- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Moira House Girls School
The result was RESULT--SPEEDY KEEP per #1--nominator withdrawl . This is a Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure as articles eligible for Speedy Keep are eligible for non-admin closure. Johnsemlak (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Moira House Girls School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Partly copyvio (a.o. from http://www.moirahouse.co.uk/catering.asp and http://www.moirahouse.co.uk/contact-details.asp), Phrases like "our girls also" points to at least a Conflict of Interest or even self-promotion. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This school educates girls through age 18 and therefore qualifies as a secondary school. Long standing consensus described at WP:OUTCOMES and WP:HIGHSCHOOL is that secondary schools are presumed to be notable unless there is strong evidence that one isn't. This one is discussed in reliable sources. The solution to the problems of this article is normal editing rather than deletion. Nominator is invited to remove and/or rewrite copyvio material and rewrite to achieve the neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have axed the copyvio material and rewritten a couple pieces to improve it. The article is in much better shape after this. Keep. Raymie (t • c) 04:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:HIGHSCHOOL. Whether copyvio, COI, or an advert, a high school can easily be rewritten or reduced to a stub to remove the policy infringements. Will be listing this article for attention at WP:WPSCH. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it is a secondary school. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 08:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request (as filer) copyvio en style is fixed now. No reason for deletion. Please close this AfD as keep. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 11:53, 8 July 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. v/r - TP 22:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chamana Atha Guntha
- Chamana Atha Guntha (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 movie. No third-party RS's. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 23:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that article was moved today. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 23:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Only sources are IMDB and a primary source. We'll have to do better than this. —SW— prattle 17:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fails notability per WP:MOVIE. The sources only attests that it exists with no claim notability.--Michaela den (talk) 09:04, 14 July 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. v/r - TP 22:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carlos Fierro
- Carlos Fierro (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 Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing any reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 23:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Has not debuted in a first team, it fails as notable. GoPurple'nGold24 18:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 23:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I concur with the previous editors. Digirami (talk) 05:29, 11 July 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. v/r - TP 22:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kris Gate
- Kris Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Footballer (still) fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media covergae beyond the odd WP:NTEMP stuff. --Jimbo[online] 22:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo[online] 22:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG (due to lack of "significant coverage") and WP:NFOOTBALL (as he hasn't played in a fully-professional league. GiantSnowman 23:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No professional matches, no significant coverage, does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Deserter1 13:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 23:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. per nom. Warburton1368 (talk) 22:09, 9 July 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 per WP:G7 after author blanked page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We Own The Night (Selena Gomez & The Scene song)
- We Own The Night (Selena Gomez & The Scene 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)
Fails WP:NSONG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:15, 7 July 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. v/r - TP 22:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Daqing East Railway Station
- Daqing East Railway Station (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 sources available JeanValJean redux (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of enough sources. On Google, there weren't any results, but on Yahoo, I found a ChinaTravel guide link and I found a MSNBC article mentioning "a railway station in the east side of Daqing" which doesn't specify if this is the one. SwisterTwister talk 21:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless both sources and useful content can be found. Even if sources are found, the article is currently below the level for even a useful stub. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:09, 8 July 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. v/r - TP 21:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Walter Dewitte
- Walter Dewitte (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 is an unsourced BLP and I have been unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to add to article even though it is likely accurate based on the results of this Google Scholar search. My main concern is notability, does his requirement warrent a standone article? I don't think so. J04n(talk page) 20:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of notable mentions. I went through two pages of Google and Yahoo searches and I never saw anything notable mentioning him. SwisterTwister talk 21:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWhat I can find are either false hits or trivial mentions. Edward321 (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof#C1 with GS cites of 334, 228, 224, 88, 76... h index = 18. Nominator should read, mark, learn and inwardly digest WP:Prof before making further nominations of academics. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Weak delete. I think this is one of those cases where relying only on h-index is not a good idea. Dewitte works in a field with fairly high publication speeds and citation rates. For such a field the h-index of 18 is pretty good but is not yet, IMO, in the region establishing unquestionable notability. Most of his papers with high citations in GoogleScholar are papers with a significant number of co-authors. The one exception appears to be this paper[1] with James Murray, who according to the article's text, was his supervisor at Cambridge (the article says "He carried out this work at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom under the guidance of Professor Jim Murray"). In such cases I try to look for some secondary indicators of notability - such as giving plenary talks at important conferences, getting substantial grants, awards, journal editorships etc. I just could not find any of that here, not even significant evidence of giving invited hour talks. His position at Cardiff as "Senior Research Associate" appears to be a non-permanent position to me, presumably funded by some-one's grant. I could not find his CV or information about his educational background (e.g. when and where he received his PhD). Under such circumstances I do not think that the citability data in googlescholar carries enough weight to pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even though he appears to pass WP:PROF#C1, the criterion also states that it has to be "substantiated through reliable sources", meaning more than one independent reference. Also the Citation metrics section states that "Measures of citability such as H-index, G-index, etc, may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with considerable caution". Hence I am a bit reluctant to agree on a clear pass based sololy on one not entirely reliable source, and also there are no further significant claims of anything notable, eg awards, invited conference papers, prestigious grants etc. It would help if his high citation index can be referenced in the article and clearly stating the resulting impact of it not just in number terms. As the article stands now, it needs more sources, as it fails WP:N with no claims of notability that are supported by mulitple independent references. --Michaela den (talk) 10:08, 14 July 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. v/r - TP 21:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kashif Naveed
- Kashif Naveed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
autobiography of non notable business person with no reliable references TeapotgeorgeTalk 20:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability is neither asserted nor shown in the article. Searching for sources keeps bringing up a cricketer of the same name who might be notable but this Kashif Naveed doesn't appear to be. Edward321 (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unable to locate sources for person with this name other than a cricket player. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of notable coverage. I didn't see any good sources on both Google and Yahoo searches, SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fails notability per WP:BASIC with no significant claims of notability that are supported by mulitple independent references. The award might help but it is not supported per WP:VERIFY hence it needs more sources.--Michaela den (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Deb (talk) 11:56, 14 July 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 - a unanimous verdict, except for the nominator. A well sourced list with a reasonably clear inclusion criterion. Not a snowball's chance of a deletion consensus developing in the next 24 hours. Non-admin closure. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of bow tie wearers
- List of bow tie wearers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely trivial. Category:Lists of people by activity does not have any other articles related to an article of clothing (the only other possibility is List of drag queens, but that is a much more involved activity and the persons there are famous for that activity--Winston Churchill is not known for being someone who wore a bowtie.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Because Bowties. Are. Cool. Now that I've gotten the Doctor Who reference out of the way, the list is competently sourced. Criteria for inclusion is specific, and wearing a bowtie is considered a distinguishing characteristic for a person, thus allowing this to pass WP:LIST. It might be silly, but its a silly topic that gets attention in reliable sources, and being silly is not the same thing as being non-encyclopedic. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Several of the sources are just pictures on Wikimedia's servers--that's not proper sourcing. And many of the other sources simply depict the person in question with a bowtie rather than claiming that it's a defining feature of that person's public life. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Several of the sources being flawed is hardly a damning flaw in a list. There's currently 155 sources listed in the article, and the majority of them are independant and reliable sources. Remove the entries for which the sourcing are flawed, and we're still left with a viable, policy compliant list. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Rather than remove those sources, examine why they're linked as Wikipedia images, rather than from the original source. If you read the article that accompanied the original image, you'll find that the text makes reference to the wearer's habitual wearing, customary wearing, .... There are many notable folk who occasionally wear a bowtie that are not listed. You're welcome not to like the article; make specific complaints about specific references or list members, and we'll address (and almost always fix) them, or remove them from the list. Destroying the entirety of the list because of a minor, remediable fault is unencyclopedic. htom (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't think anybody ever attained fame just for wearing a bow tie. However, there are people who are notable and who are commonly associated with wearing a bow tie (such as Paul Simon (politician)). Those are the people this article is supposed to be about, and I believe that the article is largely achieving that (as opposed to listing non-notable bow-tie wearers, or notable people who have worn bow ties only on limited occasions). This may be an unusual topic for an encyclopedia, but I don't think it's problematic to have this page here, particularly given that the sourcing is decent. (I have worked on this article in the past, but not since 2008.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nomination is clearly false. For example, "Sir Winston Churchill has a well known penchant for bow ties" in the journal of the American Bar Association. Warden (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A pointless list that is very well referenced and nicely wikified. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 00:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep An example of how a list article should be done—well-referenced, nicely laid out and structured. Of course Churchill and the other people on this list are not famous because they often wore bow-ties—it's not supposed to be a list of everyone on the planet who wears bow-ties—it's a manageable list of people famous for other more important reasons who are noted to frequently wear what is a fairly distinctive item of clothing. --Canley (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for reasons I gave at AfDs 2, 3, and 4. --Orlady (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per WP:BURO. It is a whimsical but well done article that helps make Wikipedia fun. Greg L (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for its value to the pop-culture compendium. Encyclopedic value near zero, but that's not all that Wikipedia represents to users and we shouldn't forget that.
But really, how can anyone take this list seriously if the extremely influential bow-tie wearer Louis Farakhan isn't included? Yikes.Carrite (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge: list could use some improvement and context. Comprehensiveness should not be a goal. But a fix should not resemble deletion. Gillicutties (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Bowtie? I guess that would be possible. Actually might be a good idea since the image of the bowtie is more important that its substance. Wolfview (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep By WP:Ignore all rules. Lists (like other topics) are not supposed to be originated here, by WP:No original research. I just voted to delete one on that basis. However, call me inconsistent, this one expands human understanding and does not violate WP:Living persons by defaming individuals. Rather it uplifts our spirits by celebrating them. Perhaps not quite enough to make me go buy a bowtie however. Wolfview (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Wow, what a fun article. I thought it was going to be silly, based on the title -- and it is. But this is both intellectually rigorous, and also the kind of thing that makes an encyclopedia a delight for readers. Wxidea (talk) 04:39, 11 July 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. v/r - TP 21:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Media's influence on eating disorders
- Media's influence on eating disorders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lengthy dissertation, apparent synthesis from sources. The first edit includes virtually the entirety of the article, and it is the user's one and only edit. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--seems like more of an essay than an encyclopedia article, and basically nothing links here. Meelar (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Similar article was created and prodded back in November 2010. Raymie (t • c) 02:29, 8 July 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. v/r - TP 21:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara Kanam
- Barbara Kanam (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 can't find any coverage, no real improvement on the article to fix the concerns. Of the three references are two youtube and myspace. This article seems to be selfwritten or at least COI (User: Bab-a-lot) mabdul 20:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--according to World Music Central, she won a Kora Award (I've added this reference to the article). That alone is more than enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC #8 ("Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award"). The sourcing is tough on this one, especially because I don't speak French, but she's clearly notable, especially in conjunction with the Abidjan TV reference in the article. Meelar (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- she's been recognized by the United Nations headquartered in Abidjan, Ivory Coast Bab-a-lot (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - In addition to the award noted above, there is also coverage about her: [2], [3]. -- Whpq (talk) 15:33, 11 July 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 - unanimity that this group fails WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Order of Thelemic Knights
- Order of Thelemic Knights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Referenced solely to the charity's own website. I can't find any independent references in reliable sources. Unsure of how national this organisation is either. Appears to fail WP:ORG Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nominator. I have not found any independent sources. Edward321 (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 19:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I am unable to find any coverage in reliable sources that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fails notability per WP:N with no claims of notability that are supported by mulitple independent references. It needs more secondary and tertiary sources as those listed are WP:PRIMARY.--Michaela den (talk) 10:49, 14 July 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.
I call redirect to Riding shotgun. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calling shotgun
- Calling shotgun (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 can find no reliable sources which establish the notability of this game, so it appears to fail WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The last time I edited this article, I changed it to redirect here. I think that's still the best solution: redirect to riding shotgun. Philwelch (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to riding shotgun. That article is in pretty decent shape, and this is an alternate way of saying it. Meelar (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Riding shotgun, a similar article with references. WWGB (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect a bunch of unsourced or original research claimsCurb Chain (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it This article is a lot more entertaining (and specific) than the other one, they are both organized and appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.125.144.131 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or delete per Curb Chain - there are no sources to merge, and "it's a lot more entertaining" is not a good reason to keep it separate. Bearian (talk) 23:45, 11 July 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. v/r - TP 21:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Formal abstraction
- Formal abstraction (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 had nominated this for speedy delete for copyvio. The offending text was removed and the speedy delete tag was removed leaving this mess. This is unsourced original research and is no longer even a complete article (not that it was good to begin with). If anything in this is worth keeping it can merged elsewhere. This is a theory by one art historian with little apparent traction elsewhere freshacconci talktalk 19:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 19:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks like an unnecessary, and redundant hypothesis and violation of WP:OR...Modernist (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced original research. Edward321 (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If the article does not appear to make much sense, that is also because a large part, including the introduction, was removed in one fell swoop as being a copyvio. While the article as it is (and was) is solely based on (an interpretation of) the views of one single art historian, the concept of "formal abstraction" in classifying abstract art did not originate with him and is not totally non-notable; see e.g. here and here. As such it might conceivably be the subject of a section in our article on Abstract art, or, like Geometric abstraction, even have its own article. However, the contents of the present article cannot be salvaged. --Lambiam 08:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If Formal abstraction has a definition I think it should be added to the Abstract art article. But after reading the Formal abstraction article, I still don't know what that definition is. I find any explanation given thus far incomprehensible to me at least. Bus stop (talk) 11:19, 10 July 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.
Islamic Banking and Finance Database
The result was Speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G4 (re-creation of a page deleted after discussion). - Fayenatic (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Islamic Banking and Finance Database (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Re-creation of deleted article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Database for Islamic Banking and Finance. Still does not demonstrate notability. Fayenatic (talk) 18:51, 7 July 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. v/r - TP 21:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Little G. Weevil
- Little G. Weevil (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 blues musician originally from Hungary, but now lives in Atlanta Georgia. Has one self-released album, Southern Experience. Article states he released another album with his band in 2004. It was released by D&B records in Europe, but cannot find much info on the label except that it was independent label. "Apple Picker Music" is his self-developed style, self-published record label and an editor who has been editing the article. Bgwhite (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This article in the Anniston Star looks to be an interview of him. Aside from that, all I can find are concert listings. That's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fails notability per WP:MUSICBIO. It would help to have the above mentioned interview added to the article but I presumed that it will only attests that he exists and is a blues musician, because further reading requires log in. Hence it still fails notability per WP:N with no claims of notability that are supported by mulitple independent references.--Michaela den (talk) 10:58, 14 July 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. v/r - TP 21:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kent Jude Bernard
- Kent Jude Bernard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be a notable actor, small roles in major films, no sources outside of IMDB. Daniel 16:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of other reliable sources. I didn't get any hits on Google or Yahoo, except mirror websites and a MySpace page. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 July 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, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fails notability per WP:NACTOR with no claims of notability, except for minor roles in a few movies, that are supported by mulitple independent references.--Michaela den (talk) 11:04, 14 July 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, Oricon source demonstrates chart success. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Miss You (M-flo song)
- Miss You (M-flo 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)
Fails WP:NSONG. No evidence that song charted. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of independent coverage of the single. Also, WP:NPOV for inclusion of that "fresh" qualifier on the artist...(this has since been fixed)I Jethrobot (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Keep there is an independent cover of the single. here. And It had 8th rank in oricon, which is the famous japanese music ranking organisation. I have added them and provided reliable references in the article, please check--Coekon (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 03:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source that references its ranking as 8th place on oricon?. (Sorry, I just checked the oricon source on the website). Also, I'm not sure this is an independent cover in the true sense, as the album's artist is clearly credited as m-flo, and the "cover" is credited to m-flo first and then to Yamamoto Ryohei (山本領平). So it'd be more accurate to say that the song was redone by m-flo with Yamamoto than to say it is a cover. I Jethrobot (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Yes, I have. here. This is the Oricon website and you can see(過去最高 8位). That means it was 8th most popular in Oricon Chart, If you know the japanese.--Coekon (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the cover, you can find it from the offical web, amazon and oricon. I have confident it is the cover of this single. Oricon is reliable external reference for this single. --Coekon (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I understand the rankings (I can read Japanese-- 日本語が読められます). But, I'm even more confused about this issue about the cover. There only appears to be one song. Sure, there is the Instrumental and the vocal versions, but those aren't covers because those are still by m-flo. Miss You wasn't covered by another artist at all. The only version is the one by m-flo with Melody and Yamamoto. I Jethrobot (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You can read japanese( that's cool easy for me to explain). let's assume the oricon is a reliable independent reference. In oricon web you can see:
- 作詞 m-flo
- 作詞 melody.
- 作詞 山本領平
- 作曲 m-flo
- 作曲 melody.
- 作曲 山本領平
- That means this single was created by m-flo, melody. and 山本領平. The single's cover contains these artists.--Coekon (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe we are thinking about different things. I agree that there are several artists on the single. However, these artists are performing Miss You together for the very first time. A cover version of a song is new performance or rerecording of a commercially released song (also see カバー). Even though they are all artists of the first performance Miss You, that doesn't mean Miss You is a cover version.
- In any case, I think we are getting a little off-topic. I think you've demonstrated chart notability well enough using the oricon rankings above. Good job. Changing my vote to a Keep. I Jethrobot (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You can read japanese( that's cool easy for me to explain). let's assume the oricon is a reliable independent reference. In oricon web you can see:
- Okay, I understand the rankings (I can read Japanese-- 日本語が読められます). But, I'm even more confused about this issue about the cover. There only appears to be one song. Sure, there is the Instrumental and the vocal versions, but those aren't covers because those are still by m-flo. Miss You wasn't covered by another artist at all. The only version is the one by m-flo with Melody and Yamamoto. I Jethrobot (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you--Coekon (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Moscowconnection (talk) 03:14, 26 June 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) 00:37, 30 June 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, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:21, 7 July 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. v/r - TP 21:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Theatrhythm Final Fantasy
- Theatrhythm Final Fantasy (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 evidence of notability of this future release, also per WP:CRYSTAL Mo ainm~Talk 18:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
*Delete (In its current state) As the article is written right now, it is only a product announcement and therefor fails WP:CRYSTAL. If more information would be added aside from the release date it would satisfy notability requirements. Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Time for an article if and when it attains some coverage beyond an announcement of intention to release it. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails notability test and WP:CRYSTAL. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails notability test. May change later. Jewishprincess (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is clearly notable; this can be verified by a simple Google search, showing up Andriasang, GamePro, Kotaku, Wired, Shacknews, Siliconera, MetroWNY, 1UP.com, Gamesetwatch, GameSpot, and Eurogamer. People are way too quick to delete things without fixing them. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply saying "This is clearly notable; this can be verified by a simple Google search", without telling us what suitable sources are found in that Google search, is not enough. I have searched on Google and failed to find reliable sources. If you have found reliable sources then please tell us where. Merely telling us that sources can be found, without specifying where, does not help us. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some to the article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 09:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of what you have added consists of links to blog posts. You have also added a smaller number of links to announcements on various game-fan sites of questionable solidity, many of which say little more than that there is an announcement that the game will appear, but nobody knows when. My favourite among the "references" you have added is this one, which just says that the trademark "Theatrhythm" has been registered in Europe and North America by a Japanese company, but that nothing is known about what it refers to. Scarcely powerful evidence of notability. All in all the "references" you have added look exactly like what you would have come up with if you had been determined to find references to show notability, and had just indiscriminately added links to the first few dozen Google hits you found. They do not look like the sort of thing that I would have produced if I had searched to try and find whether or not there was evidence of notability, and carefully checked each one to determine how valid it was before deciding whether it was suitable to use as a reference. Unfortunately none of the links you have provided go very far towards showing notability, and if after making some effort to search that is the best you have managed, then it encourages my doubts that there are suitable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All those links are reliable sources as determined by WP:VG. The source you mention only states that the trademark was made because that is what it is sourcing in the article. It is not trying to do anything else other then that. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As Blake here stated, the purpose of the link is to demonstrate the game's history, not the game's notability. Looking at the blog posts, Kotaku is identified as a reliable source for all articles in 2010 and later; Andriasang is run by Anoop Gantayat, a regular contributor to major video game websites such as IGN; of course, IGN itself; 1UP.com is also regarded as a reliable source. I mean, if you'd like more, I could also give you the links from Pocket Gamer, Digital Spy, Gamasutra, MCV, Nintendo World Report, and numerous others. Honestly, there is no case of crystal balling, there is plenty of coverage - in ways such as development and reception - and it's no longer a stub. It's silly to suggest deletion at this point. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 15:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of what you have added consists of links to blog posts. You have also added a smaller number of links to announcements on various game-fan sites of questionable solidity, many of which say little more than that there is an announcement that the game will appear, but nobody knows when. My favourite among the "references" you have added is this one, which just says that the trademark "Theatrhythm" has been registered in Europe and North America by a Japanese company, but that nothing is known about what it refers to. Scarcely powerful evidence of notability. All in all the "references" you have added look exactly like what you would have come up with if you had been determined to find references to show notability, and had just indiscriminately added links to the first few dozen Google hits you found. They do not look like the sort of thing that I would have produced if I had searched to try and find whether or not there was evidence of notability, and carefully checked each one to determine how valid it was before deciding whether it was suitable to use as a reference. Unfortunately none of the links you have provided go very far towards showing notability, and if after making some effort to search that is the best you have managed, then it encourages my doubts that there are suitable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some to the article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 09:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply saying "This is clearly notable; this can be verified by a simple Google search", without telling us what suitable sources are found in that Google search, is not enough. I have searched on Google and failed to find reliable sources. If you have found reliable sources then please tell us where. Merely telling us that sources can be found, without specifying where, does not help us. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A lot of sourced information has been added since it's nomination. Looks like another instance of people being too quick to delete because it's easier to nominate than put any work into the article... Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Hippie saves yet another article by finding many sources. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Which is good except they could use {{Cite web}} or similar so the article remains verifiable in the future (and looks better than a bunch of bare URLs), I cleaned up the first few but it’s easier just doing it when adding them and doesn't take long either. --sss333 (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per New Age Retro Hippie and Sergecross73. — Blue。 04:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the improvements to the articles. My initial delete !vote was because the article had no content other than an announcement of the game. Now that the content has been improved it should be kept. Ryan Vesey contribs 15:49, 14 July 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 speedily deleted per G3 by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sun on Sunday
- Sun on Sunday (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 non existent newspaper, purely speculative, the article is just a slightly edited version of News Of The World article BigTurnip (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like somebody has already deleted it. (BigTurnip (talk) 18:20, 7 July 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. v/r - TP 21:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ray Ray (Mindless Behavior)
- Ray Ray (Mindless Behavior) (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 references after a PROD tag was there for a while. No credible sources that indicate this person by himself is of notability to have his own page. I didn't even really find anything on him to begin with. An IP decided to remove it so instead of edit warring, I'll nominate it here. I'd recommend a merge to Mindless Behavior at the most, otherwise deletion. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable. Also unreferenced BLP; sticky PROD was removed. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fails notability per WP:MUSICBIO with no claims of notability that are supported by mulitple independent references--Michaela den (talk) 11:42, 14 July 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. v/r - TP 21:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
World Rally Radio
- World Rally Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously deleted for G11 but was restored by an admin that disagreed. Eeekster (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Some Internet-only broadcasters can be notable. World Rally Radio seems to be regarded as a reliable source by other reliable sources. This search shows Reuters quoting World Rally Radio, for example. Here is a report by Gulf Times saying "This year's Jordan Rally will be covered extensively by World Rally Radio for the first time and interviews and live reports will be transmitted around the ..." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A merge to World Rally Championship would be a possibility, but I think there are enough sources to establish individual notability. Prolog (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 10:57, 7 July 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, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:17, 7 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fakelaki
- Fakelaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:GNG. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 23:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line 06:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line 06:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Can't see any good reason to delete and nominator hasn't specified any reason except a subjective assessment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment:I don't know. It is a Greek jargon term. It could belong to a lexicon, a dictionary. But then .. a dictionary of which language? You can of course find it in a standard Greek dictionary (e.g. here), as you can find the corresponding Italian term, for example, bustarella. But it doesn't seem to be a notable phenomenon lets say "behind the term", described by the term, pertaining to Greeks in particular, as for example the mafia for Italians, in order to justify an encyclopedia entry. I think it is not an English term, in the sense that the mafia or the Yakuza are English terms, because there are not any reliable sources on the subject of "fakelaki" in English. At least I couldnt find any. The English language wikipedia entry seems to be Original--Vanakaris (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Vanakaris. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article is WP:OR. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 16:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If this is kept it should be moved to something like Corruption in Greece, because I can't find any evidence that the Greek name is commonly used in English. I would also add that the article as it stands doesn't seem to describe anything peculiar to Greece, but simply normal practice in much of the world. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and move whatever can be salvaged to bribery or a new article titled Corruption in Greece.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article well established in 3 other languages.--Kozuch (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Kozuch. Especially the German version is well referenced, proving the notability. The English article should be brought up to that standard. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:29, 7 July 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, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In line with principle thst if if somebody is looking for something, the should be able to find it on wikipedia. Jewishprincess (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Based on the sources (see Find sources above), this is a notable topic. --Lambiam 09:50, 8 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oriental Pacific Futures
- Oriental Pacific Futures (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:CORP. created by a single purpose editor and looks like an WP:ADVERT for the company. it really is just a small future brokerage company. 1 gnews hit [4]. and 3 small mentions in one of Malaysia's largest newspapers [5]. LibStar (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Delete per nomination, spam: a Malaysia based futures broker established in 2007 to capitalize on the rising demand for futures products in Malaysia and globally. The business is managed locally by capital market services experts and financially backed by Tianjin Julong, a leading China-based Group involved in oil palm planting, processing, trading and distribution. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 30 June 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, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. None of the references are independent authoritative sources but trade publications. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:18, 7 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PATH2RES
- PATH2RES (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Technical nomination. This article was PRODed by Crusio. The reason for PROD was: "Ephemeral project. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG." I think that the deletion needs more broader discussion. Beagel (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One of many European projects that exist for a few years and then disappear again. No evidence whatsoever that this meets WP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 1 July 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, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:14, 7 July 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 merge to European Geosciences Union. Spartaz Humbug! 03:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Geophysical Research Abstracts
- Geophysical Research Abstracts (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 journal. Only publishes the abstracts of one single scientific meeting. No inependent sources. Not listed in any selective major database. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Crusio (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. Coverage of this publication is localized to only one yearly conference for one specific society, and not an encyclopedic topic. It is lacking in coverage from independent reliable sources, does not have an impact factor, and is not indexed in any major databases. Therefore, this publication does not meet the criteria for WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with EGU. Also I have a hard time believing this isn't indexed in a major database. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you go by the title, yes, then you would expect it to be listed in some major databases. However, once you realize that this does not publish any articles/reviews, etc, but only abstracts, not being listed becomes understandable. In addition, the only abstracts published are from one single meeting. Concerning a "merge", I could see this as one line in the article on the EGU (something like "... and the abstracts are published as Geophysical Research Abstracts (ISSN XYZ)"). --Crusio (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with EGU Agree with Headbomb. This journal is unlikely to become notable as it only covers abstract of presentations (and posters) at a single conference. It can easily be mentioned or detailed on the page of the organization. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 16:58, 14 July 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 per nominator's withdrawal and rationale and no otstanding !votes for deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Detention Of The Dead
- Detention Of The Dead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a Chrystal ball. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 16:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I am withdrawing this nomination per WP:MOVIE. After re-reading that, and researching the movie online, I believe the subject just barely meets the relevant notability guideline. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 16:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant here. There are reliable sources confirming that the film is in post-production, there are interviews about the film, news about money it got from Michigan during the shooting, actors are somewhat notable, production company is (kinda) established. Pichpich (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a bunch, although I'm still not sure it should be kept. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 17:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL is not the most well-written policy, but like an event, a film should be notable and almost certain to take place. The film is covered by secondary sources, and films that start production are very likely to be released. Before the start of production, the chances are lower. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a bunch, although I'm still not sure it should be kept. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 17:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a notable topic; a search engine test shows coverage about the film's production. I have no doubt that coverage of the film's release will follow. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article should also be moved to Detention of the Dead per MOS:CAPS#Composition titles; prepositions (e.g., of) and articles (e.g., the) should not be capitalized. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:53, 8 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Camp Moshava (Wisconsin)
- Camp Moshava (Wisconsin) (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 non-trivial coverage in independent sources found. After a four-month grace period, no one with paper sources has come forward either. Danger (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of third-party sources. I didn't see any third-party sources that seemed notable on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability with no independent sources. Royalbroil 00:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Camp Moshava (Pennsylvania). They are both branchs of the same camp (see this Beni Akiva doc). As a "name brand" Camp Moshava is notable having been around for over 80 years. I don't think that the individual camps are notable and the resultant individual articles read to me as ad copy. Joe407 (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's significant independent coverage of the "Camp Moshava phenomenon" (if you will) as a whole, then it makes sense to merge to a central page Camp Moshava, but if no such coverage exists than it seems pointless. Danger (talk) 04:52, 11 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Praydon Darmoo
- Praydon Darmoo (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 removed the {{db-g10}}
template as it is reliably sourced. However, it appears to fail WP:BLP1E, so I am nominating it for deletion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy dDelete -per A7 (and yes I do understand the speedy deletion criteria, thank you).Per WP:BLP1E (not an A7 after recent minor additions) ukexpat (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was not able to find coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources . I don't see how WP:BLP1E applies, because a variety of claims of notability are made. It's the lack of high quality sources that made up my mind. Cullen328 (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Alternate spelling of "Praidon Darmoo" gets a few more hits. Location (talk) 02:17, 13 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alex Billington
- Alex Billington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously deleted via PROD, and recreated by the same editor. This article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - original PROD rationale still applies. He fails WP:GNG, and since he hasn't played in a fully pro league, he fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 18:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 8 July 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 (WP:NAC). JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 18:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of Courage the Cowardly Dog episodes
- List of Courage the Cowardly Dog episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Some concern have been raised by Paper Luigi:
“ | The date has just been changed again in the article to July. According to TV.com, it aired on April 30, and according to Wikipedians, it aired on either December 31 or July 2. Well, I wasn't watching the cartoon when it first premiered, so I have no clue which date is correct. | ” |
And from Knowledgekid87's comments at Talk:List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes:
“ | This problem is not new (see above) and has been ongoing, with random IP's adding the unsourced original aitdates anywhere from 2001 to 2010. The problem is that unless you have a good source like the one you found, all the other sources say 3 to 4 diffrent things. | ” |
The problem is sourcing. I have a feeling that a list of episodes fail WP:V similar to The Powerpuff Girls episodes. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 16:10, 7 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Press Thornton Future Masters
- The Press Thornton Future Masters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Kids' golf tournaments are generally not notable. The article does have some legitimate sources, but they don't establish the notability of the tournament. Three of the references are primary sources (futuremastersgolf.com and dothancountryclub.com), one is purely a stats page on worldgolf.com, and the other two are routine coverage in very local sources (The Dothan Eagle and Dothan First; Dothan is the town in which the tournament is located). Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. —SW— express 15:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Junior golf event with only local coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 11 July 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 speedily deleted per G11 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Crystals and co.
- Crystals and co. (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 company. Author removed the PROD. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 15:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been speedied, so this can be closed. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, could not find any examples of the news coverage the article claims, and will be blocking author regardless of outcome here. Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 7 July 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 15:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Lakes Hotel Rosebery siege
- The Lakes Hotel Rosebery siege (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Maybe this is a test case; I have not been involved in a notability case of this kind before. This strikes me as a non-notable event. No one died, and while there was (of course) plenty of media coverage, I do not see how this is an important event of some endurance outside of the people directly involved. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:N/CA. Also breaches WP:BLPNAME by naming people not found guilty. WWGB (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP. Orderinchaos 10:11, 8 July 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. joe deckertalk to me 15:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Salvage anthropology
- Salvage anthropology (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 reliable sources JeanValJean redux (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are plenty of reliable sources, three of which are currently cited in the article (I added two of them). It took me only a couple of minutes searching to find far more than enough reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. I found some promising sources on Google scholar. [6][7][8][9] Qrsdogg (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per sources found by Qrsdogg. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 7 July 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. joe deckertalk to me 15:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
VKG Elektrivõrgud
- VKG Elektrivõrgud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Maybe important or notable enough, but most of the article is written by an editor with the same name as the webaddress of the company. At least there is a Conflict of Interest, if not clear self-promotion. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Provisional keep if we can find sources that back up this second-largest-electricity-distribution-company-in-Estonia thing (although to be honest it sort of reminds me of some airline's radio ad years ago making fun of other airlines' ads ... one such spoof had this regal brass fanfare-like music playing with a narrator intoning: "We're the sixth largest carrier in the northwestern free world. The world is ours. The sky is ours.You are ours."). COI will not be a further problem as I have blocked the account indefinitely for username violations. Daniel Case (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Estonia is a very small country in population terms. Being second largest electricity distribution company in the country still only gets it a claimed 35,000 customers. The question will almost certainly be whether it has sufficient local notability. --AJHingston (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are enough reliable sources to establish notability (e.g. Google News gives 35 archive search results and 3 recenet news result without PR releases. There are even more results if the forms of company's former name are included). Although one may say that larger companies are more important, the notability guidelines does not list the size as inclusion criteria. Also, WP:COI is not a valid reason for deletion if notability criteria is fulfilled, and the COI issue is already solved. Beagel (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The refs supplied so far in the article tend to be directory listings or press-release items. A major utility in a country could be expected to have some news articles, at least in the language of its country, so there is a good likelihood more sources can be found if someone fluent in that language searches. WP:ORG provides no "inherent notability" for being "the second largest" or even "the largest" something in a small country. Yet the business is verified as being an important part of the energy infrastructure of the country. The COI problem raised by the nominator as his sole reason for deletion have been resolved. The nominator even said "Maybe important or notable enough.." which is no deletion argument at all in terms of notability. If deleted, it could be merged to the "Infrastructure" section of Economy of Estonia. Edison (talk) 19:40, 8 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Colin Frangicetto
- Colin Frangicetto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional article for a musician with little notability beyond the groups he is a member of. Article created by someone close to article subject, and article is being used to promote art projects unrelated to music (projects for which the subject has not yet gained notability). | Uncle Milty | talk | 14:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. This is a biography of a living person (see WP:BLP) and no independent reliable sources (see WP:RS) are cited. A quick look on Google shows that the only thing going for him is a PETA reference that he adopted a blind cat. A truly noble gesture but not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 00:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 8 July 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 am discarding many of the keep votes as they were not policy based. So being kept 3 years ago when our attitude to inclusion was very different is not policy based. Neither is pointing to other articles as having OR problems based on policy (see WP:WAX) and also keeping on the basis that some of the delete votes address cleanup is also not a policy based reason to keep and also fails to address the fundamental issue here. I'm reading a clear consensus that the sourcing here relates to the individual stories and that there is no overall overarching source. From a policy point of view that makes the article Original Research by Synthesis of unrelated sources and, since no-one has produced sources that discuss United States Journalism scandals, my view is that the policy based arguments are the delete ones referring to OR. Spartaz Humbug! 03:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
United States journalism scandals
- United States journalism scandals (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 seems to violate WP:No original research. At the top it says that it is for incidents that have been widely reported as scandals. I checked out some of the sources and in most cases they don't even use the word "scandal." So it seems like editors have added incidents based on their own opinions. BigJim707 (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I contributed to the article. I agree with the nominator's logic, however the last two AfD's decided to keep the article based mainly on "it's interesting and useful." I agree with that too. An encyclopedia is supposed to be educational and a person reading this will learn a lot about the history of journalism in the USA. I don't see any special harm being done by the article to individuals or otherwise. It ends up being somewhat balanced since both liberal and conservative leaning scandals (as well as others) are included. Borock (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Indeed most cases are not scandals but refer to hoaxes, lies, blunders or just unwanted stories. A namechange and/or split can solve this. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see the OR issue. Journalistic scandal has an accurate definition and this list is easily composed from reliable sources which cover the various incidents which meet the definition; the use of the word scandal here is actually secondary. Arsenikk (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I could point to lots of articles that are put together with OR. (One of my favorites is Flag desecration.) This one is better than most. I also contributed to it. I have to add that most of the incidents seem like about what I expect from the media, not all that scandalous. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's a 100% obvious 'delete' for me, for all the reasons I've given in the past. I've tried to both straight delete it and make it a simple list (ie an honest list) - but to no avail. My list work was deleted, and over the years I've wasted hours here keeping basic NPOV. Whenever I look away from it fills with POV. IT's a never-ending war of attrition, and always will be with a ultimately limitless 'article' like this. It's pretty-much only a serious article for people with their own 'scandals' to protect, and will never be deleted unless people start to actually read it - ie when serious people know it is here. At the moment, it's just here for Google - hence why the scandals must be portrayed in certain ways. The very word "scandal" is hardly a realistically encyclopedic term. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the reasoning of Arsenikk. If there are OR or miscategorisation (blunders, hoaxes, etc.) issues, we should just strip them out and keep the rest. tomasz. 01:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete What troubles me is that this article consists of scandals as defined by Wikipedia editors. It needs to be winnowed down to include only articles were a clear consensus of reliable sources indicates that a scandal indeed took place. It is not for us to say if a particular journalistic misdeed is a "scandal" or something of lesser magnitude. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Inclusion criteria is overly subjective. List of annoying people would have the same problem — according to whom? The result is an arbitrarily selected amalgam of pigs, goats, and elephants, presented as a Universal Menagerie of Animals. Carrite (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Request Please read the comments in light of policy, don't just count the votes, thanks. BigJim707 (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll second that. I for one am appalled that this article has survived repeat deletion attempts. It is so clearly OR as to be a "scandal," pardon the expression. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and at least two of the votes just about say: "It's against policy but keep it anyway." BigJim707 (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It also can be stubbified to include only instances in which reliable sources clearly indicate that a scandal has taken place. Jayson Blair is one. Most of the rest are questionable. I would add that since living people are involved in some of these entires, WP:BLP also applies. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and at least two of the votes just about say: "It's against policy but keep it anyway." BigJim707 (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll second that. I for one am appalled that this article has survived repeat deletion attempts. It is so clearly OR as to be a "scandal," pardon the expression. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Besides WP:Original research there is also WP:Living persons to consider, as was just mentioned. Right now lots of living people are named in the article as being involved in scandals without that being well-sourced in many cases. Wolfview (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I agree with comments that this suffers from non-thorough inclusion criteria; on the other hand, I think this is not really Original Research. These are little blurbs about scandals, which are well cited. This is not new analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea (talk • contribs) 04:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True, no new analysis, but we are calling each incident "scandals." That's not for us to say. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Some delete
Deletearguments are based on ways to improve the article andfrettingimplying that it won't get done. There is no deadline at Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 06:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I should follow up my vote, that I agree with Unscintillating, that the concept has potential. My initial response on seeing the article, especially with News of the World shut down, was that this is a good list of topics. After thinking about this more, I don't see a problem with this being an incomplete list of scandals. These are journalism scandals, many of which have a huge amount of press. This is not a secret or private set of scandals (e.g., scandals of local politicians). I change my vote/comment to keep. Wxidea (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unscintillating - that is a real misrepresentation. And I have personally spent hours of my life trying to keep pov out of here, so speak for yourself. The times I've tried to delete it people like yourself walk in, say "Improve! Improve!" then walk off never to be seen again - the scourge of Afd. This is nothing but a pov nest, and is not an article anyway - it's a list - and one that has no place on Wikipedia. The work in it you see form me is not genuine work as it is done under duress, and few people are willing to do such work. Why should they? The irony is that I always feel at Afd that I'd have been better off never touching it. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you agree that "Waiting to Explode", Dateline NBC (1992) is a "United States journalism scandal"? If not, then what words describe it? My point is to see if you will agree that there is at least one entry on this list that is acceptable under some title. It is an interesting point you make about drive-by inclusion !votes, because many AfD discussions are dominated by (IMO) drive-by deletion !votes and drive-by AfD nominations. I agree that I overgeneralized and I have redacted some text. ScottyBerg's point was, "It needs to be winnowed down to include only articles where a clear consensus of reliable sources indicates that a scandal indeed took place." If this is an issue, can someone start marking such with some tags? Or make a local one [scandalous?] I've added that tag to Downplaying Nazism, New York Times (1930s and 1940s) which might be media bias, but doesn't sound to be scandalous. I'd also consider changing the criteria that allows "alleged" scandals to be listed. Unscintillating (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't tell you how opposed I am to Wikipedia being a repository of 'everything'. It's totally against the principles I signed up to. You can make a case for including anything in this place no matter how untennable, and it happens every day. I loathe Afd because so often 'pieinthesky' decisions are made by people who generally have no intention of backing them up with actual work. The labour here will never end. If people thought of the sheer amount work involved maybe they could start to see some of my points here (see the old Afds). The various negative aspects will never stop creating problems - esp if the 'article' actually gets popular! This article saps and will sap people's time and strength (the few without a cause to champion) and is simply not a net benefit to Wikipedia. It's all problems with this one - and Wikipedia should NEVER EVER see itself as a having a 'duty' to rehash anything. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you agree that "Waiting to Explode", Dateline NBC (1992) is a "United States journalism scandal"? If not, then what words describe it? My point is to see if you will agree that there is at least one entry on this list that is acceptable under some title. It is an interesting point you make about drive-by inclusion !votes, because many AfD discussions are dominated by (IMO) drive-by deletion !votes and drive-by AfD nominations. I agree that I overgeneralized and I have redacted some text. ScottyBerg's point was, "It needs to be winnowed down to include only articles where a clear consensus of reliable sources indicates that a scandal indeed took place." If this is an issue, can someone start marking such with some tags? Or make a local one [scandalous?] I've added that tag to Downplaying Nazism, New York Times (1930s and 1940s) which might be media bias, but doesn't sound to be scandalous. I'd also consider changing the criteria that allows "alleged" scandals to be listed. Unscintillating (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDelete' The article is educational, as Borock said. However WP has policies, in this case WP:OR, which some editors care deeply about. Out of respect for their feelings I will vote to delete this article since it depends on original research in violation of WP's policies. I followed Unscintillating's lead and used his tag on some of the other items. Some text on the history of journalistic scandals in the US would also help, if the text was based on reliable sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah if you're a Moonie. I wonder why the change of heart? As for "educational" - anything and everything can be called that. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Cuz the article is heading towards "keep" or "no consensus" regardless of my vote, or indeed of any WP policy (most of which are either not understood by the majority here or else willfully ignored -- I can't tell which.) I will change to delete out of respect for your efforts. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah if you're a Moonie. I wonder why the change of heart? As for "educational" - anything and everything can be called that. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:41, 13 July 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. Courcelles 13:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brett Jones (English footballer)
- Brett Jones (English footballer) (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:ATHLETE. On trials with a pro team, but no indication that he might actually make the team. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unreferenced BLP, fails both WP:GNG (due to lack of "significant coverage") and WP:NFOOTBALL (as hasn't played in a fully-professional league). GiantSnowman 16:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Having never played in a fully pro league he fails WP:NSPORT. There is not enough coverage for him to pass WP:GNG, and this an unreferenced BLP to boot. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It should be noted that the creator's other page on Luke Allsop was deleted as a blatant hoax. It's likely this page was created in the same vein (i.e. a couple of kids just trying to get their names in Wikipedia by creating false articles about themselves). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A likely hoax. If not then he fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 23:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. None notable and seems a CIO/paid advert type article. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:17, 9 July 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bonfire Night
- Bonfire Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Page was originally a disambiguation page. The article content was controversially converted into an article with this edit by Nikkimaria. After discussion failed to produce any support for having an article instead of a disambiguation page (see Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation)), Nikkimaria moved the disambiguation page to Bonfire Night (disambiguation) and copied and pasted the article content back to this page. The reason for deletion is that there is nothing that unifies the events covered on this page other than that they coincidentally all feature the use of bonfires. Other than that coincidental feature, there is nothing that connects the events. In essence this page is nothing more than disambiguation in prose with additional content that either duplicates information at other article or is tangential (i.e., the criticism of the English Bonfire Night for the environmental impact). This article should be deleted and the disambiguation page returned to this page. older ≠ wiser 14:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- PS, I think it might also be acceptable to have this title Bonfire Night be a redirect to Guy Fawkes Night as the primary topic for the term with a hatnote from there to the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 14:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bkonrad is mischaracterizing the article's history and the discussion, which is to be expected given his partisan stance. In any event, Guy Fawkes Night is not the primary topic - Bonfire Night is, and the suggested redirect would be inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What I'm suggesting is that the current article should be deleted. If that is successful, then either the disambiguation page be moved to the title or it might also be redirected to Guy Fawkes Night, as there is a good case for that being the primary topic for the term. But that determination of primary topic need not be conflated with this, which is only concerned with whether the current article should be deleted. The current article is little more than disambiguation in prose with some duplicated and tangential content thrown in to make it look like more than what it is. older ≠ wiser 15:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bkonrad is mischaracterizing the article's history and the discussion, which is to be expected given his partisan stance. In any event, Guy Fawkes Night is not the primary topic - Bonfire Night is, and the suggested redirect would be inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Bonfire. These fires only seem to happen at night. Hence no difference between a bonfire and a bonfire night. And each notable yearly bonfire event can have its own page.BigJim707 (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As previously suggested, Bonfire Night could be moved to Bonfire Night (general celebrations) or similar. I think the idea of Bonfire Night redirecting to Guy Fawkes Night wouldn't be inappropriate. Alternatively, moving Guy Fawkes Night to Bonfire Night would mean the current contents of the latter could reasonably be included within the article text of the former. I recently replaced a number of inbound links pointing to Bonfire Night with Guy Fawkes Night (where appropriate). This is because I felt that it was unhelpful for users to click on Bonfire Night and end up at the general page, when Guy Fawkes Night is what was meant in the context of the referring article. For a handful of articles, the general page or the disambiguation page seem to remain appropriate. But the vast majority of inbound links were referring to Guy Fawkes Night. --Trevj (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Guy Fawkes Night is a featured article, so most certainly should not be moved without a discussion there. Furthermore, that page deals mostly with the historical Guy Fawkes Night, not the present-day Bonfire Night celebrations. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete after merging any useful facts into the various parent articles and then move Bonfire Night (disambiguation) back to Bonfire Night. See my comment on 29 March 2011 at Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation) for further details of why I think this the best solution. -- PBS (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article seems to be developing well, providing good information on the topic. There is scope for further development based on sources such as this which explains the evolution of the festival from Samhain - a celebration which long predates Guy Fawkes and in which bones were burnt - hence the name bonfire. The OED tells us that "on certain anniversaries, esp. on the eves of St. John and St. Peter (cf. French feu de la Saint-Jean, German Johannis feuer, and bale-fire n.). These were originally bone-fires in sense 1 (where cf. quot. 1493), and appear to have come down from heathen times.". There's perhaps a case for merger with bonfire but that will not be done by deletion. Warden (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge any material worth keeping into the appropriate articles. As I said at Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation) (which was previously Talk:Bonfire Night), there is no "general tradition of Bonfire Nights", so an article for such a general tradition is a non-event. There are several different traditions around the world which have bonfires in common, and that creates a need for a disambiguation page, but it does not justify an article about an imaginary subject. Per PBS, after the merge Bonfire Night (disambiguation) should be moved back to Bonfire Night. Moonraker (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete existing content in Bonfire Night. Merge that content (specifically JHunterJ's revision of 'Bonfire Night (disambiguation)' of 14:14, 21 June 2011, in order to preserve attribution per WP:CWW) into Bonfire#Celebratory bonfires. Other edits to the current Bonfire Night may require their histories merging. The current content cannot reasonably be considered to be the primary topic, evidenced by the previously highlighted number of inbound links related to Guy Fawkes Night. Therefore, the contents of Bonfire Night should either be the dab page itself or a redirect to Guy Fawkes Night. Additionally, the dab page could include a replacement of 'Bonfire Night, several traditions of bonfire celebrations' with 'The night of a celebratory bonfire' --Trevj (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read some of the further coments below, I propose that if Bonfire Night is redirected to Guy Fawkes Night, a {{Redirect}} hatnote should be included so the dab page can easily be reached for those not looking fot the UK term. WP:COMMONNAME means that Bonfire Night shouldn't necessarily hold the contents of Guy Fawkes Night for readers outside of the UK/Commonwealth. However, it would be interesting to know what US and Canadian people think we call our 5th Nov celebrations! How do we determine what is the common name elsewhere for celebrations specific to certain countries? --Trevj (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I'm Canadian and I thought you called it "Guy Fawkes Day". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - I think that's probably right (for the day itself), although my current diary doesn't even list it as a notable date. Anyway, we certainly don't say "Bonfire Day"! However, the nighttime celebrations are generally referred to as "Bonfire Night" here. These ESOL refs [10], [11] aren't consistent and this tourism site uses both terms. This French teaching site refers to 'GUY FAWKES' DAY - BONFIRE NIGHT'. Here are a couple of Find sources notices:
- 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
- A quick glance shows that former shows more UK refs than the latter. It would be interesting to analyse this further. --Trevj (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I'm Canadian and I thought you called it "Guy Fawkes Day". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read some of the further coments below, I propose that if Bonfire Night is redirected to Guy Fawkes Night, a {{Redirect}} hatnote should be included so the dab page can easily be reached for those not looking fot the UK term. WP:COMMONNAME means that Bonfire Night shouldn't necessarily hold the contents of Guy Fawkes Night for readers outside of the UK/Commonwealth. However, it would be interesting to know what US and Canadian people think we call our 5th Nov celebrations! How do we determine what is the common name elsewhere for celebrations specific to certain countries? --Trevj (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It would be entirely inappropriate to have this article redirect to Guy Fawkes Night, as that's just one of the annual Bonfire Night events around the world. Malleus Fatuorum 14:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, merge text at Bonfire#Celebratory bonfires into this article (retaining short article at Bonfire), adding {{main}} tags as necessary (linking to Guy Fawkes Night and others), and rename this article as Bonfire celebrations (with redirect from Bonfire Night). Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As a term, Bonfire Night as a celebratory festival is very well known in Britain, and a more widely recognised term than Guy Fawks Night in primary schools (eg: here, here, here and here). Therefore it is a distinctly notable term in its own right. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I see no problem with an article which attempts to explain the various Bonfire Night traditions, as celebrated in different cultures around the world. The article could stand to be improved, making clear that Bonfire Night is just a common term. There probably isn't a great deal to say about each tradition individually anyway. Parrot of Doom 16:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But there already are several articles about the different traditions!!!!! There is NOTHING in common between them other than the coincidental use of a bonfire. That it no basis for an encyclopedic article. older ≠ wiser 16:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, and they're mostly rubbish. Perhaps instead of proposing the deletion of articles you feel aren't necessary, you should bolster your case by improving the ones you think are? Parrot of Doom 17:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously you have a very different perspective on what is rubbish than most. Of the articles currently on Bonfire Night (disambiguation), there is only one that qualifies as rubbish and that is the one being discussed for deletion. Of the others, Guy Fawkes Night is a featured article. Samhain, St John's Eve, Eleventh Night, and Queen's Official Birthday all seem pretty decent. Perhaps instead of merely voting to keep rubbish that has no hope for being developed into an encyclopedic article, you might spend some time proving me wrong and actually improving it. older ≠ wiser 18:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only obvious thing here is that you don't really know what you're talking about. I have no desire to prove anything to anyone, I've already done more than enough on bonfire-related topics. Not that you'd know. Parrot of Doom 19:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You made a claim, and it's pretty obvious to most anyone who looks which articles are rubbish and which aren't. If you're not interested in proving me wrong about the lack of potential for this article, then perhaps you shouldn't be making spurious claims about the quality. older ≠ wiser 19:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't seem to be obvious to you. Do you really think that St John's Eve is "pretty decent"? Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At a glance, yes. Is it featured article (or even good article) quality, no. Could it benefit from some editing, of course. Is it "rubbish". Certainly not. older ≠ wiser 19:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The St John's Eve article I'm looking at is a stub that's been flagged as needing cleanup for almost three years. Which one are you looking at? Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a stub by any reasonable standard. Needing cleanup is not the same as "rubbish". older ≠ wiser 20:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The confusion is all yours; it's tagged as a stub and it is rubbish. Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One of us certainly is. There is no visible stub tag on St John's Eve. If you're talking about the rating on the talk page, that is distinct from the WP:Stub project. It is an illustration of the weakness of the project-specific talk page rating systems (i.e., most of the ratings are subjective and unreviewed). As for being rubbish, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion, though I think it is a pretty irrational standard. Rubbish is refuse to be ejected from the corpus of Wiktionary as unnacceptable. I read the article and learned something and even found it interesting. Could it be improved, of course. But once again, is it "rubbish"? Most definitely not. older ≠ wiser 20:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm puzzled as to how you can be quite so definitive, when the "pretty decent" article carries only a single citation. If your opinion is representative of Wikipedia as a whole (as you seem to imply above) then there really is no hope for this project. Parrot of Doom 20:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing puzzling at all. The article contains several external links, which while not reliable sources, were apparently used by the author as general references and do clearly indicate the notability of the subject. For the most part nothing in the article appears egregiously bad or erroneous. Of course, as I know nothing about the subject previously, I suppose it is possible that the article and the diverse web sites are some sort of elaborate fraud, but I doubt it. What is it specifically, other than the poor citation style, that you find objectionable about the article? older ≠ wiser 20:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be happy to point out to you exactly why that article is crap, but not here; this AfD is about Bonfire Night. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then perhaps you might elaborate on why you think this crap (which is essentially nothing but disambiguation in prose with some duplicated and tangential content thrown in) is worth keeping. There is no pan-cultural general concept of a "Bonfire Night" to be written about in an encylopedic manner, as far as I can tell. I've asked to be shown evidence to the contrary, but none has been forthcoming. older ≠ wiser 22:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be happy to point out to you exactly why that article is crap, but not here; this AfD is about Bonfire Night. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing puzzling at all. The article contains several external links, which while not reliable sources, were apparently used by the author as general references and do clearly indicate the notability of the subject. For the most part nothing in the article appears egregiously bad or erroneous. Of course, as I know nothing about the subject previously, I suppose it is possible that the article and the diverse web sites are some sort of elaborate fraud, but I doubt it. What is it specifically, other than the poor citation style, that you find objectionable about the article? older ≠ wiser 20:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm puzzled as to how you can be quite so definitive, when the "pretty decent" article carries only a single citation. If your opinion is representative of Wikipedia as a whole (as you seem to imply above) then there really is no hope for this project. Parrot of Doom 20:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One of us certainly is. There is no visible stub tag on St John's Eve. If you're talking about the rating on the talk page, that is distinct from the WP:Stub project. It is an illustration of the weakness of the project-specific talk page rating systems (i.e., most of the ratings are subjective and unreviewed). As for being rubbish, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion, though I think it is a pretty irrational standard. Rubbish is refuse to be ejected from the corpus of Wiktionary as unnacceptable. I read the article and learned something and even found it interesting. Could it be improved, of course. But once again, is it "rubbish"? Most definitely not. older ≠ wiser 20:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The confusion is all yours; it's tagged as a stub and it is rubbish. Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a stub by any reasonable standard. Needing cleanup is not the same as "rubbish". older ≠ wiser 20:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The St John's Eve article I'm looking at is a stub that's been flagged as needing cleanup for almost three years. Which one are you looking at? Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At a glance, yes. Is it featured article (or even good article) quality, no. Could it benefit from some editing, of course. Is it "rubbish". Certainly not. older ≠ wiser 19:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't seem to be obvious to you. Do you really think that St John's Eve is "pretty decent"? Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You made a claim, and it's pretty obvious to most anyone who looks which articles are rubbish and which aren't. If you're not interested in proving me wrong about the lack of potential for this article, then perhaps you shouldn't be making spurious claims about the quality. older ≠ wiser 19:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only obvious thing here is that you don't really know what you're talking about. I have no desire to prove anything to anyone, I've already done more than enough on bonfire-related topics. Not that you'd know. Parrot of Doom 19:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously you have a very different perspective on what is rubbish than most. Of the articles currently on Bonfire Night (disambiguation), there is only one that qualifies as rubbish and that is the one being discussed for deletion. Of the others, Guy Fawkes Night is a featured article. Samhain, St John's Eve, Eleventh Night, and Queen's Official Birthday all seem pretty decent. Perhaps instead of merely voting to keep rubbish that has no hope for being developed into an encyclopedic article, you might spend some time proving me wrong and actually improving it. older ≠ wiser 18:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is not appropriate to merge this subject with Guy Fawkes Night.(Hugh 22:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC))--Hugh 22:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - I don't see this as an article topic although individual celebrations should and do have their own article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - though this article is in need of further improvement (as are most on Wikipedia), it is a viable article in its own right. Content related to environmental and social concerns is common to these traditions and is certainly not "tangential", as was argued above. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bizzare. Pretty bizzare situation, this is a huge celebration in the UK but the proper content is at Guy Fawkes Night. Guy Fawkes Night is the much lesser used term for this celebration. This should definitely Not be deleted nor a disambiguation page. The content at Guy Fawkes Night should be moved to Bonfire Night. Szzuk (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Bonfire Night article could be improved but that isn't unusual. Links could be made to other bonfire celebrations. Should most definately not be merged with Guy Fawkes Night.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not merge? The first sentence of the Guy Fawkes Night article includes - also known as Bonfire Night. I'm sure many people who go to bonfire night don't even know who Guy Fawkes is. If you want the content kept fair enough, it could go somewhere else. However when someone types Bonfire Night into the search box they're expecting the Guy Fawkes Night article. Szzuk (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Readers from the UK might expect that, but not necessarily those from elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the UK bonfire night is bigger than halloween, its not really celebrated much elsewhere, in the british commonwealth a tiny bit. The click traffic is going to be 80% british looking for the guy fawkes night article, 10% non British looking for guy fawkes night article, 10% everything else. The guy fawkes night article has 400,000 views per year so there are a lot of click throughs which should be avoided. Szzuk (talk) 08:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Readers from the UK might expect that, but not necessarily those from elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not merge? The first sentence of the Guy Fawkes Night article includes - also known as Bonfire Night. I'm sure many people who go to bonfire night don't even know who Guy Fawkes is. If you want the content kept fair enough, it could go somewhere else. However when someone types Bonfire Night into the search box they're expecting the Guy Fawkes Night article. Szzuk (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It appears to be a notable social phenomena with potential for expansion. I'm unconvinced by arguments of the Merge and Delete !voters. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:05, 15 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Compagnie Bancaire Helvétique
- Compagnie Bancaire Helvétique (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 could not find significant coverage of the company by independent sources with a quick Google, and the article is not backed up by independent references. wctaiwan (talk) 13:39, 7 July 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 Switzerland-related deletion discussions.
- Delete per nomination. Saw nothing that looked like an independent source in the three Google News hits. Institutions like this are shy of publicity for all the best reasons. No showing that this business has had any sort of significant effect on history, culture, or technology. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 7 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Massoud Derhally
- Massoud Derhally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Autobiography of a journalist. No independent sources. Google shows articles written by him but I cannot find any independent sources about him. Reads like a CV. No improvement since last year. noq (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The sources in the article don't cut it. Most of them appear to be articles written by Derhally, not articles written about Derhally. The rest are WP:PRIMARY or not significant. —SW— comment 17:36, 11 July 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 Vice Verses. redirecting is the usual solution to these types of article so I'm going with the metaconsensus with this close. Spartaz Humbug! 03:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dark Horses
- Dark Horses (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 PROD. Prod reason was "Per WP:NSONGS, not yet released, not charted". Prod Decliner (article author) reasoned "it will definiteley chart. it is notable". Currently we have 3 references. One which is a Listing of when the single is supposed to come out, one that lists the band's setlist for a concert they did, and a final one that is an interview with one of the band members. Probably could stand to be redirected to the Vice Verses album as that already contains most of the content here. This article is not likely to expand beyond a stub and has minimal reliable sourcing. Hasteur (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Too early. Recreate the article after the song charts and gets significant coverage. To say that it will definitely chart is WP:CRYSTAL. —SW— spout 17:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Vice Verses, the parent album. For the time being, I'm not finding enough significant coverage for the song such that it meets WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Gongshow Talk 19:22, 11 July 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. Courcelles 13:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sokratis Tsoukalas
- Sokratis Tsoukalas (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 per WP:NFOOTY: has not yet played a professional match. Proposed deletion contested by creator with no edit summary. Gurt Posh (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Hasn't made any appearances and therefore doesn't meet any Wikipedia football criteria. However, I think that there is a case here that he meets WP:GNG because of his transfer from AEK in Greece to Palermo in Italy. There are quite a few articles on Greek and Italian Google that note his transfer and also his return to AEK not long after. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 00:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. Sokratis Tsoukalas is not a pro player, is just a member of a Greek athletic club, and is so non-notable, even the Greek, Hellenic-language Wikipedia has no article on this player (searching with either his Greek name, Σωκράτης Τσουκαλάς, and his English-spelled name, Sokratis Tsoukalas). Greg L (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails both WP:GNG (due to lack of "significant coverage") and WP:NFOOTBALL (as hasn't played in a fully-professional league). GiantSnowman 16:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there is no indication of significant coverage, meaning he fails WP:GNG, and he is yet to make his pro debut, so he also fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 23:59, 8 July 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 nomination withdrawn but will reopen if SW asks me to. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rainforest Partnership
- Rainforest Partnership (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:GROUP - cannot find any secondary coverage which could demonstrate notability. (Content had recently been expanded substantially but was promotional so I reverted). SmartSE (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not finding any significant coverage. —SW— chatter 17:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw nomination following secondary sources that have been added: [12] [13] [14] which in my opinion are enough to satisfy WP:GROUP (none of them showed up in google news though). SmartSE (talk) 18:48, 13 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gravitational induction
- Gravitational induction (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 novel physics concept, coined by the author of the article, citing his own self-published papers. It references other deleted topics created by the same author, such as strong gravitational constant and Lorentz-invariant theory of gravitation. Most of the significant statements in the article reference a paper found only on the author's personal website (ref 2.) – SJ + 11:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC) – SJ + 11:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator, at best leaving a single footnote in gravitomagnetism. – SJ + 11:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As Betsythedevine noted on the talk page: "this article seems to have many of the same problems noted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Strong_gravitational_constant_(2nd_nomination). That is, it seems to be expounding the content of some physics research papers written by the person who wrote this article, a conflict of interest problem. If there are respectably published secondary sources that discuss the ideas of Fedosin in this area, then those sources should be cited here -- if not, the topic fails WP:NOTABILITY."
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as poorly written OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete for the reasons suggested by the nominator. --Steve (talk) 01:18, 15 July 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. Courcelles 13:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of Ed, Edd n Eddy characters
- List of Ed, Edd n Eddy characters (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 list has completely has no references. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 09:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep no valid rationale for deletion from nominator. We do not delete articles for not having any/enough references. That is what the {{Unreferenced}} tag is for on the article. We delete articles if they do not meet the criteria for inclusion, particularly the notability guidelines which I think this may just meet. It could perhaps be merged into the main page but all in all, it needs some work on it, not deletion. Woody (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have serious doubt that no sources exist for these characters. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As others (above) has said, the articles are not deleted because they don't have references. The article does need some work, nothing un-fixable, just regular maintenance. IMDB usually has a substantial list of the cast, characters, crew. I don't think the article deserves deletion, it meets most of the Wiki standards from what i read. Dusty777 (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Tag it with an unref tag then. There is no valid reason for deletion. JJ98, please stop lising "List of (show on Turner animated property)" articles here for tenuous or shaky reasonings that don't meet AfD guidelines. Nate • (chatter) 23:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Primary sources can establish V for fictional elements, and since this list relies on notability of the parent show, notability is not an issue here. Per OUTCOMES, we merge trivial fictional character articles into lists just like this one... so, as has been said above, please tag it or fix it, but no one commenting here to date believes that this article cannot be made compliant with inclusion criteria through normal editing. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The list is an unnecessary split of Ed, Edd n Eddy, which has an article size of 21 KB, below the recommended article size to justify the split of unreferenced and plot-only content. As a stand-alone list, there is no evidence that the list meets the criteria of notability for stand-alone lists as the list topic has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Neither the list topic nor the individual characters meet the general notability guideline. Since the content of the list is a plot-only description of a fictional work, the list falls into what Wikipedia is not, so it is not acceptable per the criteria of appropriate topics for lists either. Without references, a great deal of the content is original research by synthesis and the article does not have verifiability, so I do not think that anything from the article is worth keeping. Jfgslo (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would call for at most a merge result, not deletion, given that the main article doesn't retain any of this list's content. We don't delete "unnecessary splits"; we unsplit them. The rest of your statements are not consistent with the demonstrated consensus for lists of this kind: AFDs for lists of TV series characters have been repeatedly closed as "keep" regardless of whether such lists could be viewed as "plot-only", and even if only primary sources are available that does not prevent them from being verifiable. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Jclemens, and if Jj98 keeps starting these inappropriate AFDs we will need to have another ANI discussion (though I don't think the first one was ever resolved). postdlf (talk) 15:28, 13 July 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. Courcelles 13:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hendrell D. Remus
- Hendrell D. Remus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Autobio of a new filmmaker. I declined a speedy on this as I considered the claim of an award was (just) enough to pass A7 and it should have more opinions. Searches find nothing but this article, Remus' own site and Facebook. I cannot actually find confirmation of the award - the Hollywood Film Festival site is confusing, but I see no mention there - but even allowing the award, the absence of independent sources means this fails the notability requirement. It certainly does not meet the standard of WP:CREATIVE. JohnCD (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was the speedy deleter {nominator}. This isn't notable since there's no sources when I checked before. Tbh, I'm questioning the mere existence of the individual in the industry. Maybe the author can provide us with some after receiving the notice. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Page was created by User:Hremus903, so would suggest a hoax (G3) with someone trying to get themselves on Wikipedia. No evidence of notability (A7), no Google hits for his alleged film Share My Shoes. This would seem to be made up to me. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note : The article was missing the AFD notice. I have added that and removed the blpprod template. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree, it looks like he fails WP:CREATIVE clearly. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Found nothing to establish notability. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:59, 9 July 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. Courcelles 13:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Local Kombat 29
- Local Kombat 29 (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:GNG. nothing in gnews. and all google comes up with is kickboxing sources which is not third party. having notable fighters is NOT enough to establish notability or strong keep, there needs to be indepth third party coverage, these articles are merely list of sporting results with no significant third party coverage. also nominating:
LibStar (talk) 08:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article lacks good sources and appears to just be routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not seeing the notability. Astudent0 (talk) 16:32, 11 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dubblehead
- Dubblehead (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:BAND. all I could find was passing mentions in coverage, nothing indepth. [15]. LibStar (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 10:53, 7 July 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. Courcelles 13:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
William Curry (geophysicist)
- William Curry (geophysicist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Potentially common name, but long-term unsourced BLP, some publication record that I can find but very few references in Gscholar, enough to make me think WP:PROF#1 doesn't have a hope of being met unless I'm missing the right papers. There's a climate-related scientist of the same name, but who appears to be a different person. No in-depth coverage I could find in reliable, independent sources. joe deckertalk to me 06:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Recent graduate (2008) with no particular big impact. Apparently no secondary RSes. Vanity page?TR 08:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: unable to find any coverage in reliable sources to verify the contents of this unsourced BLP. Even if fully sourced I do not believe that the subject's accomplishments would meet our notability requirements. A word of caution...searching "William Curry" geophysicist in Google news archive leads to several articles but apparently about a different individual. J04n(talk page) 14:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC, as best as I can tell. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing of relevance in GoogleScholar/GoogleBooks and no other evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 14:48, 10 July 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. joe deckertalk to me 05:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Murder of Ronan Kerr
- Murder of Ronan Kerr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only notable for being killed by a booby-trap car bomb. Classic example of WP:BLP1E Mtking (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article covers a notable incident, not an non-notable individual involved in a notable incident. jorgenev 05:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article is about the event, not the person, so we need to consider WP:EVENT. And this murder received huge coverage in Northern Ireland at the time - at a time when both Protestant and Catholic parties were welcoming and encouraging the inclusion of Catholics in the police force, this received widespread condemnation. It attracted sustained coverage in the national media, there were Catholic protests against dissident republicans, and the First Minister attended the funeral of a Catholic (previous unheard of). There's no way this can be considered just another murder. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No indication of any lasting significance per WP:NOTNEWS POLICY Mtking (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sectarian killings in Northern Ireland are (thankfully) fairly rare these days. This event was significant in terms of what it shows about dissident republican activity in an era of mainstream political progress, and in terms of the significant public reaction (as per Chris Neville-Smith above) which should probably be the thrust of the article. In short, this was a significant milestone in the development of 21st century Northern Ireland society. LukeSurl t c 09:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Important event in 21st century Northern Ireland, massive coverage by both Irish and British newspapers and the bombing recieved wide-spread condemnation from all sides of the political spectrum. Who.was.phone (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - murders of police officers in Northern Ireland since the end of the 'Troubles' are rare, and as such almost automatically notable. The fact that this one was condemned by numerous figures including Prime Minister David Cameron and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lends support to that argument. In this case, BLP1E does not apply as this is not a biography, and NOTNEWS does not apply as it's not just a passing news story with no significance. As the article describes, this event did have lasting consequences: 'a Peace Rally was organised in Belfast by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, which was reported to have been attended by up to 7000 persons'. What more evidence of notability is required? Robofish (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - rare event.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with all the keep arguments above. Hugely notable, perhaps enhanced even further by the victim's religion.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Massive news coverage due to the rarity of terrorist murders of police officers in Northern Ireland since the official end of IRA operations. Had important ramifications for the province. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:52, 11 July 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. Courcelles 13:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Daphne Cortes
- Daphne Cortes (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 declined PROD. The references supplied do not support notability; No other substantial WP:RS references found. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. The sources in the article don't cut it. —SW— chat 17:56, 11 July 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 05:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Half-Heart
- Half-Heart (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 is a neologism at best, and more likely something simply made up. VQuakr (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And, as the nom points out, the term is a neologism at best. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete. Or if it's not within 24 hours, I think I'll cry. Poorly written, completely unreferenced dictdef neologism that someone probably made up. Seriously, kill it with fire. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as dictionary definition (the page is headed "Definition") and neologism ("Thoguh it isnt even in Urban Dictionary" [sic]). Cnilep (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Original Research. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 12:54, 7 July 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 deletion non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cathy Hernandez Brown
- Cathy Hernandez Brown (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 (music) as well as notability as an author. Search brings up social media and trivial references, but no non trivial mentions in reliable sources. Also, article has a considerable promotional tone. Safiel (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, no RS. Book is self-published through Authorhouse, music is self-released through own vanity label. Neither has gained any significant coverage. Yunshui (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- basically spam, no widespread coverage. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 13:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not seeing any non-trivial coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:03, 7 July 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 05:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Txgarage
- Txgarage (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 publication; article written in the second person. Prod contested by creator. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 04:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 04:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This may not be a "notable publication" to you but for us car enthusiast in Texas it is. I have searched wikipedia for more about the publication before and found nothing... So I gathered info and made one myself. I see wikipedia articles all the time that are written in the second person. Not sure why that's an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrisiaJazz (talk • contribs) 12:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. --Kinu t/c 15:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If this publication is notable, then the article needs to be improved to establish that by links to independent reliable sources. And by "second person", I assume the nom is referring to phrases such as "car enthusiast[s] are more common than you would think". Wikipedia doesn't know who "you" (the reader) is nor how common "you" think they are. For all I know, the reader might be someone who thinks that every man, woman and child in Texas is a car enthusiast. Similarly, first person plural references such as "Take for example our racing history ..." need to be removed. Wikipedia doesn't get to speak on behalf of the state of Texas or claim that Texas's racing history is "ours". Basically, this article needs to get cleaned up and have references added if it is going to be kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found nothing by this name under any reliable source. Orphan article of no use. — Bill william comptonTalk 17:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No independent reliable sources have been provided, and I haven't found any myself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:15, 12 July 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 per G4 and A7. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UFV Student Union Society
- UFV Student Union Society (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 is not achieved. All possible sources are self-published. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 04:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:39, 7 July 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 05:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Information Management using PIIMS
- Information Management using PIIMS (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...I just don't see notability here. I may be wrong, but I'm confused... Nolelover Talk·Contribs 03:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This appears to be just promotion of a website. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems to be advertising a non-notable website: This new method of managing information is by using PIIMS an interactive website..... The main purpose of the site is for information management by bridging the gap between information management and information managers. The information is efficiently and effectively managed by bring together information management and information managers into one central location. The site serves as a central network location for all of an individual’s information and application. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks like it clearly fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:CORP. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete: Excellent new concept on using a non-traditional method of data management. I was under the impression that wikipedia was a site for information on new ideas and concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.121.252.4 (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a lot of common misconceptions about Wikipedia, this page lists a number of them. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:27, 9 July 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 05:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CGS Inc.
- CGS Inc. (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 been variously tagged (and declined) for CSD and PROD. Creator blocked for advertising. Contains only primary sources. No other sources found except company profile listings. May be notable, but policy comes first. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yet another outsourcing tech company advertising on Wikipedia. Their chief product apparently is acronyms: business selling computer software and programming services, including ERP, SCM, LMS, PLM, WMS, CRM, portal, E-commerce, application development, project services, e-learning, training, staffing, call center, and outsourcing services. Google News results will be misleading - there are a number of businesses using "CGS" - but nothing I saw suggested significant effects on history, techology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Smerdis, couldn't have put it better. ukexpat (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of enough third-party mentions. I didn't get any third-party mentions on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - seems like a company of this size would have garnered more media mentions but facts is facts and this company doesn't rise above the cosmic noise. JohnInDC (talk) 22:51, 7 July 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
International Research Centre for Traditional Polyphony
- International Research Centre for Traditional Polyphony (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:ORG. nothing in gnews nor gbooks and a mere 2 gscholar hits. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – there are further hits for the spelling with "Center" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) to independent reliable sources, including one from The New York Times. I've not evaluated any to see if they provide non-trivial coverage. --Lambiam 09:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- this new spelling gives only 1 gnews hit and small mentions in 5 gscholar hits. Not significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Plenty of new information was added on June 25th about the scholarly activity of the Centre, with the mention of several noted scholars that are linked to the centre activity. I agree that there is a difference between the British and USA spellings of the "centre" / "center" and this difference can be seen in this article. I suggest to make spelling everywhere same, standard, following the general Wikipedia guideline. Generally speaking, I believe this article is useful for ethnomusicologists (and general educated readers), those, who are interested in the research of traditional choral singing. This is a very active research centre with ongoing symposia and publications. As the interest towards the choral singing is gradually growing, I guess would be better to have more special articles about other research bodies dedicated to the research of traditional polyphony (like the organization "Polifinia vivante", that existed in Paris in the 1990s, and the Vienna University centre for the research of European traditional polyphony). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephjordania (talk • contribs) 13:46, 27 June 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) 00:18, 29 June 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, Spartaz Humbug! 02:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This institution apparently concerns itself with the study of traditional polyphonic folk music, such as is found in the traditional music of Georgia. I don't know a great deal about the music of Georgia, but a cursory review suggests that there are enough sources to pass. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:04, 7 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mario Lucia
- Mario Lucia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Topic of article has not attained notability standards WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't meet NHOCKEY or GNG, or even come close. -DJSasso (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as he passes WP:GNG as demonstrated by the significant and non-routine coverage he has received in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, including:
- Fox News feature article on Mario Lucia
- First Round Bust feature profile on Mario Lucia (January 2011)
- McKeens Hockey featured article on Mario Lucia (March 2011)
- Dan Swallows featured article on Mario Lucia
The many published feature stories about this player pushes this article over the GNG threshold required for a stand-alone article. Dolovis (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The Fox News story should be fine, although there is less there than meets the eye. The others listed above, I agree with DJSasso, are inadequate. I did find this [16] and this [17] and this [18] (which leads with Lucia, but also discusses other players). There may be just enough to meet GNG here, but for now I am on the fence. Rlendog (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I agree that the Fox News source is significant and reliable, and also the Star Tribune and Hockey News shown by Rlendog which allows this article to pass GNG. Oonissie (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Dolovis (talk) 03:51, 6 July 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, Spartaz Humbug! 02:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the sources turned up by Dlovis and Rlen are enough here to indicate that he meets the WP:GNG. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree, those sources look like enough to push him past WP:GNG. Meelar (talk) 22:47, 7 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vincent Trocheck
- Vincent Trocheck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Topic of article has not attained notability standards of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Playing in top prospects game is not a major award. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nomination. --Ozgod (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - He passes WP:GNG as demonstrated by the significant coverage he has received in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, including:
- Pittsburgh Post-Gazette feature article
- Dan Swallow's feature article
The published feature stories (non-routine coverage) about this player pushes this article over the GNG threshold required for a stand-alone article. Dolovis (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I agree that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette source is significant and reliable, so this article does pass GNG. Oonissie (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette source is significant and reliable, but it takes more than significant coverage in one reliable source to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. With the 2 supersources presented, it appears that he just squeaks by GNG. However, another source or 2 would be nice. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 7 July 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, Spartaz Humbug! 02:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think this and this qualify as reliable non-routine, non-trivial coverage. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--there are now some good sources in the article. Meelar (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I disagree. There are no articles cited that are on the subject of the article specifically. If there are any, add them to the article. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While I am still unsure there is enough coverage here, this comment confuses me. Both the reliable sources discussed here are completely about Trocheck. I can't find much in these sources that is not specifically on the subject of the article. Rlendog (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I disagree. There are no articles cited that are on the subject of the article specifically. If there are any, add them to the article. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:12, 13 July 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Muj (band)
- Muj (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete – Subject fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO. There is no notable coverage; a Google search brings up Japanese soft porn. No mention of any records released on any labels (big or small). Their only claim to fame is being a runner up in "Music Universe Contest" which is basically an audition whose only sources are from Facebook and Myspace. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think this article should be kept because I think the band is legitimate and noteable. The band is currently in the process of signing with Sony, making their "press package" right now. The band has been a semi-finalist in a legitimate contest from MTV and have also got great reviews for their debut album. The point that doing a google search for "muj" takes you to japanese soft porn is valid but thats just an unfortunate thing for the band. If you search for "muj band", you'll find the proper links. It'll be a shame if this page gets deleted because a lot of time was spent in making it with correct and valid information - Arbhatia (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's natural that, as the articles creator, you would say that. Could you please tell us how this band meets our WP:MUSICBIO criteria? If they do then you should be able to verify your claims with reliable sources. However, I don't thing you will be able to. In my nomination I explained how this band fails almost all of the criteria set forth in WP:MUSICBIO. Please read WP:MUSICBIO very carefully. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - You state that the band fails almost all of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. Remember that it only needs to meet ONE of those 12 criteria to be considered notable, and almost all is not all. So tell us which one it passes, please.. FishBarking? 10:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I said that I demonstrated that they failed almost all. That does not it only fails most of them. If in fact fails them all! Find a criterion that it passes and post a source here. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that an article is notable when the band got exposure on an MTV event which is already referenced in the page. It's not a facebook/myspace event. They won the "Clash of the artists" event from Art for progress organization, which again is not a Facebook/Myspace event. Their album has been reviewed by a number of people unrelated to the band and are noteable. http://www.prlog.org/10802680-muj-makes-their-mercury-lounge-debut.html is a press release. They have been signed by Sony and are currently working on what is called a "press package". Too bad that there is no link for that right now but there still is enough coverage for the band on the internet which is non-facebook/myspace. There are credible sources already linked and already reviewed by someone from wikipedia, before being made live. Apparently there is inconsistency between whoever is reviewing the page. To one person its good, to other its not. So I am just looking for a consistency here. I've spent a lot of time in making this and its all credible, but in the end it turns out to how the other person interprets it...... - Arbhatia (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if the issue is credibility, Sony might soon have a press release for Muj as soon as their "press package" is done. Can't the wiki page be kept in existence till then? - Arbhatia (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbhatia (talk • contribs) 02:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that you have ignored my request to read WP:MUSICBIO. The reference you link to says that their album doesn't come out until the end of next month. Even if the album was already released, they would need two albums on a major label to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Being runner up in a competition (which when you Google you only get Facebook and Myspace hits) does not pass WP:MUSICBIO either; you need things like Grammies. I agree that different people like different music. That is why over many years Wikipedia's guidelines have been written. Year after year of discussion and consensus has been refined, and the final product is -- you guessed it -- WP:MUSICBIO. — Fly by Night (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I didn't ignore your request to read the given article. Infact, I started the article wizard ONLY after I read that article. In my point of view, the MTV competition(which is NOT just a facebook/myspace thing, here is a link from mtv.com http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1638459/bingtones-win-mtv-uplaya-talent-search.jhtml, they are this year's talent search winners) easily qualifies for either 1st or 9th point. To prove or solidify my point, the person who previously reviewed the article found the mtv reference to be a valid one(you can find the person on IRC by the name "barkingfish"). I believe I have made my point. I believe it fits the guidelines, and reviewer did too. I guess its just the point of view that matters here... - Arbhatia (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you'll be able to list some reliable sources to verify that it meets WP:MUSICBIO. That link you gave doesn't even mention the band's name! Until you produce real evidence I have nothing more to say to you. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The MTV link that I gave you in previous post proves that the event is NOT an Myspace/Facebook event, its a proper MTV event. Another link which exists on the wiki page(http://uplaya.com/contests/mtv) takes you to the page of that same event and shows the Band's name in the list of semi-finalists("Elastic by Muj" on the 3rd page). I believe this passes both 1st and 9th criteria from WP:MUSICBIO. Please mention why its not a valid, legit and reliable source. Hope that's credible enough. Thanks - Arbhatia (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to misunderstand "multiple" and "non-trivial". A single source is not "multiple sources", and being mentioned in passing is not "non-trivial coverage". Criterion 1 wants several publications on the band itself, not just mentioning them in passing. I agree it's a close run thing with Criterion 9, but I doubt a talent contest is a major music competition. Anyway, I've wasted enough time on this page. I'll leave it to the closing admin to decide. All the best. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added a couple of links which should further establish that the page is in accordance with WP:MUSICBIO. First link http://www.aksam.com.tr/hande,-x-ve-y-2631y.html shows a turkish magazine reviewing Muj's work(Should further solidify the 1st criteria for WP:MUSICBIO). Second link http://uplaya.com/artists/muj/info#upk-press describes Muj not just in "passing" but as in whole. I really hope this is good enough for the voting community and the admin to decide not to delete the wiki page which is really meeting all the guidelines...... - Arbhatia (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to misunderstand "multiple" and "non-trivial". A single source is not "multiple sources", and being mentioned in passing is not "non-trivial coverage". Criterion 1 wants several publications on the band itself, not just mentioning them in passing. I agree it's a close run thing with Criterion 9, but I doubt a talent contest is a major music competition. Anyway, I've wasted enough time on this page. I'll leave it to the closing admin to decide. All the best. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The MTV link that I gave you in previous post proves that the event is NOT an Myspace/Facebook event, its a proper MTV event. Another link which exists on the wiki page(http://uplaya.com/contests/mtv) takes you to the page of that same event and shows the Band's name in the list of semi-finalists("Elastic by Muj" on the 3rd page). I believe this passes both 1st and 9th criteria from WP:MUSICBIO. Please mention why its not a valid, legit and reliable source. Hope that's credible enough. Thanks - Arbhatia (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you'll be able to list some reliable sources to verify that it meets WP:MUSICBIO. That link you gave doesn't even mention the band's name! Until you produce real evidence I have nothing more to say to you. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think this article should be kept because I think the band is legitimate and noteable. The band is currently in the process of signing with Sony, making their "press package" right now. The band has been a semi-finalist in a legitimate contest from MTV and have also got great reviews for their debut album. The point that doing a google search for "muj" takes you to japanese soft porn is valid but thats just an unfortunate thing for the band. If you search for "muj band", you'll find the proper links. It'll be a shame if this page gets deleted because a lot of time was spent in making it with correct and valid information - Arbhatia (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 22 June 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, Spartaz Humbug! 20:09, 29 June 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, Spartaz Humbug! 02:37, 7 July 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) 00:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Journal of Performance Measurement
- The Journal of Performance Measurement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Journal (on the topic of investment) does not cite reliable, third-party sources discussing its notability, and does not WG:GNG. Current sources are its own journal articles. I was unable to find any sources supporting the journal's notability. I have access to the ISI Journal Citation Reports, and it has not been ranked there for an impact factor. Does not seem to meet the criteria of WP:NJOURNAL. (I acknowledge this not policy, but I think it is the best criteria available aside from general criteria). I, Jethrobot drop me a line 18:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Indeed, the journal does not appear to be indexed anywhere, in particular, it does not have an impact factor. WorldCat search only gives 3 or 4 academic libraries in the world that carry the journal.[20]. GoogleScholar gives only about 5-6 papers[21] from the journal, in its 14-year history, with any significant citability. In all, does not appear to pass Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) (which, although not an official guideline, still provides the most useful guidance in this case). Nsk92 (talk) 11:32, 3 July 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, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not meet WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom, NSK92, and Headbomb. --Crusio (talk) 03:19, 12 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
YALL1-Group
- YALL1-Group (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 software package being promoted by one of its authors. Is this of any interest to readers of a general encyclopedia? Also no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable. Kilmer-san (talk) 04:24, 1 July 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, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Regardless of whether many readers are interested in this, I can't find non-trivial 3rd party sources to indicate its notability. Google Scholar and Books are both coming up empty. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:45, 7 July 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. — Scientizzle 21:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SpongeBob SquarePants (season 9)
- SpongeBob SquarePants (season 9) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In accordance to WP:NFF. This article is repetitive of what is currently on List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. Also, the only information I can gather is from dateline « ₣M₣ » 00:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes#Season 9: 2012. — AMK152 (t • c) 01:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per AMK152. Right now the show is still well in the middle of season 8 and there's no need for a S9 article at all if all we have is "the show will get a ninth season", something I highly discouraged when I added the announcement to the main show article itself a few months back. Nate • (chatter) 05:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. I had already redirected this page to List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes, but someone changed it back. Alphius 18:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per above. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 06:57, 13 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cindy Dolenc
- Cindy Dolenc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced biography about someone with essentially no reliable sources available. Catherine Schulz (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 24 June 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) 00:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: IMDB is a reference that does not permit deletion under BLP:PROD, so should not by itself be a reason for deletion in AfD. So not convinced of lack of notability based on this alone.--Milowent • talkblp-r 13:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think this person is notable. Just that some more sources are needed to establish that. Debresser (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am not convinced of this person's notability. I was not able to find any significant coverage of her, save for this inconequential interview given back in 2003. A Google search turns up some 10,000 hits, but those are mostly listings of her filmography that don't offer any coverage of her at all. Searches on the trade publication Variety and on Entertainment Weekly produced zero results. ArcAngel (talk) ) 15:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I read that interview also once. Allow me to ask you. Doesn't 10,000 sites with her filmography spell the word "notable" to you? Debresser (talk) 15:31, 5 July 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) 00:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--per WP:BIO, she "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Looking at her filmography, her roles in Tracker and La Femme Nikita mean she meets this criterion. Meelar (talk) 22:43, 7 July 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 deleted per CSD#G3. No need to spend a week discussing this drivel. Angr (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Winge
- Winge (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. An obvious breach of WP:DICTIONARY Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per WP:MADEUP. This edit summary especially drives this point home. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 04:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it, delete it now and burn what remains with sweet, death-bringing fire Wikipedia isn't a collection of things you just made up. Not a shred of notability. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as something made up "in the towns of Morrinsville and Matamata, New zealand" [sic]. Cnilep (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, whinge is a standard English word, but the custom of shouting it at your girlfriend was apparently made up by "me and others who know about this", per the edit summary cited by Erpert. Cnilep (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I noticed that. When I put the request for deletion in, it read more like a dictionary entry than something that was blatantly made up. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, whinge is a standard English word, but the custom of shouting it at your girlfriend was apparently made up by "me and others who know about this", per the edit summary cited by Erpert. Cnilep (talk) 06:51, 7 July 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. Courcelles 13:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of MediaCorp Channel 8 Chinese Drama Series (2011)
- List of MediaCorp Channel 8 Chinese Drama Series (2011) (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. This is a list of airing dates for several Chinese drama series on a specific channel and provides notes on the episodes. Methinks Wikipedia is not TVGuide. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 06:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_21#Wikipedia_is_not_a_Movie.2C_Book_or_TV_Guide) which seems to come to the conclusion that notable TV listings are admittable. If notability is a concern here, then I would support the deletion. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:57, 6 July 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) 00:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really relevant on here. Goldblooded (talk) 16:09, 11 July 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 merge to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga. Spartaz Humbug! 03:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Didier Tsonga
- Didier Tsonga (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 shows no proof that subject is notable in his own right - father of notable tennis player Jo-Wilfried Tsonga. Contested Prod. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unless some sources can be found. I'm finding quite a few incidental mentions in various articles stating either that he was a "professional handball player", or "moved to France to become a professional handball player". If it's the latter, he's almost certainly not notable if his career didn't go anywhere - but if it's the former, there may well be some contemporary sources demonstrating notability. Without them, though, there's no way he warrants an article based solely on incidental coverage in articles about his son. ~ mazca talk 15:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I look at the sources and they look to be significant and reliable, which allows this article to pass GNG. Oonissie (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment they are reliable sources, but the articles do not give significant coverage of the subject of this article. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:48, 3 July 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) 00:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage is reliable, but somewhat trivial, so I suggest a Merge into his son's article. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Agree with Qrsdogg. Notability is not inherited and all references in the article (and others that I found) were primarily about his son, so Didier is not notable enough for his own article. However, the information is relevant to Jo-Wilfried's article and should be merged there. Jenks24 (talk) 00:43, 12 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Xovos
- Xovos (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 musical artist with no coverage in reliable sources. Article includes references to minor awards and having one of his videos played on a show. But none of that is sufficient to meet the inclusion guidelines. Whpq (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 1 July 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) 00:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Appears to have won only a local contest, and only the second source in the article even mentions him. It doesn't help that the article reads like a story. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 00:42, 7 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ross Hauser
- Ross Hauser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:BIO notability; specifically, no non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. The source cited in the opening sentence noting what he is supposedly known for only mentions him briefly in passing. See also COI entry. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that he is known in the field of Prolotherapy, which is part of Wikipedia's alternative medicine project. The fact that this project exists shows that even Wikipedia knows that most traditional media doesn't cover alternative medicine very well. The alternative medicine project can not succeed if doctors like Ross Hauser are not allowed to have pages on Wikipedia. It is impossible to say that he is not a huge part of making Prolotherapy as well known as it is today, largely through his web presense and the Journal of Prolotherapy he started.Savethelastbook (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for the COI interest, I'm happy to have anyone look over the article and tell me if it is not balanced.Savethelastbook (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article would need more mentionable references, aside from the St. Petersburg and Chicago Reader sources that focus mainly on his career. If the article wants to stay, it would need to be improved. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 2 July 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) 00:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it would need to be improved. The only thing I am saying is that it is very hard to find reliable sources for alternative medicine because mainstream media does not cover it and the media that does cover it is largely a part of the community it came from, because no one else will tell the stories. When Wikipedia deletes articles like this, it contributes to the problem, despite projects like "The Alternative Medicine Project" that claim to want to do the opposite.Savethelastbook (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable sources can not be found (and believe me, I've looked) would it be possible to merge the article to Prolotherapyis the same way that it was with George S. Hackett. I'm not sure if merge is the right word (I'm pretty new to Wikipedia)but what I mean is that when you search Ross Hauser you would be redirected to the Prolotherapy page. I'm not sure how to do this, or whether it goes against the Wikipedia rules.Savethelastbook (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Not covered by reliable sources. If a subject doesn't have sufficient reliable sources then we can't have an article about it. This is especially important when an article is associated with some form of fringe claim. Similarly, it is important when dealing with BLPs. These are both areas where we need to if anything be more careful about notability and sourcing. If Savethelast wants to change police he can go to WP:N and argue that there should be an exception for alt med. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
---Sorry, I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia. Can you explain to me how to do that?Savethelastbook (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or redirect to Prolotherapy; reads like an advert for somebody offering fringe therapies (it gets slightly WP:COATRACK at times too). Severe shortage of independent sources. Sources like this don't even mention Hauser, and if we were using them to support any kind of medical claim they'd fall a long way short of WP:MEDRS. bobrayner (talk) 09:47, 8 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Big Fat Simulations
- Big Fat Simulations (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. Notability not established for the developer. Also see previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 88#Big Fat Simulations Ost (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure that making games that have been number one on the iTunes chart for weeks counts as notable? You really do hate this article don't you? -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 17:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no prejudice against the company. You brought up the article at the video game project and you were told that it is not notable. It was ignored for a while and still has not shown to be notable. You erased the prod without noting why or improving the sourcing. There are no third-party sources in the article and I only saw sources to establish notability for one of the company's games. Notability is not inherited from a game to its company. Additionally, iTunes chart status is considered a bad chart to use as it only pertains to a single retailer. —Ost (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you bothered to look at the edit history, I did remove the prod with a reason. I would like to challenge you to try and correct some of the problems with this article if you are going to say that I haven't done so. I believe that this is important encyclopaedic material, and it should remain. there are far more articles on Wikipedia that are less notable, and have less quality, which are ignored. What makes this article so special? -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 05:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for misspeaking; I meant removing the prod without fixing the primary sources/notability issue. All sources are first party and other stuff existing on Wikipedia doesn't mean we should add another non-notable page. If and when the company becomes notable, the page should be created. I already noted that a page could probably be created for one of their games and this could be made a redirect to the game, but the company is not notable in the Wikipedia sense. —Ost (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think it would be a good idea to create another article, which one would you suggest. As you have come up with thi idea, I hope you are willing to help me set it up. -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 19:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted where you previously posted at WT:VG (linked above), Office Jerk is likely notable based on it's third party coverage. I do not have interest in creating a page for it, though if you are going to I would suggest starting the article from the sources in links that I posted in the conversation at WT:VG, keeping WP:VG/S in mind. Including the sources from the start should serve to establish notability. —Ost (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think it would be a good idea to create another article, which one would you suggest. As you have come up with thi idea, I hope you are willing to help me set it up. -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 19:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for misspeaking; I meant removing the prod without fixing the primary sources/notability issue. All sources are first party and other stuff existing on Wikipedia doesn't mean we should add another non-notable page. If and when the company becomes notable, the page should be created. I already noted that a page could probably be created for one of their games and this could be made a redirect to the game, but the company is not notable in the Wikipedia sense. —Ost (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you bothered to look at the edit history, I did remove the prod with a reason. I would like to challenge you to try and correct some of the problems with this article if you are going to say that I haven't done so. I believe that this is important encyclopaedic material, and it should remain. there are far more articles on Wikipedia that are less notable, and have less quality, which are ignored. What makes this article so special? -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 05:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no prejudice against the company. You brought up the article at the video game project and you were told that it is not notable. It was ignored for a while and still has not shown to be notable. You erased the prod without noting why or improving the sourcing. There are no third-party sources in the article and I only saw sources to establish notability for one of the company's games. Notability is not inherited from a game to its company. Additionally, iTunes chart status is considered a bad chart to use as it only pertains to a single retailer. —Ost (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure that making games that have been number one on the iTunes chart for weeks counts as notable? You really do hate this article don't you? -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 17:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Ost (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I could only locate press releases. Marasmusine (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Important aritcle. -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 12:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 00:54, 7 July 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) 00:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No notability-establishing citations in article, reasonable effort at source review doesn't turn up any. The non-press-release mentions that it does get all seem to be coverage of its releases and don't give us significant coverage of the company itself. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:07, 7 July 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. Courcelles 13:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gonçalo Pereira
- Gonçalo Pereira (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 notable as a musician. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 1 July 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) 00:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Promotional article. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. —SW— spill the beans 18:07, 11 July 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. Article has been improved to show notability, references presented here demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources, thus meeting the general notability guideline. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Helm
- Nick Helm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NN Comedian. Material appears to be sourced to pages owned by Mr. Helm or his agency, and I was unable to confirm any news items about him from searches of his name + comedian / comedy / standup Syrthiss (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 2 July 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) 00:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Helm has received coverage for his live shows and has appeared on both BBC television (Russell Howard's Good News) and radio (Nick Grimshaw's show). Coverage includes: The Independent, Time Out, Fest, The Argus, BBC.--Michig (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears to be enough coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability, I added a couple to the article. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:08, 7 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Demet Cetindogan
- Demet Cetindogan (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 declined this A7 speedy. No !vote from me. causa sui (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - So what's your basis for nominating it for AFD? Inks.LWC (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need to delete. The biography is a well known person Demet Sabanci Cetindogan. The biography is taken from her official website demetcetindogan.com No need for deletion. --Atifunaldi (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Atifunaldi[reply]
- Keep The person is an active businesswoman, who is noted mostly in the national press. The problem with article is that it is not well referenced (WP:RS) and edited (WP:HEP). CeeGee (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 2 July 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) 00:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. This is a biography of a living person (see WP:BLP) and there are no independent reliable sources (see WP:RS). The three given references include the person's own website and two company websites. The three given references should be moved to an "External links" section and independent reliable sources need to be found that corroborate the content. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 00:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO. don't see sufficient reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 08:05, 11 July 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 that habited locations are inherantly notable. Spartaz Humbug! 03:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Piña, Darién
- Piña, Darién (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very short, unreferenced stub. Google search does not show how this place might be notable. EdwardZhao (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and possibly rename - In the Darién, there are two different names frequently given to the same place, "Puerto Piña" [22] and "Bahia Piña." [23] It even has an airport where Air Panama has scheduled flights to. [24] I don't know which is the proper name, but given long standing convention of population places, this is a definite keep. "Very short" is not a deletion criteria. --Oakshade (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok thanks for clearing that up. A link from the Air Panama site claims the place is an extremely popular tourism destination, but it is promotional in nature (like a travel guide). Google News results are mostly non-English, so I am unable to find a reliable source, but someone fluent in Spanish would probably have better luck. Mere existence does not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.--EdwardZhao (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per long standing convention in Wikipedia, all population centers are inherently notable regardless of size. A clearly verified town even with its own airport is warranted for inclusion. Reliable sources in an non-English language doesn't make then non-reliable. --Oakshade (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. Can you point me to a discussion (or guideline page) where this convention was established? I am still new to AFD and I would like to gain a better understanding of criteria for AFDs. Also, I did not say that non-English sources are unreliable, but the language barrier makes it much harder for me to find reliable sources in Spanish.--EdwardZhao (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Every AfD on a verified town/city/village. See the WP:NPLACE section of WP:OUTCOMES.--Oakshade (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.--EdwardZhao (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Every AfD on a verified town/city/village. See the WP:NPLACE section of WP:OUTCOMES.--Oakshade (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. Can you point me to a discussion (or guideline page) where this convention was established? I am still new to AFD and I would like to gain a better understanding of criteria for AFDs. Also, I did not say that non-English sources are unreliable, but the language barrier makes it much harder for me to find reliable sources in Spanish.--EdwardZhao (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per long standing convention in Wikipedia, all population centers are inherently notable regardless of size. A clearly verified town even with its own airport is warranted for inclusion. Reliable sources in an non-English language doesn't make then non-reliable. --Oakshade (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 1 July 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) 00:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tagged the page for rescue because articles about populated places aren't supposed to be deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—I agree with the suggested rename to "Puerto Piña" (Pineapple Port). "Bahia Piña" is likely the name of the port's bay. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No reason not to list every populated area in the world. And it even has its own airport. Dream Focus 04:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is now referenced, per WP:NPLACE. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:NPLACE jsfouche ☽☾Talk 22:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:NPLACE --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:NPLACE is neither policy, guideline nor even an essay, it is merely a section in WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. Thus "Keep per WP:NPLACE" is in fact nothing more than 'keep because we've kept similar articles in the past', and thus comes dangerously close to a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Precedent alone is a a very bad guide for future action. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree it is not a policy or guideline, it shows a general consensus. I do not think it is at all like WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS because the rationale for keeping it is based on the general consensus that such places are notable. Unless someone contests that the place does not exist, I am unaware of any AfD for a populated town/city/village being deleted. To me, that is consensus and not just "other crap." At any rate, I think "per WP:NPLACE is still a valid and legitimate argument to keep this article. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 21:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It offers no insight whatsoever as to the reasoning behind why previous consensuses formed, and thus no assurance that such reasoning either (i) continues to be accepted or (ii) applies to the specific instance under consideration. "Per WP:NPLACE" is the worst sort of mindless groupthink, that should not be considered an adequate replacement for an actual reasoned argument. It simply leads to consensus-by-inertia. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's thing about opinions. None are right or wrong. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 21:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It offers no insight whatsoever as to the reasoning behind why previous consensuses formed, and thus no assurance that such reasoning either (i) continues to be accepted or (ii) applies to the specific instance under consideration. "Per WP:NPLACE" is the worst sort of mindless groupthink, that should not be considered an adequate replacement for an actual reasoned argument. It simply leads to consensus-by-inertia. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree it is not a policy or guideline, it shows a general consensus. I do not think it is at all like WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS because the rationale for keeping it is based on the general consensus that such places are notable. Unless someone contests that the place does not exist, I am unaware of any AfD for a populated town/city/village being deleted. To me, that is consensus and not just "other crap." At any rate, I think "per WP:NPLACE is still a valid and legitimate argument to keep this article. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 21:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as referenced article regarding populated place, and it seems likely that an individual seeking information on this subject would come here to learn. 78.26 (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it does not meet the general notability guideline that all articles must pass, having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". To re-iterate Hrafn above, determinations of outcomes are determined not by wiktionary:consensus but by Wikipedia:Consensus, and guideline Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators is relevent here, and in particular it's advice on determining rough consensus: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." It's also worth noting that the header on the top of this very page directs all contributors to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD, says to make recomendations "sustained by arguments," and another linnked from that bar Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates says clearly that "if [an essay]] is used to support deletion or to keep an article proposed for deletion, a good explanation should be given as to why one believes it supports his/her case. Thus, to those who'd like to keep this article, please provide multiple instances of signifigant coverage in reliable sources.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Delete: lack of significant coverage, and more importantly lack of a reasoned argument as to why overlooking this deficiency is in the best interests of Wikipedia. An encyclopaedia is not an atlas, so is under no burden to provide information on every geographical locality, no matter how obscure and ill-documented (a function that even an atlas doesn't attempt, I would note). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:25, 13 July 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. Courcelles 13:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marvel Super Hero Squad Online
- Marvel Super Hero Squad Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
MMO of questionable notability and contested WP:PROD. Most of the "content" in this article is subscription information in-world information like missions titles and prices. Current references include video footage of gameplay and release info, and a note on an expansion. Article is at odds with WP:VGSCOPE and without better sources, doesn't meet WP:GNG. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 17:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot drop me a line 20:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - plenty of sources with reliable coverage can be found via a [[WP:VG\\ reliable sources search. --Teancum (talk) 12:18, 3 July 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) 00:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Topic RS coverage more than sufficient to demonstrate notability. Article content issues are, y'know, article content issues and have almost nothing to do with AfD. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:00, 7 July 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 15:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saad Al-Harran
- Saad Al-Harran (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. Also, does not appear to meet WP:PROF. J04n(talk page) 17:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot drop me a line 20:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. About 50 cites on GS in a poorly cited field. Could pass WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:05, 5 July 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) 00:24, 7 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Loy Chye Chuan
- Loy Chye Chuan (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 any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 19:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot drop me a line 20:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot drop me a line 20:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep : The article content is written based on the reference listed under Reference, in the article. The artist from Singapore is an accredited artist with numerous media coverage on his art, and contrary to the point made by J04n. More time is needed to build up the article, for the benefit of knowledge on the local art scene. -- Marcuslim (talk) 04:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The reference listed was written by the subject of the article, self-published sources are not sufficient to establish notability. J04n(talk page) 08:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It was not a self-published source, as J04n had claimed it to be. On closer look at the reference, the article was published on the International Artist magazine, written based on the interview with the subject, by the editors of the magazine title. More information on the credibility of the magazine can be found on www.international-artist.com. By and large, the subject matter warrants more citation and research to build the article, rather than deletion. -- Marcuslim (talk) 02:05, 5 July 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) 00:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 03:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I am unable to find any references to Loy Chye Chuan in the Straits Times digital archive. Agree with nom on lack of RS. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see Twitter, MySpace, Facebook, his personal website, but nothing reliable or third party. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr Loy, like many chinese-educated artists in Singapore, are often interviewed by the Chinese press, eg. Lianhe Zaobao. Thus, research on this artist proved to be tedious, requiring additional effort. By and large, the point of contention is with this man's credibility, and if he deserves an entry in Wikipedia. If this entry is deleted now, it will make compilation work on this talented artist, more difficult - this also cripples documentation of an important person in the Singapore art scene, given this man was one of the co-founders of the Singapore Watercolour Society. -- Marcuslim (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but, where are those Chinese press articles to be found, exactly? There's no mentions of them in the article, even of offline numbers from dusty printed archives or microfilm. Offline sources are perfectly acceptable to prove notability, but you have to actually cite them, at a minimum --- because what is available online in Chinese does nothing to convince me of notability. Searching for his Chinese name on Lianhe Zaobao's website brings up nothing. Searching the whole internet gives you 40 more hits, which consist of reposts of the catalogue of Shanghai art exhibition [25] or the list of members of Singapore's Society of Chinese Artsts [26]. Searching for his Chinese name in WorldCat or on the National Library of Singapore only brings up a book from 1995 of which he was one of the editors cab (call) 04:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr Loy, like many chinese-educated artists in Singapore, are often interviewed by the Chinese press, eg. Lianhe Zaobao. Thus, research on this artist proved to be tedious, requiring additional effort. By and large, the point of contention is with this man's credibility, and if he deserves an entry in Wikipedia. If this entry is deleted now, it will make compilation work on this talented artist, more difficult - this also cripples documentation of an important person in the Singapore art scene, given this man was one of the co-founders of the Singapore Watercolour Society. -- Marcuslim (talk) 03:31, 8 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorority Wars
- Sorority Wars (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. Article fails WP:MOVIE or any other notability guideline. Sources are only to a minor review by variety and various industry sites talking about what popular teen stars are up to this week. Most sources are IMDb which just provide evidence that the tv-movie exists, not that it's notable. Dismas|(talk) 20:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot drop me a line 20:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per significant coverage from reliable sources. Like you mentioned, there is a Variety review. There is also coverage from The News & Observer, New York Daily News, Buffalo News, New York Post, and The Journal Gazette. There's also a shorter article at Reuters. It seems to me enough for a Wikipedia article, which does not have to be more than 1,000 words provided enough coverage exists. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:42, 1 July 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) 00:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because reliable sources have talked about it and given it coverage. I added a link rot tag. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - siginficant coverage in mutiple reliable sources.--BelovedFreak 10:13, 7 July 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. clearly not a delete but I'm not closing a skeep as this needs thrashing out onth articler talk page what to do with this. Spartaz Humbug! 03:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carmine (color)
- Carmine (color) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Many other articles about pigments and colors are combined. Also, major discrepancies between Carmine and Carmine (color), such as the actual hue of carmine Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that the articles could be combined, so why is this a deletion instead of a merge? Is the plan to merge the color info into Carmine after the deletion? VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep article gives overall good analysis of the color--Jgarcia44 (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But if the color and pigment have contradictory information, one or both must not be good analysis... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But it looks like the Carmine article has the bad analysis because it appears to display an incorrect color for the pigment. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But if the color and pigment have contradictory information, one or both must not be good analysis... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:39, 5 July 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, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Variations of red - Carmine is certainly an important color. However, I don't think it is notable enough for its own article. Better is to describe it in a larger article devoted to various shades of red, namely Variations of red. That is the convention used for colors in WP - for example see the other "color list" articles such as Variations of green or Variations of blue. To deserve its own article, the color carmine would need a large number of significant sources, but the article shows only two trivial sources. --Noleander (talk) 06:12, 7 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Special Operations Forces Tier System
- Special Operations Forces Tier System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nomination. Was nominated for deletion via a prod, but this article has previously had a prod contested making it ineligible for this deletion system. Listing it here using the rationale given within the most recent proposed deletion:
"The U.S. military does not have a tier system for special operations forces. The article is based on "perceived eliteness" created by journalists to try to classify these units. Several sources are conflicting as to classifications lower than Tier One. The only definite metric for units is acceptance rates, but even that does not denote a tier system-- none exists." --By User:70.91.70.193
Thanks for your time. Taelus (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As an additional note, the IP nominator previously tried to list this at RfD, thus I have created this AfD on their behalf so the discussion is in the correct forum. --Taelus (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - having interviewed special forces personnel recently, I can confirm the Tier system does indeed exist. Whether it deserves its own article here is however up for debate. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If what that guy is saying in the rationale above is true, then it doesn't sound like a reason for deletion. Instead it sounds like the article should be about the "Tier system" idea that the press uses to describe these units. Regardless of whether the system is actually used by the military. Then, it's a separate question whether this press phenomenon is notable enough.
- Comment - I think that Tier One certainly exists. There seems to be a consensus that JSOC elements including DEVGRU and Delta Force are considered Tier One. That doesn't necessarily mean that there are tiers two or three though. That's where the article starts to draw conclusions from incomplete information. Rangers are mentioned in the Baltimore Reporter story as Tier Two in the sense that they are below Tier One. But SEALs and SF have higher washout rates than Rangers, so wouldn't that place them higher than Rangers? None of the sources actually place Rangers on the same level (or above) SEALs and SF, they're simply mentioned as Tier 2 in one article. The words "Tier Two" only actually appear in that one source and "Tier Three" appears in none of the sources. 76.26.80.6 (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The "Tier System" doesn't exist as described in the article. The only "levels" I found in official sources are the terms "national mission forces" and "theater mission forces" that are sometimes used in some reports ([27]). Several things are wrong in the current article : It makes only two tiers, not three. Rangers and 160th SOAR can be used as part of either national or theater mission forces. JSOC task forces ("Tier 1") are not deployed "directly by the President, Joint Chiefs, and/or Defense Secretary" but usually report to the CINCs/combatant commanders, bypassing the Theater Special Operations Command. The Joint Special Operations Package / Rotational Group seems to as bad as the Tier thing, by the way. As far as I can determine, the Tier thing is only quoted in sources that :
- do not reflect a US official system
- that do even not agree on the same Tier system (the Canadian book says British SAS is Tier 2, the British one says they are Tier 1...)
- and that do not support the system presented on the wiki page (no Tier 3, and Tier 2 is not JSOC support).
- Hope it helps Rob1bureau (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -Just because units are described as "Tier 1" by the media does not mean that a "Tier System" exists. As mentioned above, the only official distinctions are between "national" and "theater" mission units. 70.91.70.193 (talk) 14:30, 6 July 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, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -I think that there's a pretty clear consensus from this page and from the article's discussion page that the page should be deleted. The "tier system" does not exist as described. At best it is something generated by the media with different sources conflicting as to classifications because it's all based on opinion, not fact, not official designations. There is no official tier system, end of story. Delete article. 70.91.70.193 (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not supported by official sources and unofficial ones are contradictory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, DELETE for the reasons stated above. Charlie Tango Bravo (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment, any reliable sources on the topic are classified given the nature of the subject. That leads us to a reliance on speculation, leading to an inherently unstable article which is not verifiable. With that in mind I would recommend delete'. ALR (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- merge, after summarising, with United States Special Operations Command. and merge it
- Delete A tier system does not exist. There are no official sources to back up the tier classifications. Tiers referred to in the media were created by the media and are not even based on verifiable facts or data, but perception and opinion. And even those classifications are conflicting and inconsistent. There are ZERO sources that mention Tier 3, that's a complete fabrication of this article. Beyond that, each source that mentions Tier 2 (and they are scarce) has a different opinion of what constitutes Tier 2-- based on the authors opinion, not research. We can't base an encyclopedic article on that. 70.91.70.193 (talk) 18:17, 13 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Woodstock defence
- Woodstock defence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete WP:BIAS and WP:COATRACK for accusation widely reported elsewhere in Wikipedia. Obviously sarcastic and WP:POV. There are sufficient articles that all overlap on this topic anyway. Student7 (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot drop me a line 01:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot drop me a line 01:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- the coatrack accusation is not explained and not easy to understand. The article subject matches the content.
- for the bias accusation, can you suggest anything inappropriately included or excluded?
It seems that the main complaint is that this article exists at all, and its deletion is being sought to play down an embarrassing topic. Tzq99 (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Delete. Apparently this term was coined only six weeks ago by a New York Times writer, however, the applicable reference states "blame Woodstock" and does not mention "Woodstock defense" or "Woodstock defence". I have big concerns regarding WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NEO. Location (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This "information" is elsewhere in Wikipedia already, sans the newly constructed pejorative. This article is simply a new mechanism on which to hang old information, which is already recorded. Student7 (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge anything useful to Catholic sex abuse cases or one of its sub-articles. I see no good reason to split out the response of the Church from these articles. -- Whpq (talk) 20:02, 4 July 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, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not a notable term KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The sources seem to be marginal, and the topic doesnt appear to meet the WP Notability requirement. Any valid material currently in the article can be merged into Catholic sex abuse cases. --Noleander (talk) 06:26, 7 July 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. Re-closing, original close of 14 July still in effect, but trying to figure out why this still shows as open... Courcelles 22:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Riley Kawānanakoa
- Riley Kawānanakoa (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 notable KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (categories)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Notability is not inherited. —SW— verbalize 18:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fails notability per WP:N with no claims of notability that are supported by mulitple independent references.--Michaela den (talk) 10:36, 14 July 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. Courcelles 13:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Kaeokulani Kawānanakoa
- Andrew Kaeokulani Kawānanakoa (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 notable KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (categories)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of notable mentions. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Notability is not inherited. —SW— speak 18:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fails notability per WP:N with no claims of notability that are supported by mulitple independent references.--Michaela den (talk) 10:37, 14 July 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. Courcelles 13:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jonah Kealiiokalani Kawānanakoa
- Jonah Kealiiokalani Kawānanakoa (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 notable KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (categories)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Notability is not inherited. —SW— confabulate 18:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fails notability per WP:N with no claims of notability that are supported by mulitple independent references.--Michaela den (talk) 10:38, 14 July 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. Courcelles 13:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Esmeralda Kapiolani Marignoli
- Esmeralda Kapiolani Marignoli (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 notable KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (categories)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Notability is not inherited. —SW— chatter 18:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fails notability per WP:N with no claims of notability that are supported by mulitple independent references.--Michaela den (talk) 10:39, 14 July 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. Courcelles 13:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Teresa Elelule Marignoli
- Teresa Elelule Marignoli (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 notable KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (categories)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Notability is not inherited. —SW— gab 18:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fails notability per WP:N with no claims of notability that are supported by mulitple independent references.--Michaela den (talk) 10:40, 14 July 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.