirect it, really. Bob talk 23:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.