- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of All My Children characters. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marian Colby Chandler
- Marian Colby Chandler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Forget the fact that this fictional female character had an affair with Tad Martin, her daughter's (Liza Colby's) then-boyfriend, and became a wife of Stuart Chandler, a twin of Adam Chandler. What about this character herself and her own background? Is she notable for anything else and on her own other than Tad and Stuart? Even violating WP:PLOT does not help matters and worsens the quality of this stand-alone article. Even she is mentioned in the "Tad Martin" article and in briefly the "List of All My Children characters" page; I don't think WP:ATD should be that possible with these conditions. In fact, I don't think redirecting to any page, such as Tad Martin, Stuart Chandler, Liza Colby, or List of All My Children characters, is the best or good alternative to deletion. George Ho (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - Her paragraph on the List of All My Children characters page is a nice, short summary of the most important stuff she did in the series. We don't need a long, unrefernced article about every single relationship she had or every single fight she got into in the soap opera. This article is a copyvio anyway. --Madison-chan (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To everyone else: Please re-consider taking this comment seriously; this user has been blocked for sockpuppetry. --George Ho (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Madison-chan - even sockpuppet accounts that were apparently created for the sole purpose of taking part in AfD discussions can occasionally deviate into making good suggestions and this, in my opinion, was such a (possibly rare) occasion. PWilkinson (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting to Tad Martin is likely considerate; however, it also overshadows this female character. I don't know how notable Liza Colby is other than as then-girlfriend of Tad Martin and as part of Tad Martin's triangle with Colbys. How notable is Stuart Chandler? Regardless, she is not worth redirecting or merging to there; Stuart and Marian together are not notable together. "List of All My Children characters" has a brief note on her which is too short. "List of All My Children miscellaneous characters" ("Minor Characters of All My Children") has been deleted numerous times for copyright infringements from websites and for being a (re)creation by users who violate their block or ban per G5. Her interactions with others are not notable either. To where should she be redirected? --George Ho (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "forget the fact that a character in a show had relationships of various sorts with other characters. what did she do herself?" Characters in a show are there for the very purpose of relating to other characters--that's what drama is mostly about and has been for several millennia. Anything else they do is usually mere background. Significant characters in major shows deserve enough coverage that someone who has not seen the show can understand to some degree a conversation about them without sounding like a fool. Not enough to make them sound like an expert, but something. A short article is usually enough, or several paragraphs in a combination article. It really doesn't matter which, except that in practice proper sections in combined articles become single paragraphs which usually become single sentences by attrition, and then a name on a list., and then, why even mention any but the most important if they're going to be just a name on a list, and thus an encyclopedia loses information. DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC) ,[reply]
- In general, you have a point. What about this character? She and Tad Martin are notable together as a failed couple for lifetime. Is she herself "significant"? Can this article about a less notable or non-notable character stand on its own? Does the article's subject follow WP:GNG besides by soap opera periodicals? Generally, fictional characters should not have their own articles if only they do not follow the WP:GNG regardless of any WikiProject. For example, Erica Kane and Sherlock Holmes totally follow WP:GNG because they have been mentioned in non-soap publications, such as television news, TV-related periodicals (e.g. TV Guide), non-soap newspapers (e.g. London newspapers), and others. On the other hand, characters of Reba (TV series) (yes, including the fictional Reba herself) and former UPN comedy shows do not follow WP:GNG enough to have their own articles stand on their own and/or to have their articles created because they have not been covered in publications either very much or at all. --George Ho (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or Redirect to List of All My Children characters. I see no reason that this information should be lost. I agree with DGG's argument. Jujutacular talk 19:34, 23 November 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 speedied G12 by Elen of the Roads (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
International DB2 Users Group
- International DB2 Users 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)
Struggling to find references to this anywhere except on idug or ibm websites and publications. Plenty of big corporation software has user groups - not convinced they are Notable Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clicking on the Google news link above, it is apparent that their conferences are certainly notable. Much news to be found of product announcements at these. I suppose that's not direct notability but when someone reads on of these announcements, they may be curious about IDUG and it would be nice to have an article here on WP for them. --Kvng (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as a copyvio, and tagged as such. I rather suspect that the group is notable, but it would need to be started from scratch without copying material from the IDUG site. -- Whpq (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Works for me. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:47, 17 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brian James MacKinnon
- Brian James MacKinnon (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 meet WP:NOTE. Insufficient references especially for a WP:BLP. Daniel 22:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He does not meet WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. I can't evaluate him as an artist, but his work does not appear to have garnered any significant coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 16 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bronz
- Bronz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All sources are unreliable. Has a couple claims, but I couldn't verify any through reliable sources, so I say it fails WP:GNG due to utter lack of source material. Deprodded by IP without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-published websites won't pass muster. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Changing to Keep per Arxiloxos. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Very little found on Google, as Hammer indicates, but the band does appear to have been included in The Encyclopedia of Popular Music (unfortunately GBooks provides only a snippet)[1], and there is a brief article in the May 2010 issue of Classic Rock that confirms a few basic facts and describes their early record "Send Down An Angel" as a "minor hit". On the other hand, the Allmusic listing doesn't include any biographical info, just the discography.[2]--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, here are two reviews (negative and short, but still . . .) from Classic Rock: May 2010 [3] and May 2003 [4]. Vaguely fascinating detail: the video for their one "hit" featured Emma Thompson. [5] --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:03, 16 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Billy Wingrove
- Billy Wingrove (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 due to a lack of any real significant media coverage. Footballer hasn't played fully-pro or internationally either, failing WP:NFOOTBALL. --Jimbo[online] 22:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo[online] 22:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. NFOOTY is irrelevant because he is notable as a freestyle footballer, not a traditional one. Anyway, he clearly passes GNG, as can be seen by either reading the article or searching gnews. Described as a "freestyle king ... who starred on the wing for Ware before going on to stardom" by The Guardian, Wingrove also has articles devoted to him in the Evening Standard [6], the Sunday People [7], The Independent [8], and a profile with Sport England. Jenks24 (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - meets the GNG. GiantSnowman 13:17, 16 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Northern Standard
- The Northern Standard (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 local union newspaper, fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG, only ref given is a call number listing showing the publication existed. Mantes (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Many references at GNews[9] and GBooks[10] show this paper's significance in N.T. history: among other things, for a considerable length of time it was the only paper in Darwin,[11] and it took a strong pro-Communist line that led to libel lawsuits[12], police raids[13], until it finally went out of business after the advent of Rupert Murdoch's Northern Territory News[14]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Arxiloxos. Anybody who knows anything about the history of the NT, knows that this newspaper was important. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Arxiloxos. Meets GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Wikipedia:Deletion process#Early closure identifies as a speedy-keep criterion, "Nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption..." We know from the history of contributions that the nominator has only previously edited Wikipedia for one session of 40 edits in three hours. We have a nomination argument that recognizes the relationship between the GNG and one of the SNGs, so the editor is not a newbie. Further, we see that no effort was made in preparing the nomination—there was no work done on the article, no discussion on the talk page, and no record of any searches attempted before involving the rest of the community and the admins. Relatedly based on the lack of documented research, WP:Speedy keep reason #1 applies, the nomination fails to advance an argument for deletion. The passing mentions of WP:CORP and WP:GNG are refuted at WP:VAGUEWAVE as "arguments not to make at a deletion discussion", i.e., there is no explanation of why the article fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. And as per WP:ATD policy, a nomination for deletion based on policy refutes the alternatives to deletion, i.e., why is the reliable material, if any, so objectionable that it must be hidden from public view, rather than merged to another article? Unscintillating (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep is not applicable. Neither is there an indication that the nomination is through malicious intentions—Mantes (talk · contribs) may be an SPA, but that, in itself, does not invalidate the nomination—nor does Mantes fail to advance a deletion argument—Mantes cites "WP:CORP and WP:GNG". Whether or not s/he justifies his/her opinion is not germane. Goodvac (talk) 00:06, 23 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ Superstar (Original Australian Cast Recording)
- Jesus Christ Superstar (Original Australian Cast Recording) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Even after User:Shaidar cuebiyar removed my PROD and added a couple of references, the article does not assert the importance of the album, and contain only one independent source (the Milesago link is about the stage production and barely mentions the album). I cannot see what is noteworthy about this album, as opposed to many other original soundtracks, and especially beside the original album. ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As indicated, I de-PRODed this article and then started to provide in-line citations for its content. Part way through searching for reliable sources the article was put up for deletion. The album is notable for the presence of several notable Australian artists. Some achieved considerable media coverage for their performance on the album/stage show. If the stage show alone were the focus of the article then other Australian artists that could be mentioned in connection to the theatre production are Marcia Hines and the early Air Supply line-up. All up either keep the article or rename it as Jesus Christ Superstar (Australian version 1972) ala existing article, Jesus Christ Superstar (Swedish version 1972). There is insufficient reason to delete it.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, the album peaked at #17 on the national albums chart supplied by Go-Set magazine. Ref supplied. This is sufficient on its own to make the album notable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per shaidar cuebiyar's comments the article is notable in that album charted on Australian charts and helped establish a number of notable Australian artist's careers (including Jon English & Marcia Hines). Dan arndt (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Colonel Tom 10:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - as per comments above. WP:NMUSIC criteria items 2 (music chart #17), 3 (gold record), 6 (notable musicians/artists), 10 (performed music for a work of media that is notable - ie the musical) Kathodonnell (talk) 01:23, 23 November 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. While it appears there need to be some more substantial reliable sources added to the article to support the notability of the article subject, the ones which are presented—while individually not enough to support notability—are enough to meet the basic requirements of notability. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mariano Hugo of Windisch-Graetz
- Mariano Hugo of Windisch-Graetz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Blessed though the cheesemakers undoubtably are, I cannot see any reason (apart from having a big impressive name and a coat of arms) why this guy is notable. Don't be fooled by the word "ambassador" - he's not an international politician, just belongs to a few religious clubs. I don't think that the fag-ends of European aristocracy or mates of Pope John Paul II the sequel are automatically notable in Wikipedia terms. If I'm wrong about any of this, do let me know. pablo 22:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta, according to an admittedly badly-sourced claim in the lede, is "widely considered a sovereign subject of international law." (Maybe the next source is a little better.) If that's the case, then his ambassadorship is a little more substantial than zero, even if he doesn't possess the international importance of someone like Ryan Crocker. And I don't know about calling Papal Gentlemen "mates of Pope John Paul II the sequel." If they're the modern-day Papal equivalent to the valet de chambre, this guy is one of Benedict's secretaries, even if that's also just ceremonial. This stuff doesn't confer indisputable notability, but these kinds of bits and pieces add up after awhile. CityOfSilver 22:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He is one of the most senior laymen (i.e. not a priest) who works at the Vatican. He is the head of a princely house. But it seems that those are the very reasons some people want to delete the article. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A google search for him on the Vatican domain –
"Windisch-Graetz" site:.va
– gets me only three hits. Even taken together, they fail to establish any notability:- PROMULGAZIONE DI DECRETI DELLA CONGREGAZIONE DELLE CAUSE DEI SANTI , 12.04.2003. ‘Erano inoltre presenti [also present were]: Loro Altezze Imperiali e Reali Arciduca Otto d’Asburgo-Lorena e l’Arciduchessa Regina, […], Principe Windisch Graetz, [long list continues].’
- PROMULGAZIONE DI DECRETI DELLA CONGREGAZIONE DELLE CAUSE DEI SANTI , 12.04.2003. Again he appears in a long list of people in attendance, this time more impressively styled as His Serene Highness, and accompanied by Her Imperial and Royal Highness Princess Sophie Windisch-Graetz.
- ‘Un pranzo per i poveri di Roma’, L’Osservatore Romano, 30 June–1 July, 2011, p. 9. A dinner held for poverty-stricken Roman people (four coach-loads of Italians, Poles, Romanians, Africans and Asians) in the gardens of San Giovanni in Laterano. A worthy event, but again he is simply one in a list of people present: ‘Ad accogliere gli ospiti il decano del Collegio Cardinalizio Angelo Sodano, il presidente del Circolo, il duca Leopoldo Torlonia, con la moglie Cintia, l’assistente ecclesiastico del sodalizio monsignor Franco Camaldo e il principe Windisch Graetz.’
- If he is indeed a senior figure at the Vatican, he seems a decidedly shadowy one. Of course he may do important work behind the scenes—I read ‘somewhere on the net’ that he was involved in negotiations between one of the pretenders to the Italian throne and both the Vatican and the Italian government, for instance—but we would need reliable sources to establish that. Ian Spackman (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Windisch-Graetz. Whatever slim claim to notability may exist relates to being the head of the House of Windisch-Graetz. Frank | talk 00:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but would accept Merge - Gut feeling. I have been watching and "contributing" to this article for a while now, although my contributions have usually been of the deletionist tendency in this instance. I have no particular qualms regarding royalty/pretenders/ancient lineages & titles etc but this has been one of several articles where a certain person, often using IP addresses, has attempted what appears to be COI promotion. There has been tendentiousness and blocks galore. Yes, the subject appears as a part of genealogical studies and, yes, he does have some honorific/ceremonial function at the Vatican which puts him in a position of a "passing mention" in news reports etc. And the news reports of the death of his son strike a emotional chord. But during the time of my involvement with the article I cannot recall any real substance. As things stand, there still remains nothing to indicate that he has any influence (can't think of the most appropriate word for this) beyond his ceremonial and hereditary rites of passage. Many of the hereditary peers of the British House of Lords managed more than he has done in terms of notability. Both of which apply to the family line rather than the individual. Are we really to become a genealogical website? Indeed, notability (on WP) is not inherited. If we are to become a genealogical site then let it at least be contained to one article unless there is real substance to a broader claim under WP:N. - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as described by Noel S McFerran. Furthermore, I want to add that he is a genuine ambassador of a sovereign entity, like a country. Many ambassadors of counties, but also supranational organizations like the Holy See (not the Vatican State!), EU, UN, even UNESCO, do also have a page at Wikipedia. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a reference which supports the claim that a lay religious order is a sovereign entity in this sense? pablo 09:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Circa 100 countries recognise the SMOM as sovereign, established diplomatic relations. However, some other countries do not recognize SMOM as sovereign entity, like Belgium and France.[15] Furthermore, it has a permanent observer status (grant A/RES/48/265) at the United Nations General Assembly, like the Holy See and the EU. See Observer status. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So "yes and no" then. It's certainly a fascinating organisation. But M H of W-G does not inherit notability by belonging to it. pablo 10:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's your POV opinion. Being merely a Knight of the SMOM is not why he has a Wikipedia site. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it isn't. The trouble is that I cannot see why he has a Wikipedia page. Little scraps of inherited notability gathered together from hither and yon do not add up to his own independent notability. What, may I ask, is the reason why he has a Wikipedia page? In your POV opinion? pablo 11:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is a waste of time and computer space. Please, read my comment above, there I already explained why. If you still not convinced, read the comment of Noel S McFerran, which is on itself already a conclusive argument.Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it isn't. The trouble is that I cannot see why he has a Wikipedia page. Little scraps of inherited notability gathered together from hither and yon do not add up to his own independent notability. What, may I ask, is the reason why he has a Wikipedia page? In your POV opinion? pablo 11:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's your POV opinion. Being merely a Knight of the SMOM is not why he has a Wikipedia site. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So "yes and no" then. It's certainly a fascinating organisation. But M H of W-G does not inherit notability by belonging to it. pablo 10:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a list at the diplomatic corp accredited to Spain [16]. The "Orden de Malta" appears on page 192 between Oman and Paises Bajos (Netherlands). In the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs list of embassies the "Sovrano Militare Ordine di Malta" appears between Somalia and Spagna (Spain). The SMOM has diplomatic relations just like other countries. Bottom line: over 100 countries recognise it. Surely this answers the question, Do you have a reference which supports the claim that a lay religious order is a sovereign entity in this sense? Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup – the answer to the question is "yes and no". pablo 13:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rugby Football Union recognise my rugby club,but it is not notable in the Wikipedia sense & so I cannot provide a link :( There are over 1,000 clubs recognised by the RFU in England; how many members are there of SMOM? In any event, the case being made by the Keepers here is that there is an accumulation of notability via various inherited positions etc. It is true that the guidelines allow for this but it has to be on a case-by-case basis, and in this case the accumulation looks very shaky because the sources appear to be few & in many cases of the SPS variety. - Sitush (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you really arguing that the diplomatic relations between Spain, Italy, and the SMOM are comparable to the recognition given by the Rugby Football Union to various rugby clubs? Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rugby Football Union recognise my rugby club,but it is not notable in the Wikipedia sense & so I cannot provide a link :( There are over 1,000 clubs recognised by the RFU in England; how many members are there of SMOM? In any event, the case being made by the Keepers here is that there is an accumulation of notability via various inherited positions etc. It is true that the guidelines allow for this but it has to be on a case-by-case basis, and in this case the accumulation looks very shaky because the sources appear to be few & in many cases of the SPS variety. - Sitush (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup – the answer to the question is "yes and no". pablo 13:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Circa 100 countries recognise the SMOM as sovereign, established diplomatic relations. However, some other countries do not recognize SMOM as sovereign entity, like Belgium and France.[15] Furthermore, it has a permanent observer status (grant A/RES/48/265) at the United Nations General Assembly, like the Holy See and the EU. See Observer status. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a reference which supports the claim that a lay religious order is a sovereign entity in this sense? pablo 09:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The references to him in: the modern "Gotha", the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, volume XV, 1997, p. 521; in Le Petit Gotha, 2002, p.204; in The Descendants of King George I of Great Britain, 2002, p.562; and in La Descendance de Marie-Therese de Habsburg, Reine de Hongrie et de Boheme, 1999, pp.32-33, 35 (the books which happen to be within my reach as I sit at my desk -- and not taking into account any coverage in periodicals) lead me to conclude that he is the subject of ongoing, sufficiently in-depth, independent, reliable coverage to justify the inclusion of an ever-improping article in Wikipedia. FactStraight (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seemed worth following up the Google search links provided above:
- Google Scholar comes up with nothing.
- Google Books comes up a snippet or two. ‘Now in her late forties, Denise Thyssen lives in Rome with Prince Mariano Hugo zu Windisch-Graetz, who is in his mid-thirties, and their liaison is not smiled upon by the prince's family’ (Vanity Fair, (1989); and reprinted in Dominick Dunne, The Mansions of Limbo (G.K. Hall, 1992): a ‘collection of his essays from "Vanity Fair," in which the best-selling author reveals the life and times of the beautiful—and not-so-beautiful—people’). The Bankers' Almanac, Volume 1, (Reed Information Services, 1993) lists him as a director of (presumably) a bank. The few other snippets are even less revealing. I suppose we could add the first to the article, but I don’t see how co-habiting with a red-link could boost his notability. (Who is/was Denise Thyssen?)
- Google News comes up with nothing.
- Google free images comes up with nothing.
- Google everything got 44 results, several of which (including Facebook) were Wikipedia mirrors or derivatives. None seemed to be WP:RS.
No doubt by searching harder (replacing ‘of’ by ‘zu’ or ‘di’, for instance) one could come up with more stuff. But when I spent the best part of an evening doing that a while back, I really came up with nothing but slightly tantalizing bits and pieces: something on a herd of water buffalo which he owns; the fact that he was off to court to defend a civil case over a large inheritance (a WP:RS, but the Italian newspaper wasn’t interested enough to later report the outcome of the case); a large interest he once held in a bank; a large company he set up, but of which I could find no other coverage; a sexual smear from a malicious and thoroughly unreliable source. That’s all I recall that is not already in the article: bits and pieces, but no sustained coverage. I’m still undecided on this one—though leaning towards deletion unless someone can come up with the sort of sustained coverage in reliable sources which would clearly establish his notabilty. I don’t think we have that in the current article. Ian Spackman (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't say what you were searching. Try "hugo windisch". Items come up in Google Scholar, Google News, and Google Free Images (all of which you say have nothing). Lots of photos of him and his wife (even one with Berlusconi!), as well as one of Alex. When you search a real news database (like Factiva), i.e. not just free things, you get much more. 128.100.125.177 (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was following, as I said, the google links listed near the top of this page. I am sure, of course, that more pages can be found if one makes the effort: but really, if he were clearly notable, those should have come up with more. So, if you can find good stuff—sustained coverage in independent reliable sources—then do make your argument for retention here based on them. I’m certainly not anxious for the article to be deleted, just leaning towards deletion on the basis of the evidence I have seen so far. Ian Spackman (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)And do these results provide in-depth coverage of the subject from multiple reliable secondary sources? pablo 20:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Using "hugo windisch" gets nearly 7k of GHits. In the first seven pages of results there is not a single worthy mention. Blogs, ancestry sites, a solitary press release from the US Embassy (namecheck, with an archibishop & a US ambassador to Italy), mirrors of WP, trade directories, linkdin etc. I am not even sure that they all refer to him, rather than relatives or even other people entirely. GScholar gets 20 or so results, and none of them seem to be of any relevance at all. As with one or two others, I have spent months, on and off, trying to dig up stuff for this guy and still am getting nowhere useful. - Sitush (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable for position as head of a princely house and as an ambassador. Plenty of references supplied in article. - dwc lr (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above. I'm pretty dubious about the independence of some of the awards and sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I did a fair bit of looking at, and some work on, the article a few months back and my experiences of doing so left me, among my milder views of its subject, with the impression that the SMOM (which is recognised by enough countries that I am prepared to regard it as a sovereign entity), when it appoints ambassadors, does not always see a connection between diplomacy and tact. However, on the matter at hand - my experience of looking for sources then was somewhat similar to that of Ian Spackman, though from memory I used a rather wider range of search terms than he says he did (this can be tricky, as his name seems to have a number of possible variants, across at least five languages). From what I saw, while any notability he has is clearly entirely an indirect result of his genealogical connections, I suspect that a sufficiently diligent editor could probably come up with just about enough to satisfy GNG - though (leaving aside the tragic death of his son) once one gets past his business affairs (which seem to have been significant, though perhaps not to the point of notability by themselves, twenty years back but are far less evident now) and some relatively routine references on his ambassadorial and Vatican-related activities, the most visible remaining possibilities seemed to be connected to a couple of high-society scandals. And then of course, for what they are worth, there are the genealogical connections, the SMOM ambassadorships (which to be honest don't look like full-time jobs), the Vatican post, the knighthood of the Golden Fleece - well, obviously some of my fellow editors would consider these enough by themselves... PWilkinson (talk) 23:22, 19 November 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. Snow keep. Additional sourcing has been found establishing the subject's notability. Deletion concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yitong Law Firm
- Yitong Law Firm (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 : Non notable law firm, lacks real significant coverage in reliable sources, some mentions. Article is more about the actions of one guy than the firm. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG Mtking (edits) 21:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to your statement on my talk page that "some editors" are discussing the removal of this page, it seems you are the only one who has taken any interest in it, and not in an editorial way, rather only a deletionist way. It further seems you have not read the text of the links, which describe what has been the fallout of these individuals (not just Li, btw) and the impact the closure of their firm has had. The importance of withstanding official intimidation from the Chinese government also needs to be taken into account. When I have more time (not this moment) I will add further description and sourcing if that will make you back off.--Brad Patrick (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Topic is passing WP:GNG, per articles: The Telegraph, NYT, CS Monitor. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Northamerica1000. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, sufficient coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cirt and User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_attorneys. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources has been found. Nominator should follow WP:BEFORE and take a moment to check the Google news archive search before nominating this. Ample results, Northamerica1000 already mentioning some good ones. Dream Focus 23:35, 20 November 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:CSD#A7. SmartSE (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Icarus Studios
- Icarus Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The Icarus Studios page seems WP:NN Jab843 (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I realize the COI that exists with the page I created. Is there any way to create a page for this company within the guidelines? Thanks!--IcarusStudiosInc (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have deleted the article for failing to make a claim of significance. WP:CORP and WP:COI should be consulted before anyone related to the company tries to recreate it. SmartSE (talk) 00:42, 16 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mazen Fathi Qaddoura
- Mazen Fathi Qaddoura (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. Tagged for notability, etc., last month.Epeefleche (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with Epeefleche.
Tamsier (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Being the MD of a corporation is not in itself evidence of notability -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 17 November 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. Title may be suitable for a redirect, but the consensus here is to delete HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara Montgomery (character)
- Barbara Montgomery (character) (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 figure out how significant this character is other than as an influence to storylines of Erica Kane and Bianca Montgomery. This character, Barbara Montgomery herself, and her own notability are not covered in soap opera periodicals and the real-world publications. As mentioned before, she was majorly used as a tool for storylines of Erica and Bianca (and other characters as well): in other words, she was treated as a mere supporting character, mainly by the press of any kind. Even her own storylines do not prove and are not reliable to prove her notability and have not been covered inside and outside the soap-opera periodicals. Enough about mentioning WP:ATD: the brief description of her in List of All My Children characters is very, very short, and the article itself is not worth merging or redirecting to there. Violating WP:PLOT and not inserting reliable sources doesn't help matters either. --George Ho (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete:WP:NOT#PLOT.—Kww(talk) 23:09, 16 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wade Koehl
- Wade Koehl (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 and the GNG. College football player who was undrafted by the NFL, signed a free agent contract but was cut without playing a down, then signed another football league that went out of existence without playing a game. GNews/GBooks coverage limited to routine coverage of his college career. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article is in pretty poor shape as it stands, and it needs to be improved. But it looks like Koehl has had enough non-trivial coverage in mainstream media sources to pass WP:GNG. Some of it is coverage in his hometown newspaper from Midland, Texas, but there are also two feature stories and a lengthy interview in the Houston Chronicle (12th largest circulation newspaper in the US), an in-depth feature story from BP Sports, and a CBS Sports story about his being listed on the Butkus Award list. The "need for speed" feature story also has some depth. These article do not constitute routine coverage. Examples of the coverage include: (1) Koehl's a big hit off the field, too: UH linebacker makes tackles on Saturday, grades every other day, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 2006; (2) Koehl covets roster spot on new pro club: Team Texas has tryouts for spring football league, Houston Chronicle, October 2007; (3) Koehl: Created to play football, BP Sports, May 2007; (4) Koehl Selected To Butkus Award List, CBS Sports, Aug. 2004; (5) Post-Pro Day with ... Wade Koehl, Houston Chronicle, March 2007; (6) Koehl feels need for speed, The Daily Cougar, Aug. 2006; (7) Koehl makes the grade: Linebacker voted to C-USA All-Academic team, The Daily Cougar, Nov. 2006; (8) Koehl watches and waits during this year's NFL draft, Midland Reporter-Telegram, April 2007; (9) Koehl agrees to free agent deal with New Orleans Saints, Midland Reporter-Telegram, April 2007; (10) Koehl honored by Conference USA, Midland Reporter-Telegram, Dec. 2005; (11) Koehl named to Lombardi watch list, Midland Reporter-Telegram, Aug. 2005; (12) MHS' Koehl commits to University of Houston, Midland Reporter-Telegram, Feb 2003; (13) An introduction to Cougars football from a Midland native, Midland Reporter-Telegram, Sept. 2006; (14) Koehl Unanimous Pick to Conference USA All-Academic Team, Univ.of Houston release, Nov. 2006. Cbl62 (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep although he didn't play in the NFL and thus is not automatically qualified, he did receive more than enough coverage for his college play to meet notability standards of WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:15, 16 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Free flash photography
- Free flash photography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Neologism. Cannot find the term (with this meaning) on Google, Google Books or strobist (flash photography) websites and blogs. This suggests the technique does not come under this or perhaps any one name and could be mentioned (if sources found) in Flash (photography)#Technique. Colin°Talk 21:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google searches for the three words seem to come up with other meanings, like a free class in flash photography or shadow-free flash photography. I'm not an expert but what the article says does not make much sense to me. If the flash is not timed to the shutter opening what use is it? BigJim707 (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In this technique, shutter speed is in B and Subject in the dark environment, photograph use flash without sync. You can test and enjoy it. Jacopo188 (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename The page creator has suggested an alternative name: "Open flash". Searching for that does indeed find reliable sources discussing this technique with that name [17]. It appears that English is not the creator's first language, hence the naming issue. I suggest the page is moved to Open flash and that term used instead. IMO this AfD can be closed once that is done. Colin°Talk 08:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC) I've added a comment about several uses of "open flash" to the talk page. I may expand the article with these later. Colin°Talk 09:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Flash (photography), which presently does not specifically mention open flash, although that was the technique used in the early days of "flash powder" from which the term "open flash" comes. It has a rich history Popular Mechanics, 1941 and was widely used with tripod mounted cameras which lacked a flash synchronizer. Edison (talk) 18:10, 16 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kal Naismith
- Kal Naismith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
has never played in a fully pro league and has never played for Rangers. Has only played in second division or lower. Abduction incident not enough to meet GNG Edinburgh Wanderer 20:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agree with nominator. Adam4267 (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 20:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete monitor and recreate if he makes full-pro debut, ect Govvy (talk) 15:09, 20 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of environmental history topics
- List of environmental history topics (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. this list is not needed and it is difficult to set boundaries fro the topic. As the list currently stands the entries are too broad and don't directly relate to environmental history. A list without annotation such as this one does not do anything that a category already does. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I went to the category and the list looked more useful. WP:NOTDUP applies. The list could be improved (separate into broad subjects, etc.) but that is [WP:NOTCLEANUP|not a reason for deletion]. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary the category is a better representation of the topic. The editor who started the page has a history of creating lists that stray from the intended topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The category listing (Category:Environmental history) is rather sparse and incomplete, whereas this article is more comprehensive. See also: WP:NOTDUP. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue that the category is a better representation of the topic of environmental history. A list is not needed in this case. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This list article should be kept based on two, actually distinct grounds. If evaluated as a WP:SETINDEX article, it does a decent job of listing environmental history related articles. However, if evaluated based on the Stand-alone list notability guideline, then we must apply WP:NOTESAL which seems to me is satisfied by this simple search: [18]. There certainly seems to be sufficient number of sources that discuss environmental history topics as a set or group in this search result. The argument against the category claim has already been addressed above with the WP:NOTDUP advice. So what rationale does the nominator provide for deletion: A list is not needed in this case. Other than the category argument, what case are we talking about. A quick perusal of reasons for deletion policy reveals there's no deletion policy that addresses the Need for an article. If indeed WP had a policy that addressed the need to have or not have article, nom's rationale might have some merit, but no such policy exists, thus nom has offered no rationale and valid reason for deletion. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what you want WP to be but I want something the is reliable, robust and useful to readers. This list does not do anything to achieve these ends. You can wikilawyer all you like but it is still a bad list. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Index of environmental articles is far superior (and is a redir of List of environmental topics already (and the History does not yet need to be spun-out)). This lists scope and inclusion criteria are sorely lacking, as well as any sort of sorting, formatting, annotations, Images & Templates, all of which are the strengths of a list. Admittedly all edit issues, but editing a Article redundant to another Article still does not justify the first. Where is this list drawn from? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 03:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I drew the set of articles with titles beginning "History of ..." from Portal:Contents/A–Z index.
- —Wavelength (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But did it actually need to be spunout from the primary list? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles with titles beginning "History of ..." are listed on 33 pages (and part of a 34th page) of Portal:Contents/A–Z index. I have spent time in searching for and finding 49 pertaining to environmental history, and now they are conveniently listed on one page.
- —Wavelength (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But did it actually need to be spunout from the primary list? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The two lists are very different. "Environment is an immense field", and the List of environmental topics (now names Index of environmental articles, with many hundreds of articles arranged in a single alphabetic sequence, is not really all that helpful for anyone looking for something specific. Whatever more specific lists we can do are good things, because they facilitate browsing, one of the two key uses of an encyclopedia . Whether a category is a better representation is irrelevant, the practice is to have both whenever possible -- I thinks it's a pretty clear guideline by now, though a few still disagree. People will use whichever they want to use. I don't see why we should put one out of reach. An encyclopedia with 3.8 million articles needs every device for organization we can devise and maintain. I agree completely with Alan;s criteria of reliable, robust and useful to readers. But in practice reliable and robust are goals, always subject to continuous improvement. We don't restrict ourselves to featured lists, andy more than we remove everything that is not a featured article. People will use whatever they find useful. I find it hard to argue they would be better off without it. (agreed some lists , like some articles, can be incomplete or misleading enough for that to be true, but this isn't anywhere near so bad as that, and, like most, the defects can can fixed by editing.) DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, educational, encyclopedic and appropriate. — Cirt (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Its a list article that aids in navigation, listing related articles in Wikipedia. Dream Focus 06:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- It will probably be useful to have a list article on this. However, the list of books at the end is not useful and should be removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 22 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ethics, schmethics
- Ethics, schmethics (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 neologism, no sources. The source given didn't use the phrase but only described the meaning of schm- reduplication. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's no sources to explain the notability of this specific occurrence of shm- reduplication; possibly give it a mention in the Shm-reduplication article instead of its own? Writ Keeper (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There's no reason why this shm-reduplication is especially notable, and there are no sources which demonstrate that it is. I see no reason to even incorporate into or merge with the shm-reduplication article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As well as the lack of any demonstrated notability, I agree with Maunus that this is a case of WP:NOTDICTIONARY. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm in complete agreement with the other comments. Unless there's some especially-notable use of the shm-reduplication process with a particular base--and there's no evidence of that here--we don't need a new article for each instance of its use! --Miskwito (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Miskwito (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. This discussion was not listed on a daily log page, I have now relisted it. ascidian | talk-to-me 19:31, 15 November 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, ascidian | talk-to-me 19:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. --Lambiam 22:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Wiktionary, then delete. While there's sources that use the term, [19], [20], [21], there isn't likely a great deal of information in reliable sources about the term itself. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete dicdef, nothing worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I have to agree with the others. There's nothing to say that this particular usage of "schm-" is any more notable than the thousands of other ways that it gets used. It's not worth a merge. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Merge, smerge to Shm-reduplication. Or delete, oy veh. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. I am in agreement with User:Miskwito. Shm- is so common that individual instances have no place in WP. Wictionary has it covered --Greenmaven (talk) 03:45, 22 November 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 List of banks in Nepal,. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of banks of Nepal
- List of banks of Nepal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is Another Standard Artical named List of banks in Nepal Shivakhanal (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and rename List of banks in Nepal, created a few minutes ago, is a duplicate of List of banks of Nepal. The new title is more consistent with similar articles in Category:Lists of banks by country, but this can be done with a simple page move. Angry Python (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. This discussion was not listed on a daily log page, I have now relisted it. ascidian | talk-to-me 19:31, 15 November 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, ascidian | talk-to-me 19:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and rename as per Angry Python. ~ Arjun 20:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge – to List of banks in Nepal, and include the references in the merge. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge - clearly should not be deleted - just 'em merge together. Outback the koala (talk) 23:59, 15 November 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. as G11, promotional, and G12 copyvio DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edwin Hitti
- Edwin Hitti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a largely promotional article on a non-notable BLP subject, full of WP:PEACOCK phraseology and padding with references which are really external links for the most part. Apart from one interview and one tangential mention on Who's Who, the assertion of notability isn't proven by available sources out of those that meet WP:RS. Tristessa (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm forced to agree. This is full of PR links. Delete. DS (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources. Much of the sourcing in the article consists of press releases, or him being quoted. In some cases, he isn't mentioned at all. In looking for sources, I also came across this article which claims he is a swindler. The article reads like an autobography, and I suspect that it is. It is at least in part copied from the "About" blurb in his book: see [22]. -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 17 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Flightradar24.com
- Flightradar24.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
First, I don't know if there is a conflict of interest with the editors on this article, it is my initial impression. There is a complete lack of indepth information from reliable, independent, third party sources. There are a number of news links in the article, but none of these are actually on flightradar24.com -- they are all on the cancellation of flights during the 2010 Icelandic volcano eruption. Flightradar24.com is only mentioned in the credits for images which are shown on those sites. This, unfortunately, it not enough to give it notability in WP...as great a website it is, it just isn't notable in an encyclopaedic setting. Russavia Let's dialogue 17:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment initially had been nominated for CSD 11 by Russavia, and that CSD was removed by an IP editor who I expect was the page author. However, I didn't feel strongly enough that it was blatant advertising to either delete the page or to restore the CSD since Russavia had already expressed intent to take it to AFD when tagging it for issues. Syrthiss (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 7 November 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, v/r - TP 15:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete almost passes notability, I'd say. Just not enough coverage of the site itself. Gigs (talk) 16:05, 15 November 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, causa sui (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found mentions in articles and even books, but nothing that would allow anything more then a stub. Also, there are other such sites, this one is nothing special. A list of such sites would be useful or adding this site to the external sites on Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast. (In fact I think I will add it.) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:55, 15 November 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. While independent sources have yet to be applied to the page, sources revealed during this discussion appear to pass the WP:IRS bar. No consensus for deletion, lots of good arguments to keep. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quizmania
- Quizmania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Speedy Delete - A minor TV show. I can't find any mainstream references. Th article itself only has two - one from you tube and another which leads to a closed website. Dutyscenee (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources I've found in a quick search using google news include "The awful allure of phone-in TV", which directly deals with the show, this article in DigitalSpy dealing with a controversy following a bad set of answers on the show, and these two articles 1, 2 which mention it in passing. There's also several spin-offs with their own sources. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the show meets Wikipedia:TVSHOW#Programming, having screened nationally and having generated press coverage. The fact that it was a god-awful show and a blight on humanity generally is, sadly, not relevant. Colonel Tom 00:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Passes WP:TVSHOW. --Cavarrone (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It has just been announced the show set to return for the first time in two years in the near future. Quizmania was the pioneer for the phone-in TV genre and was the reason for the creation of ITV play. If people agree with the genre or not, the show was significant and the page absolutly should stay Error96 (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Quizmania is the most significant of the phone-in quiz shows, aired a huge number of hours of live TV on ITV1 and had spin-offs worldwide. The article meets Wikipedia:TVSHOW#Programming and the planned reboot makes it current again. The page should be flagged for clean-up on references but not deletion. GemmaDarkmoon (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dutyscenee (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GemmaDarkmoon (talk [reply]
- KEEP - Some of the newer Quizmania outings have even surpassed the old telly series. They have won a webby award and have been gearing up to release the most recent re-incarnation which is set to rock Facebook, getting rid now would be crazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicmaster1984 (talk • contribs)
- Strong Keep - Show was significant enough in scale and press coverage to merit an article Phasetastic (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as meeting the associated notability guideline. Sven Manguard's sources seem good. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:05, 23 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EMU Australia
- EMU Australia (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 dosen't appear to be a notable company. I was unable to find any reliable sources for it, and the article itself isn't sourced. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Clearly could use some expansion, but this company is notable since it came on the sheepskin products market after the major Ugg Australia brand was established. Emu is considered the alternative brand, which many people invest in and has evolved into a fashion trend in the early 2000s. Tinton5 (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- where are the sources to back your claims? LibStar (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Found this article from The Australian in the first page of my gnews search and there appears to be plenty more like it. Meets WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete fails WP:GNG. the Australian article is the only 1 decent source I could find. Rest of coverage is mainly small mentions. LibStar (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Amused to see the sheepskin boots showing up again — it's clearly a pitched battle for this market. Anyway, here's another source: Emu uggs in legal scramble]. Warden (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep International company, yet another reliable source is here. Unscintillating (talk) 23:34, 20 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bearpaw (footwear)
- Bearpaw (footwear) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Company does not appear to be notable. I couldn't find any reliable sources on the company, the source in the article itself is a press release, as is the external link that isn't the company website. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article is about a popular brand of footwear, which is considered the less expensive version of Ugg Australia. Google news has coverage. Article could use some expansion, not deletion. Tinton5 (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a few clicks at Google news finds lots of reliable sources such as Bizjournals, Women's Wear Daily, etc. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 16 November 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. Snow keep. Deletion concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scentura
- Scentura (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 appears to be a WP:COATRACK. There are lots and lots of sources quoted, and it is overwhelmingly negative. I tried looking back in the history for basic material about the company - size, location, etc. Even the first edit had a significant 'criticism' section. Syrthiss (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment - also, possibly because of the overwhelming critical nature of it, we have what appears to be a string of COI editors who replace the content with excessively positive content. Syrthiss (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—I'm guessing that the sections of WP:COATRACK you're looking at here are WP:BITR and WP:CHERRY? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Also, let me mention that I have not edited this article until this morning, and that I only found out about it by reading WP:COIN. Anyway, I agree that the article's in bad shape, with single sentences cited to tens of sources. However, I think that (a) this company is notable because it's been covered in newspapers extensively over decades, and (b) the coverage is overwhelmingly negative. The criticisms of this company are the only thing that makes it notable. If it weren't a scam, it wouldn't have a Wikipedia article. The fact that most of the content in the article is negative is not cherry-picking, it's actually reflective of the proportions of positive vs. negative coverage in the press. I'm not listing sources here to make a WP:GNG case, because they're present in the article already. The COI editors and the lousy state of the article can be fixed by editing, which is what WP:COATRACK recommends, anyway.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, not so much cherry picking sources. I did a quick search, and the first page of google hits were the company's own website and a bunch of sites saying that they are scammers. My superficial attempt at fixing it was when I said I searched back in the history to see if there was any neutral basic information about the company, and there wasn't. COATRACK applies if we are saying 'here is an article about XX company', but what we really are saying is 'here is an article about the criticism of this company'. I don't know why you mention that you haven't edited it until this morning - neither have I. I saw the edits being reverted back and forth in Recent Changes. Syrthiss (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just mentioned that I hadn't edited it because, like you say, there have been COI wars. I didn't mean to imply that you were part of them, I just wanted to point out to the world that I wasn't part of them either.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep SOFIXIT. We don't delete articles on notable topics just for violating NPOV, except for extreme problems in BLPs. Also, the article may not violate NPOV at all, since the policy requires POVs to be described proportionate to the coverage in RS. 50% positive, 50% negative is nothing more than a rough metric used when an alternate pattern in RS isn't apparent. If the available RS are overwhelmingly negative, then the article should be too. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If this was a BLP, and this negative, it would be deleted as an attack page. Also - have you edited here under another account? You give the impression that you are an experienced editor, but your account is a only few days old (and the IPs you list and the timeframes also are very recent). Syrthiss (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really true. Charles Manson is a living person, yet his article is almost entirely negative. It makes little sense to require substantial amounts of favorable content in articles about people deriving their notoriety from criminal activities. Articles on fraudulent enterprises receive a similar treatment. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If this was a BLP, and this negative, it would be deleted as an attack page. Also - have you edited here under another account? You give the impression that you are an experienced editor, but your account is a only few days old (and the IPs you list and the timeframes also are very recent). Syrthiss (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per User:Alessandra Napolitano. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete
This article has three dozen legitamate sources, all of which have a negative tone. Four years ago I took the extrordinary step of adding 13 of these sources here on Wikipedia: Talk:Scentura#articles If anyone has a positive article about Scentura, they are welcome to add it. When you are dealing with a "pyramid sales scheme" (Illinois Appellate Court) the overwhelming information on this company will be negative. Most "pyramid sales scheme" articles will not be positive.<
User:OlYeller21,[23] wrote about Nick Brunson, "Nick Brunson is the web-admin for Scentura". Mr. Bruson has deleted several sources including the "pyramid sales scheme" ruling.[24] There are many external articles that Mr. Brunson has wrote showing that he has a definite Confict of interest WP:COI.[25]Author of the "Larry Hahn" webpage
Calendar2 (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC) — Calendar2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – The topic has received significant press in many reliable sources. While much of the coverage may be criticisms of the company and its products, the topic appears to pass WP:GNG very thoroughly. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Major Revisions –
Fact No. 1 - Scentura Creations distributes perfume to Independent Business owners on an international level (http://www.scenturacreations.com/about-overview-new.html). They do not sell perfume door-to-door.
Fact No. 2 - Scentura does not have salespeople. They have a receptionist, a customer service manager, a warehouse manager, a production coordinator, and a general manager. Therefore any reference to "Scentura Salespeople" on this page should be removed, and there are a lot of them.
Fact No. 3 - Due to the fact that Scentura's customers are Independent Distributors, they do not, and legally CANNOT, dictate the business practices of the businesses that resell their products. Therefore several entries, such as:
"Sometimes, new salespeople are promised large salaries and are later disappointed to discover that the actual position has no salary and is a 100% commission job."
"The only income is from selling knock off perfume door-to-door or in parking lots."
"Employees are also sometimes encouraged by independent distributors to lie about the products they are selling."
"Scentura salespeople have been in trouble with police for soliciting without a permit."
...should be deleted because none of these instances describe SCENTURA'S business practices, or people that are employed by, or are dictated by Scentura Creations. These entries describe business practices of Independent Distributors, and therefore should be noted on the Wikipedia page for the Independent Distributor in question.
Fact No. 3 - W.M.I. was not a door-to-door sales business. W.M.I. had the same business model as Scentura Creations - distributing to Independent Resellers. W.M.I. never employed any salespeople.
Other items:
1. The entry regarding...
"There is an urban legend that similar tactics were being used by thieves who, instead of using perfume, would have the victim inhale a substance (reportedly ether) which would render her unconscious, whereupon she would be robbed."
should be removed because it is irrelevant. It even says in the article that there have been no credible reports. And besides, if someone gets robbed at knife point, should we blame Pampered Chef?
2. Everyone keeps talking about "reliable sources." Quite frankly, just about everyone of these sources is flawed because they are falsely identifying Scentura as the Independent Distributor. For example, anytime you see something that says "Scentura now has an office in (insert city)," the article is inaccurate by default because Scentura has only one location, their office and warehouse in Chamblee, GA.
3. If I go to a restaurant and receive poor service from the waiter, should I blame the restaurant's food supplier? No, I would take my issue up with the business owner. It is irresponsible to blame Scentura for something they have no control over, namely the business tactics of the customers that purchase their product.
4. It is also irresponsible to say that "Nationwide media coverage on the company has tended to be overwhelmingly negative." because, once again, these sources are falsely identifying Scentura as the Independent Distributor, and therefore CANNOT be considered legitimate sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickBrunson (talk • contribs) — NickBrunson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment - References from reliable sources recently removed from the article, which I replaced in it. I'm placing them here in the event that they're removed from the article again. GNG is met, period.
- Turnbull, Lornet (March 4, 2002). "Perfume-Selling Operations Smell Like Scam, Women Say". Columbus Ohio Dispatch.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - "If it sounds too good to be true". Eyewitness News Noblesville, Indianapolis.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - "Perfume jobs smell fishy, BBB says". New Orleans Channel 6.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - Taylor, Iris (June 9, 2002). "Know What You Are Applying For When Answering A Want Ad". Richmond Times - Dispatch.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - "Perfume Purveyors Are Real Thing, Even If The Myth Isn't". Richmond Times - Dispatch. December 6, 2000.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - Flannery, Thomas L (March 07, 1997). "There's Big Dollars In Street Scents". Intelligencer Journal.
{{cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help); Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - Madore, James T. (March 28, 1992). "Perfume Sales Just A Smelly Scam? Young People Say Amherst Company Fails On Training, Pay Promises". Buffalo News.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - Madore, James T. (June 13, 1992). "Former Employees Cheer Reports Perfume Firm Is Out Of Business". Buffalo News.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - Chievrue, Kim (June 22, 2001). "Perfume Sales Company Recruits In Munster, Indiana". The Times (from Munster Indiana).
{{cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - Eardley, Linda (June 22, 1993). "Ads Spur Warning On Jobs Company's Internship Is Sales Spot, BBB Says". St. Louis Post - Dispatch.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - "Workers Say Perfume Business Stinks Employees Sell Knockoff Perfume". WPBF News. February 14, 2002.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - Elmore, Charles (July 27, 1992). "Too True To Be Good". The Palm Beach Post.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - "Officials: Scent Of Fraud Lingers In Sales Scheme". The Atlanta Journal Atlanta, Associated Press. February 15, 1996.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - "Team 4 Investigates Perfume Scheme". WTAE TV Channel 4 Pittsburgh. November 23, 2004.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help)
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 14:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Of course an article written about this business from sources will be negative in tone; it's multi-level marketing, after all. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The company meets our inclusion guidelines due to the press coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Northamerica1000 has proven it gets significant coverage in reliable sources, thus its notable. Dream Focus 06:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy or snow keep due to the fact that in two AfDs now, no one aside from the nominator has said to delete. It is clear that enough the community find the topic sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia and since notability is not temporary, it would be pointless and disruptive for a third go around after this one. --24.154.173.243 (talk) 23:54, 19 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DFX Audio Enhancer
- DFX Audio Enhancer (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 piece of software that does some things with sound and music. The article has been tagged as unreferenced since 2009, although actually it does list a single review (but of uncertain independence and reliability). Searches don't find much other than a great many download links (both some legal and some presumably infringing), plus a few mentions in places like "Softpedia" also offering download links. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a single solid review doesn't notability make. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:13, 14 November 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, v/r - TP 16:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't seem to be mentioned by any reliable sources. YumOooze (talk) 02:41, 20 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Bieling
- Tom Bieling (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've tried hard to find reliable sources for this bio, but couldn't find any. Seems to fail the notability guidelines. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not having in-depth independent third-party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:14, 14 November 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, v/r - TP 16:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No third party sources, no Google Scholar hits, despite the list of publications in the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if these are enough to establish notability.
- http://designabilities.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/tom-bieling-wins-2nd-place-at-falling-walls-lab-2011/ Bieling wins 2nd prize
- http://talkingtowers.wordpress.com/tag/tom-bieling/ Talkingtowers interactive video (Bieling and other artists)
Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:08, 15 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Petur Tryggvi
- Petur Tryggvi (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 see one reliable, independent source which is substantially about the subject, which does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for biographies when it comes to notability and verifiability. Steven Walling • talk 21:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:06, 8 November 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, v/r - TP 16:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - here are some good solid references:
- The Koldinghus museum in Jutland (http://www.koldinghus.dk/Default.aspx?ID=3283) has a long and respectful biography of Tryggvi. I suspect this and the existing citation would be enough to establish Notability on their own.
- Danish Silversmiths (list of 20 or more of the best established in the country) (http://www.danskesolvsmede.dk/index.php?page=petur-tryggvi) - beautiful work by the way.
- Tryggvi was the first Icelandic artist.... at the V&A in London (http://www.iceland.is/iceland-abroad/uk/news-and-events/petur-tryggvi-at-the-va/6249/)
- Tryggvi's work at the Craft Council, London (http://www.craftscouncil.org.uk/whats-on/view/collect-2009/objects?img=4b044d4549c8f3fd)
- Galleri Montan (http://www.montan.dk/index.php?option=com_portfolio&id=5&view=category&Itemid=27)
Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Chiswick Chap. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If those references can be added to the article I withdraw the nomination. Thanks for taking the time to look them up. Steven Walling • talk 05:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- References with inline citations added to the article as requested. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:01, 16 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Blazek
- Chris Blazek (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 minor league baseball player who has not played since 2010. Though his article was de-prodded because he might sign with someone else, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is unlikely that he will reach the major leagues, per reasonable judgement, due to multiple factors including his age, his previous highest level of play (Double-A) and his recent injury history. Seems to fail WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG, and most coverage seems WP:ROUTINE. Alex (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Scott, how can you claim CRYSTAL while violating CRYSTAL in the very next breath? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 9 November 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, v/r - TP 16:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Blazek fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT.--Giants27(T|C) 19:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find anything that satisfies WP:BASE/N or WP:GNG, despite the WP:CRYSTAL ball prediction displayed in the nom of whether or not this player will reach the majors. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 21:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Same reasons as others.--Yankees10 02:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not finding evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 22:41, 22 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Radio Rjukan
- Radio Rjukan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Local, peripheral subject. Geschichte (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I declined the speedy as it is a >15 year old radio station and I thought it could be a useful stub for someone to improve. The Norwegian version no:Radio Rjukan is a little larger, but I don't speak Norweigan. Station also has it's own web site at http://www.radiorjukan.no/ Ronhjones (Talk) 21:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not having in-depth independent third-party coverage. Even the native-language wikipedia has only a single source. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:22, 14 November 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, v/r - TP 16:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a single, unsourced, sentence does not an article make. RadioFan (talk) 12:30, 21 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mikrofonprofessor
- Mikrofonprofessor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The band is/was notable in Germany, but I see no reason for a page for a single song. Not even the German WK had an article on it. Quest09 (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to admins: This AfD was created on 27 October; however, as far as I can tell it was never included on any AfD log until today. 15 November should be the effective AfD opening date. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:34, 15 November 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, —SW— spout 16:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Die Fantastischen Vier, per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 15 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Celso Aguirre Bernal
- Celso Aguirre Bernal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Searches for any substantial reliable sources about this person have yielded nothing. Delete as non-notable. 4meter4 (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 24 October 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) 00:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-ish. I couldn't find any article focused on the subject, but the books and scholar searches show a good amount of quotes to his work (for example [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]), specially to the Compendio histórico-biográfico de Mexicali (which did yield some coverage [32] [33]). There's also a collection named after him at the Autonomous University of Baja California's library [34] [35]. Overall I feel the subject is indeed notable, but I'm not all too familiar with how WP:PROF is normally assessed. Is it enough being quoted this much? — frankie (talk) 17:15, 1 November 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! 04:48, 8 November 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, v/r - TP 16:32, 15 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wilderness Scotland
- Wilderness Scotland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- Wilderness Journeys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (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)
I don't see what makes this company notable, and the generally promotional tone doesn't help. The nomination also applies to Wilderness Journeys for all the same reasons. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 07:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The company's most obvious claim to fame (WP:N) is in the article's ref to 'The Guardian', which runs: "Wilderness Scotland (www.wilderness-scotland.com), an adventure and eco-tourism company specialising in small group holidays on foot, bike, kayak and canoe, was runner-up. The judges were impressed by the company's expertise, enthusiasm and dedication to sustainable tourism. It focuses on areas where tourism will bring economic and environmental benefits. It has also teamed with Trees for Life, a project working to restore 600 square miles of native Caledonian forest." But there are plenty of other reliable references. It sounds a very decent little company that has already made a notable mark (8 awards are listed in the article) on Scottish tourism. Nom is right about the promotional tone, it just needs copy-editing for NPOV. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done a slash-and-burn on the promotional and corporate stuff in BOTH articles - they're a lot shorter now, and I hope more readable. ;-) The note above applies just to Scotland. Both articles (which could well be merged) have good references to establish Notability, and both companies have won awards reported in newspapers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 8 November 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, v/r - TP 16:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notability is fairly apparent now. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:09, 15 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stuart Cox
- Stuart Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It's a confused article that hasn't quite make up its mind whether it's about the actor; his partnership in Theatr Taliesin; or an interview. None of the three appear to be notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Poorly written article with no notability. Vincelord (talk) 16:00, 14 November 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, v/r - TP 16:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it seems none of the possible focuses of the article are wikipedia notable as of yet. Theatr Taliesin - is also at afd. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 21 November 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 Open Diary. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce Ableson
- Bruce Ableson (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 reliable sources providing significant coverage of the subject of this bio. A few quotes, but not more. Bongomatic 01:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and Merge with Open Diary--Cavarrone (talk) 19:36, 2 November 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:33, 8 November 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, v/r - TP 16:29, 15 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hungarian Society of Family History Researchers
- Hungarian Society of Family History Researchers (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 for English and Hungarian name. when i checked google for its Hungarian name it's almost all directory listings or WP mirrors. nothing indepth. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This does seem like a real organisation, although embryonic, see [36]. Links are dead or non-English so the article is unsupported by valid references. On balance I think the article, as it stands at the moment, should not exist on WP. Acabashi (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 1 November 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:30, 8 November 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, v/r - TP 16:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, because after two relistings, the buck stops here. Having no third-party RS at all isn't a sufficient basis for an article. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:13, 15 November 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. Article now moved to Shaxi, Taicang. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An Untouched Paradise Shaxi
- An Untouched Paradise Shaxi (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 puffery, with POV title. Two shaxi articles already exist, this article is likely a duplicate of one of those. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This article is a shambles for multiple reasons. Firstly, the title fails our neutral point of view policy. The article seems to be a mashup describing more than one town with the name of Shaxi. With the understanding that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, our article on Taicang, Jiangsu Province support the idea that there is a town of Shaxi that is different from the other two Shaxi articles we have. But after the article was tagged for deletion, more information and soruces were added but that all seems to come from the town web site for Shaxi, Zhongshan which is not in Jiangsu, but rather Guangdong Province. Sources like [37] would seem to support the notion of a town of Shaxi separate from those listed at Shaxi. This article does need a lot of work however, and renaming to Shaxi, Taicang would be the first thing that needs to happen. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 3 November 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:28, 8 November 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, v/r - TP 16:22, 15 November 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. It seems we cannot come to a consensus here. Until the relist and improvements, the consesnus was clearly in favour of deletion, but the debate has becoe much less clear-cut since then. Suggest leaving it for a few weeks and then renominating if concerns remain so that they can be discussed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of telecommunications encryption terms
- List of telecommunications encryption terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wholly unsourced; text suggests copyright issues; essentially no content has been changed in the last 9 years; little explanation as to purpose of article; little usefulness —danhash (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've added some references to the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Completely indiscriminate and arbitrary list of cryptographic terms that could be endlessly expanded. Nageh (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom and Nageh. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it's woefully incomplete and lacking citations, but other than those issues, I don't see a problem with having such a list at least in theory. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are kiddin, right? WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Many of these terms are completely arbitrary, some with no specific defined meaning. Compromise of a security system – where is the technical definition here? Why is there encrypt and encryption, but not decrypt and decryption or even decipher and decipherment, etc. Why is DES listed, but not all the other hundreds (thousands?) standardized cryptographic primitives? COMSEC equipment? What does this make special compared to just COMSEC? Oh, and telecommunication encryption is a misnomer, this is clearly not just about encryption or telecommunications. Nageh (talk) 22:45, 14 November 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, v/r - TP 16:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (Regarding above from User:Nageh): Feel free to prune any entries that aren't correspondent to telecommunications encryption terms. Also, while the list could be expanded, it is just a list article, and the list would have an end to it eventually.Northamerica1000(talk) 03:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment I relisted per improvements by Northamerica1000.--v/r - TP 16:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Minor improvements; every delete argument still applies —danhash (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Actually, at the time of the above post from User:Danhash, there were two references in the article. Part of the statement in the nomination for deletion is "Wholly unsourced". Technically, this part of the nomination was nullified. Also in the nomination, "essentially no content has been changed in the last 9 years", was nullified per article improvements that occurred. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - if I want to know what Wikipedia has on "telecommunications encryption terms", this could potentially be a good place to start. Currently several entries point to completely the wrong page or a dab page, and that needs sorting out. It's incomplete. The entries need annotating and probably classifying. A few redlinks are OK as this would be a good place to flag up what further articles are needed in this subject area. It needs some TLC but not deletion. If all else fails, I'd be happy to adopt it for a while. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've commented out some obvious errors. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT. By which policy or guideline do you want this article to be kept? Also, I have pointed out obvious principal problems with this article above. "If I want to know that Wikipedia has on X"... use the search function, or browse through any of the cryptography categories. Nageh (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:USEFUL is probably a bigger problem than WP:ILIKEIT. --Northernhenge (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT. By which policy or guideline do you want this article to be kept? Also, I have pointed out obvious principal problems with this article above. "If I want to know that Wikipedia has on X"... use the search function, or browse through any of the cryptography categories. Nageh (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've commented out some obvious errors. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WeakKeep – I'm uncertain about the part of the article where it's stated, "Please see the Federal Standard article for copyright-related issues..." et al., but this list appears to have encyclopedic functionality. It provides a list to navigate terms related to and about telecommunications encryption terms. It's unlikely that many reliable, in-depth sources and articles will exist in news sources for this topic, but I think this article has merit and would benefit from further improvements, rather than being deleted. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I've added more internal links to the article and:
- — Rutenbeck, Jeff (2006). Tech terms: what every telecommunications and digital media person should know. Elsevier, Inc. ISBN 0-240-80757-X
- Comment – Regarding the statement in the article's lede about not all parts of a source being in the public domain, this part may be able to be removed from the article, because a great deal of information in sources is not in the public domain. This list article in it's early form just had listings of terms, which aren't really copyrightable. If they were, then Wikipedia couldn't have any articles with any content that quotes or uses copyrighted sources as references for terminology, or other things. Therefore, I'm removing this portion of the article. If anyone disagrees with this reassessment, simply re-add the information, preferably without reverting back to the version that has it, as this type of reversion tends to remove constructive edits. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Still delete – Listcruft: it has little content besides links to other articles, so should be a category. Compare to other less-crufty lists: List of DOS operating systems (more of a glossary), List of human–computer interaction topics (sorted by topic, indentation, no extra pictures), List of life forms (sorted by topic). —danhash (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Listcruft is an essay, and not policy whatsoever. It's subjective opinion. See also WP:NOTDUP. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Still keep per WP:HEY - I think it has potential, which has been shown. And no, I'm not kidding. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The rules state you shouldn't destroy a list because you like categories better, there no reason the two both can't exist. Dream Focus 06:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct, per WP:NOTDUP. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Bad nomination rational. The fact that the content hasn't changed much since it was created nine years ago isn't a valid reason to delete. They still use these same terms. Whether you consider something useful or not, is no reason to delete something either. This is a perfect valid list article, it listing related things with links to those other Wikipedia articles. Dream Focus 06:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. People accept lengthy lists, so I will accept that, too. However, in that case this article should be redirected to Index of cryptography articles. As I have said before, the current title is a misnomer because the entries listed are neither restricted to areas of telecommunications or encryption. Nageh (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the list contains errors (incorrect links, omissions, questionable inclusions) but that's a reason to improve it, not delete it. --Northernhenge (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, accepting that WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply, it is, however, a duplication of existing (and vastly more complete) content: Index of cryptography articles. No reason to keep this list. Nageh (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Index of cryptography articles contains mostly information about general cryptography, and is not specific to telecommunications encryption terms. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, accepting that WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply, it is, however, a duplication of existing (and vastly more complete) content: Index of cryptography articles. No reason to keep this list. Nageh (talk) 15:49, 20 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fuel Fight Gear
- Fuel Fight Gear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:COMPANY. reddogsix (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think a local color article on nj.com is sufficient to pass GNG and I see no real claims of notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My search found nothing to show this company or its products are notable. Astudent0 (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non notable sporting goods company.--Phospheros (talk) 12:16, 17 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Flightradar24.com
- Flightradar24.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
First, I don't know if there is a conflict of interest with the editors on this article, it is my initial impression. There is a complete lack of indepth information from reliable, independent, third party sources. There are a number of news links in the article, but none of these are actually on flightradar24.com -- they are all on the cancellation of flights during the 2010 Icelandic volcano eruption. Flightradar24.com is only mentioned in the credits for images which are shown on those sites. This, unfortunately, it not enough to give it notability in WP...as great a website it is, it just isn't notable in an encyclopaedic setting. Russavia Let's dialogue 17:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment initially had been nominated for CSD 11 by Russavia, and that CSD was removed by an IP editor who I expect was the page author. However, I didn't feel strongly enough that it was blatant advertising to either delete the page or to restore the CSD since Russavia had already expressed intent to take it to AFD when tagging it for issues. Syrthiss (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 7 November 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, v/r - TP 15:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete almost passes notability, I'd say. Just not enough coverage of the site itself. Gigs (talk) 16:05, 15 November 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, causa sui (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found mentions in articles and even books, but nothing that would allow anything more then a stub. Also, there are other such sites, this one is nothing special. A list of such sites would be useful or adding this site to the external sites on Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast. (In fact I think I will add it.) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:55, 15 November 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, title redirected to Karnataka State Film Award for Best Film. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Karnataka State Film Award for Best Film First
- Karnataka State Film Award for Best Film First (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 have merged information from this article (Karnataka State Film Award for Best Film First), and the Karnataka State Film Award for Best Film Second and Karnataka State Film Award for Best Film Third articles into one consolidated article, titled "Karnataka State Film Award for Best Film." This article is now unnecessary per the creation of the new consolidated article. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Better solution in this case would be redirect, preserving the edit histories of the merged-in articles as required by copyright considerations. SeeWP:MERGE. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn - I'm creating a redirect to the Karnataka State Film Award for Best Film article. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:42, 16 November 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gary E. Martin
- Gary E. Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
1. Article whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline WP:BIO - multiple published secondary sources which are reliable 1.1 a single secondary source, other refs are primary Widefox (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Object: this article should definitely not be deleted as this scientist is one of the most eminent scientists in the field of small molecule structure elucidation and I would like to invite the editor who flagged this for deletion to read one of the author's experiences writing about this article at http://www.chemconnector.com/2011/11/17/why-are-pornstars-more-notable-than-scientists-on-wikipedia/. Drdee (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Someone whose work is cited in over 2000 scholarly publications is certainly notable. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Mietchen. Walkerma (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The citation record here is good enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep publication and citation record satisfies WP:PROF point 1. As a distinguished fellow of Merck Research Laboratories they also satisfy point 5. Polyamorph (talk) 10:54, 20 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Open patent
- Open patent (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's subject does not appear to meet notability or reliable sources. It might be worth a sentence or two, however, in Open hardware. — Preceding nomination made by Nowa (talk · contribs) 14:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there appears to be non-trivial coverage in books: Social informatics:an information society for all? : in remembrance of Rob Kling : proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Human Choice and Computers (HCC7), IFIP TC 9, Maribor, Slovenia, September 21-23, 2006 pp.181-182 [38]; The Law and Theory of Trade Secrecy: A Handbook of Contemporary Research pp.253-254 [39]. Google scholar also gives a couple of papers which I do not have access to. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure it would be helpful to the article to add those as references.--Nowa (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - 18 to 20 years ago, when I took patent law classes in law school, I'd not heard of the term, but in the past seven years, it has become used in the literature. Whether there's enough yet for an article, I'm not sure. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep It would seem that there is such a concept being discussed in patent law, especially in books rather than online sources, but better documentation is needed to keep the article at this time. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a real thing. Various big companies get in the news for this also, such as IBM [40]. Click the Google news archive search, and there are others. Dream Focus 01:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest merging the content to patentleft. It seems to be exactly the same concept. --Edcolins (talk) 18:16, 21 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2011 Anshun incident
- 2011 Anshun incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is frankly too many of these 'incidents' that garner a significant degree of media attention when they occur but long-term notability is questionable at best. Why is this incident significant at all? Did it lead to social change even at a local level? We must curb this type of recentism to preserve the encylopedic nature of Wikipedia. This article is not encyclopedic. It has no long-term significance. Only several months after the event, everyone has forgotten that it ever happened. If this event were to gain significance for whatever reason in the future, then we can consider re-writing it with some sort of historical context. Otherwise it belongs over at Wikinews. Moreover, from a practical perspective, no one is going to come back and edit the article ever again, because of that lack of long-term perspective. It will be left there to rot. If it were not deleted today I will revisit this in two years and will be deleted then. Colipon+(Talk) 14:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a large riot in a major city seems notable to me, and there seems to have been enough media coverage to meet WP:GNG. I'm not sure why you think it is necessary for an event to have "led to social change" in order for it to be notable. If you are concerned with recentism, then the solution to that problem is to write more articles on notable topics from antiquity, rather than deleting articles on notable topics from the present day. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There seems to be a recent wave of deletes by user Colipon. This article should be something like 2-3x the size. But due to censorships, few if any editors are contributing and make this event look un-notable. Someone needs to check on the government officials of Guizhou, and the fact that this province rank far lower than other provinces in living standard. Not only that but this event has more "action" than the highly notable Chinese jasmine protest. Benjwong (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In a year or two, when the Jasmine Protests have been forgotten, I will nominate it for deletion. My judgment tells me that Wiki consensus will not reach a 'delete' decision on this right now, but I firmly believe that it should be deleted (so, too, should the vast majority of "Occupy" protest articles). Today, I spent sometime going through articles you had created, and find most of them to be extremely interesting. I like reading them. You are really doing the encyclopedia a service by covering under-reported events, and I do not want to discourage you. I absolutely agree that government officials in Guizhou should be checked. This will not stop me from advocating for deletion articles that I do not think meet the basic notability criteria. Colipon+(Talk) 00:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think these notabililty criteria takes in consideration real life obstacles like censorship and manipulation of history etc. WP:notability is just a basic rule, that is all. When you have a population of a billion, and .000000001% of the people even make it to a wikipedia page, these conditions do not get accounted for. If you had 100 editors in this article. I guarantee you, it will look very different. Benjwong (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google searches prove difficult to find this event. Wikipedia is not a first source news provider. Wikipedia is not a blog hosting service, and this article could be considered as the equivalent of a news in brief blog entry. Not notable a story in its own right doktorb wordsdeeds 07:46, 18 November 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. Snow keep. Deletion concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noble Virgins of Jesus
- Noble Virgins of Jesus (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 indication of notability NickCT (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Article is about an order of nuns. The Italian language version is more substantive but also lacking in references. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems notable enough within the context of Italian history and the House of Gonzaga (in that it was founded by three members of that family and its charter was written by a fourth, in response to the killing of a fifth). The Italian article has citations from three books, and I was able to find two more English-language ones discussing the order at reasonable length. I used one to expand and add citations to the page. The other, which provided substantially similar information to the one I used, is "Bradshaw's Illustrated Hand-Book to Italy" by George Bradshaw, published in London in 1865 by W.J. Adams. In any event, I'd think that those five books are enough to demonstrate that the article meets WP:GNG. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - long-standing order mentioned in at least five books as shown above and in Italian article. LadyofShalott 16:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think we can just about presume all RC orders are notable - especially 400 year old ones. StAnselm (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources here and at it.wikipedia are convincing. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Obviously the kind of historically significant subject that belongs in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:15, 16 November 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. Stephen 04:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ilya Zhitomirskiy
- Ilya Zhitomirskiy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recently deceased Russian software developer and co-founder of DIASPORA*, a social networking website. PRODded for deletion, but I feel a discussion may be more appropriate. As suggested in the PROD, he seems to be known for one event. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Zhitomirskiy was one member of the team that started Diaspora (social network) and as such he is no more notable than any of the other developers, none of whom have articles presently. This current article was started when he suddenly died at age 22, of unexplained causes. While it is tragic, it does seem to be what he is currently noted for, at least all the article refs note him for his untimely death. Because the article was started just two days after his death and seems to have been due to an outpouring of sympathy that he died at so young an age, this looks like WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; per my PROD. We have (and will only ever have) minimal content related to this individual - and all of that relates to Diaspora; this is a prime case of WP:ONEEVENT. I can't say I am surprised to have seen someone follow the trail of media reports and create an article, but it serves no purpose and so should be deleted (possibly redirected to the diaspora article) --Errant (chat!) 14:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not sure about that. Is it possible that, because of the manner of his death, he will turn into some kind of icon? Deb (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, well if he does, and RS's cover that matter then great :) However we can't exactly speculate on that - and keep the biography on the off chance. Relevant reading would be WP:CRYSTAL --Errant (chat!) 15:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But doesn't the article say the cause of his death is currently unknown? How can we know the manner of his death might be notable? Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just a guess (not wanting to presume to know Deb's thinking) and I could very well be wrong - but there is speculation he committed suicide (although there really is no clue as to the cause). Which could partially be what is fuelling the thinking behind this article. --Errant (chat!) 16:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure this has any bearing on the AFD debate but the media is now saying Ilya Zhitomirskiy Update: Reports Show Diaspora Co-Founder Committed Suicide. - Ahunt (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just a guess (not wanting to presume to know Deb's thinking) and I could very well be wrong - but there is speculation he committed suicide (although there really is no clue as to the cause). Which could partially be what is fuelling the thinking behind this article. --Errant (chat!) 16:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But doesn't the article say the cause of his death is currently unknown? How can we know the manner of his death might be notable? Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, well if he does, and RS's cover that matter then great :) However we can't exactly speculate on that - and keep the biography on the off chance. Relevant reading would be WP:CRYSTAL --Errant (chat!) 15:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not sure about that. Is it possible that, because of the manner of his death, he will turn into some kind of icon? Deb (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Clear case of being known for one product or one event, and to be fair, I never heard of said product until his death, as it was in the obit headline. He was one of four creators, none of the rest of whom have articles. It would therefore be fair to say his death contributed to the article's creation. The Diaspora article indicates the software was still in alpha testing in the middle of September 2011, so I think we're seeing notability based on speculative hype (CRYSTAL) rather than anything solid that meets policies and guidelines. MSJapan (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - If we're going to delete everybody known for one product or event, let's get rid of Margaret Mitchell and Harper Lee, who are known for one book each. I see thousands (meaning there are probably exponentially more) of entries of various people of little or no noteworthiness on Wikipedia (i.e. TV actor in Brazil). Unless the standards are tightened and enforced globally, there's no real justification to delete this while keeping all of the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.228.156 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read Margaret Mitchell and Harper Lee's articles? If you've done so and you still believe this to be similar, it seems you do not understand what WP:ONEEVENT really means. Reach Out to the Truth 21:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to also review WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, too. - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read Margaret Mitchell and Harper Lee's articles? If you've done so and you still believe this to be similar, it seems you do not understand what WP:ONEEVENT really means. Reach Out to the Truth 21:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep When someone who advocates open info dies of alleged suicide, there's always a considerable probability that the suicide is forged. --Mrigoroliveira (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC) — Mrigoroliveira (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep – Diaspora and its developers have been in the News (NYT, Wired, in Germany: zeit.de, spiegel.de, heise.de, golem.de etc.) for more than a year now. When he died it was clear that the story would be reported in the news. The developers of Diaspora are notable indeed. In a few weeks the network will be opened for everyone as the Beta phase begins. It's his work.--Aschmidt (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 38000 hits to this article on the first day.--Aschmidt (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are countless reports on his death in mainstream media, such as the BBC [41], CNN [42], IBTimes [43] and SMH [44]. even the Daily Mail [45], a UK tabloid, is running a long story. Anyone who gets this level of coverage should be covered in Wikipedia, too, regardless of whether or not he would have been notable otherwise. Yes, it's ironic that he wouldn't have been here had he not died, but now that he has he's getting the exposure that justifies, or even necessitates, a stand-alone article.--Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Regardless of whether he is notable for one even he is notable. A Quick Google search comes up with enough to easily meet GNG. WP:ONEEVENT is a guideline not a die hard rule and it should be noted it says that as the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified. This is the case with this person. Article needs improved not deleted Edinburgh Wanderer 00:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And what exactly would you expand it with... seeing as all the biographical information worth recording about him is.. there :) (I am genuinely curious - if there is something that doesn't fit with the Diaspora material that would sway my view) --Errant (chat!) 01:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. All the refs popping up are about his untimely death, indicating that the news coverage is just because he died. The article already says that and not much else. Based on the refs the article isn't going to grow much over time and it is unlikely that this situation is going to change much in the future, as his accomplishments are now all in the past. - Ahunt (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ahunt, @ErrantX: Point taken, but then Wikipedia shouldn't be a museum where people are enshrined for their (supposed or real) "accomplishments". What exactly are Kim Kardashian's or Paris Hilton's "accomplishments"? The only reasonable touchstone we have is popular interest in a person, and the popular interest in this particular death is evident. (Whether popular interest follows media coverage or vice versa doesn't matter.) The article doesn't need to contain much information - it should merely reflect what is known and verifiable. If that's (relatively) little, this also is relevant information. (That said, I'm pretty sure his co-workers are going to publish more on his accomplishments sooner or later.)Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. All the refs popping up are about his untimely death, indicating that the news coverage is just because he died. The article already says that and not much else. Based on the refs the article isn't going to grow much over time and it is unlikely that this situation is going to change much in the future, as his accomplishments are now all in the past. - Ahunt (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And what exactly would you expand it with... seeing as all the biographical information worth recording about him is.. there :) (I am genuinely curious - if there is something that doesn't fit with the Diaspora material that would sway my view) --Errant (chat!) 01:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No long-lasting notability. Pristino (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pristino: Who said that notability has to be "long-lasting"? What's relevant is that he is notable *now*; people may come across his many name years from now and should then be able to find out who he was ("ah, so this was someone who was in the news back in November 2010"). Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that would be policy.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that would be a guideline, not a policy. Likewise is the guideline that states "notability is not temporary", so pick your poison. Bongomatic 12:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care what bureaucratic category it falls under. The point is that policy/guidelines say so.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Anders, whether you care or not, in Wikipedia terms (as in everyday life), a guideline has less authority than a policy. A guideline is a rule of thumb that can be interpreted differently depending on circumstances. Besides, you're also misreading the guideline. What is says is that "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable" and "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else." It doesn't say that events that aren't "precedents" or "catalysts" for anything are not notable—that would be an obvious non-sequitur. If that were the case, there'd be no place for current topics in Wikipedia at all. After all, who decides what is "long-lasting"? Would that be one year? Ten years? A hundred? The media attention that Zhitomirskiy now has—posthumously or not, deservedly or not—clearly makes him notable; if not as a person or as a programmer, then as a topic. --Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care what bureaucratic category it falls under. The point is that policy/guidelines say so.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that would be a guideline, not a policy. Likewise is the guideline that states "notability is not temporary", so pick your poison. Bongomatic 12:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that would be policy.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. More specific notes on his privacy work, writing, and other work leading into Diaspora might support expansion. Other project founders are likely notable as well; iirc there is some documentary footage of their work's development which will come out. – SJ + 07:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree to Ahunt: Theres not much to be written about Z. and it doesn't appear that this will change over time. We are not even completely sure whether the product he worked at as one of the engineers will hit marketability any time soon (it might eventually) and whether it'll crack some heads ... theres too much of "if", "then", "eventually" and "maybe" in here ... So I'd say: DELETE until further notice ... it will be soon enough to dedicate an article when the programme will have taken over Microsoft and FaceBook or whatever. Up til now hes just a deceased pal had gotten together with a bunch of people to work on something thats not available yet. LagondaDK (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sufficiently important like remaining. Its company has a high rate of growth, reason why at some time its history will be important. Rakela (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Full length obit in NYT. Bongomatic 12:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He is well known for diaspora, the distributed social networking project, which had a major impact and had got widespread media attention. There are lot of contributors (1106 forks on github) for this project also. Anish A (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable through Diaspora. RAP (talk) 15:09 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Only notable through Vaporware Diaspora. --84.150.19.220 (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — 84.150.19.220 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep. Creating something that challenges the way we think about Internet and how we share our personal data is a huge accomplishment. Raising over 200.000 USD for a FLOSS project (the original target was 10.000!) was almost unimaginable before these guys pulled it off. Also, if 84.150.19.220 had managed to link to the actual Diaspora_(social_network) article, (s)he would have found out that this "vaporware", even though only alpha in September, was considered "already quite usable for some purposes". It also has at least 180.000 users - a bit much for mere "vaporware", don't you think? --Ronja (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - He's not only notable just for his death, but for his software product as well. See here, here, and here. There's also reliable sources about his death as well, obviously, see here, and here. He passes the notability guidelines quite easily. --Madison-chan (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very obvious Keep Full length obituary in the NYT has always been accepted here as definitive proof of notability . Our own opinions about significance are not what we go on for notability -- the basic principle of WP:N is that we go on what the real world thinks is notable. Amusing here that some people think they're better judges than what we use as our most reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While you're on that ever so high horse ;) consider that the obit wasn't published till yesterday... Also as further points; use of NYT obits as a standard for notability is surely our opinion of what is notable, plus I worry that many of the keep voters are falling for the problem you highlight; i.e. their own view of what is notable (very few actually cite anything not contrary to our policy). I am unsurprised to see the NYT doing an obituary for him. Diaspora made a brief-but-big noise in the tech world and the NYT has recently had a very big technology focus (which they do surprisingly well). QED. My argument here essentially comes down to the fact that, having died young, there is basically nothing to say about this individual (as it stands the article is ~50% a re-hashing of the Diaspora article with his parents/education tacked on). We get caught up in this thing of OMG NOTABLE, often without stopping to consider if the article is useful :) This ignores our editorial role. --Errant (chat!) 10:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fortunately or unfortunately, there are certain notability guidelines that are bright line tests, so further a further (subjective) "editorial role" in determining which articles are kept and which are not is not merely unnecessary, but inconsistent with the way things are done. (I don't think you would make much headway trying to IAR every time your editorial discretion differs from incontrovertible application of the guidelines.) Bongomatic 05:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very little in terms of Notability is "brightline"; if anything, our BLP1E rules should be brightline, but they tend to be inconsistently applied (or, rather, discussed at length). If it's written on a policy page somewhere "A NYT obituary means the individual is notable" then I am happy to bow to that. I suspect, though, that it is a convention. --Errant (chat!) 09:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fortunately or unfortunately, there are certain notability guidelines that are bright line tests, so further a further (subjective) "editorial role" in determining which articles are kept and which are not is not merely unnecessary, but inconsistent with the way things are done. (I don't think you would make much headway trying to IAR every time your editorial discretion differs from incontrovertible application of the guidelines.) Bongomatic 05:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep . Discussion for deletion should come at a much later time when the true impact/legacy of Diaspora* is realized. The other founders may be noteworthy and Zhitomirskiy was obviously a catalyst for the founding of the company and representative of the open-source, privacy in social networks movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.214.188 (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Whatever the final outcome of the Diaspora* project is, it is a project that attracted significant interest worldwide. The death of Zhitomirskiy is part of this story, mainstream media are discussing about it, e.g. check this article on Forbes. Like it or not, this makes Zhitomirskiy more relevant than his fellow Diaspora* founders. --MauroVan (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Already notable for Diaspora and his views on social networking privacy with multiple articles before his death. NYTimes article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/nyregion/12about.html, Wired article here: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/nyu-students-aim-to-invent-facebook-again-weve-got-your-back/, internationally here: http://www.news.com.au/technology/diaspora-teams-sets-october-launch-date-as-interest-grows-in-anti-facebook/story-e6frfro0-1225912183377, conference speaker here: https://www.rightscon.org/speakers/ilya-zhitomirskiy/ Amandalynn79 (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC) — Amandalynn79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep. Swayed by above 'keep' arguments. Trafford09 (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Diaspora* (software)/(social network) pages are developing quickly and will most likely continue to expand, in great part as a result of all that is included on Ilya_Zhitomirskiy, although not necessarily due to those reasons. You can't have either without the third, and merging would mean creating a section within both of those that would:
- create duplicate content in multiple articles, and
- create sections in articles which don't necessarily belong directly within those articles.
- --jonnynut 13:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Setting aside the fact that the timing of this deletion debate is thoroughly tasteless, there is way more than enough coverage in secondary sources to establish notability. 86.162.116.67 (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree, and would like to add that having a big deletion box on top of this article when it is obviously in the news everywhere else, may deter potential Wikipedians from joining. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article was only created on day of his death therefore it was the first opportunity for it to be brought to AFD. Personally i have voted keep as i feel he is notable but its wrong to question timing its purely unfortunate but not wrong. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree, and would like to add that having a big deletion box on top of this article when it is obviously in the news everywhere else, may deter potential Wikipedians from joining. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the death is WP:ONEEVENT, but it meets WP:GNG; founder of Diaspora (social network); only a few thousand views, so less I can't believe--♫GoP♫TCN 21:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - his notability for two things (the social network and the early death) is well established by reliable sources.--~TPW 21:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The above "keep" !votes have clearly pointed out that he has received significant coverage in reliable sources at the very least for his death, but also for his work in creating Diaspora. Plain and simple, this guy meets WP:GNG, and that's my rationale here.--Slon02 (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability as a founder and major contributor of the Diaspora project is clearly established. Eric514 (talk) 05:02, 21 November 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. CSD G11 v/r - TP 16:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mostafa Group of Industries
- Mostafa Group of Industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wholly unreferenced, highly promotional advertisment Velella Velella Talk 12:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:NOTADVERTISING. Sources not independent. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - agree with nom. Shadowjams (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom and Tigerboy1966. NickCT (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thrustworthy -This Article's information and documents are drafted from official website of Mostafa Group of Industries (www.mostafagroup.com) with the concent of the company, more over as the Director of the the company himself wrote this article siting his company webpage as reference, I do not see any reason why this article should be removed or why it is in a violation of copywrite User:Taisirrahman —Preceding undated comment added 14:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC). — Taisirrahman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Do Not Delete - this article is very informative especially in bangladesh where we need info on our major local comanies like this one, the info are correct and accurate User:Asarahmed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taisirrahman (talk • contribs) 14:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete - this article contents are accurate and well sited/refered I belive its sufficiant and agree to Asarahmed User:Simonspergion —Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC). — Simonspergion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 15 November 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. Jujutacular talk 19:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Diego Rivas (singer)
- Diego Rivas (singer) (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 real notability and reads like a memorial. Lugnuts (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - References include a BBC article. Article just needs some improvement. Aequo (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The BBC article is enough to start with. If the article can't be expanded with other references, it can be nominated later. Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The BBC article makes reference to three people being shot, and one happens to be this guy who is a musician. How does he pass WP:BIO or WP:MUSICIAN? Lugnuts (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sign that it meets WP:MUSIC. There isn't a single article about this singer other than his death so it fails the multiple non-trivial sources criteria. He hasn't released an album, won an award, gone on a concert tour, been featured on TV/radio, etc. I doubt it's even big enough to mention in the Mexican Drug War article, a possible redirect target if this doesn't get deleted. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Only notable for his death, not his music, and his death didn't shock the world like poor Wang Yue. --Madison-chan (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no assertion of notability. --Golbez (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect. All the sources available are reports of his dead, all of them very similar in content, and all of them providing minimal coverage of the subject or his work, and even very little discussion of the assassination itself, which makes me suspect that this will simply be filed as yet another cartel related incident. A redirect is more desirable than a red link, though, given the current level of exposure of the event, but I'm not sure about the target. Mexican Drug War#Journalists and the media is an option, although right now it refers to events related to journalists alone — Frankie (talk) 21:09, 17 November 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. causa sui (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BMEjobs.co.in
- BMEjobs.co.in (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Website with no credible assertion of notability. There is an article about the site (possibly based on a press release, judging by the tone) in dnaindia.com - that's the only thing that approaches coverage in a reliable source, and that's not enough to show notability. bonadea contributions talk 12:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, promotional and fails WP:WEB. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Delete also because fails WP:COI - creator of page is the founder of the portal. It is important to note that WP:NOTPROMOTION and the article is highly promotional, not written from a WP:NPOV. Also, according to WP:ORG (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)), there should be third party, neutral, reliable sources. This page has none! Also, the discussion on Talk:Bmejobs.co.in feels like sockpuppetry. Veryhuman (talk) 01:18, 19 November 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. Spam clothed in random stuff Acroterion (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Home teeth whitening kits reviews
- Home teeth whitening kits reviews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:ESSAY ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original research, doesn't even stick to teeth whitening kits, and not even remotely encyclopedic. That the only link on the page goes to a site selling teeth whitening kits (a site that shares the same name of the article creator) is just the cherry on top of the "delete it with fire" sundae. I think it actually might qualify for speedy deletion under G11, since it's a bit advertise-y/promotional. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shree Shivapur Higher Secondary School
- Shree Shivapur Higher Secondary 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)
There is very less coverage; the school doesn't seems notable. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if this school can be shown to exist then it should be kept since Higher Secondary Schools have long been taken to be notable.
However, I cannot find a single source to verify its existence so at present it fails WP:V.TerriersFan (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Keep This webpage from the Nepal English Language Teachers Association at least proves its existence, mentioning "Shivapur Secondary School, Makrahapur-4, Rupandehi".[46] Here is another mention of the school.[47] Surely there are Nepali language references somewhere. Why not just keep it and tag it for further references, since it obviously exists? First Light (talk) 04:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - now it has been verified to exist. We cannot expect English language sources on a Nepalese school so, to avoid systemic bias, we should give time for local sources to be researched. TerriersFan (talk) 04:38, 16 November 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 Tampines. causa sui (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
St. Hilda's Primary School (Singapore)
- St. Hilda's Primary School (Singapore) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Generally articles about primary schools are kept only if notability is established, also sources provided are not WP:RS. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Non notable primary/elementary school. Redirect to Tampines where it is already listed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete / redirect to the secondary school and/or settlement article. Once you take away all the copyvio stuff in the article, there is little left of any value. --Bob Re-born (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Tampines per usual practice and to produce a useful redirect. TerriersFan (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect As above, school not notable on its own. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Another pointless AfD nomination by an editor with too much time on their hands. Deterence Talk 11:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable elementary school. Keb25 (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - per Terriers; same applies to all of the Singapore primary school articles created by User:Apple4430. ukexpat (talk) 14:22, 21 November 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 Prayer in Hinduism. causa sui (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stuti
- Stuti (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 article about a word. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also appears to be personal opinion. Prod contested without explanation, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 10:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is something that should be in Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. At the very most it should be a redirect to prayer since that's essentially the word's meaning in English.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Prayer in Hinduism unless someone has expanded the current sub-stub into a usable encyclopedia article by the time this AFD is over. Angr (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to any of the above, or to List of suktas and stutis - which isn't great, but at least mentions the word in question. K2709 (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect – Literally it means prayer, so redirect to Prayer in Hinduism. — Bill william comptonTalk 20:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above. This is purely a dictionary definition, and both prayer generally and prayer in Hinduism are already treated elsewhere. The word is not included on those pages, but {{R from alternative language}} may be appropriate. Cnilep (talk) 03:55, 17 November 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. causa sui (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
St. George HSS Kattappana
- St. George HSS Kattappana (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 has no third-party, independent, reliable sources and the article subject does not have national or international scope (per WP:ORG) Hekerui (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Higher Secondary Schools have long been considered to be notable and I see no reason for this one to be an exception. Indian schools traditionally have a poor Internet presence and, to avoid systemic bias, time should be given for local sources to be researched. Meanwhile, I have cleaned the page up and added sources. When a subject, as here, is likely to be notable expansion over time is always better than deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks much better now after clean-up. Suraj T 11:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep : All High Schools are notable. Wiki policy. Jethwarp (talk) 16:00, 22 November 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. causa sui (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantis Vertigo Rave
- Atlantis Vertigo Rave (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 indication of notability for this event. Does not satisfy WP:EVENT, particularly WP:PERSISTENCE Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, notability not demonstrated. --Muhandes (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not even close to notable. PKT(alk) 17:49, 17 November 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. No clear consensus for deletion. Many fair arguments to keep. I'll express a personal concern that this might be a PR-related article; the final "keep" assertion by User:Bigtezstags raises my suspicion level further. Even "keep" !voter User:DGG favorably compares this page with "outrageously spammy promotional articles." Since page isn't overly promotional, and the page appears to pass GNG, I'll close this as no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been convinced that my evaluation of consensus in this procedure was incorrect, and at nobody's request, I'm amending my close to keep. My weighing of the arguments appears not to match the measurement of many editors outside this process. It has also been brought to my attention the wording I used in my closing statement might tend to lead a reader to conclude I was myself !voting. While that was not my intention, I accept that this may be a valid perception. BusterD (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MedicoLegal Investigations Ltd
- MedicoLegal Investigations Ltd (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, only interdependent mention i can find is in the Sacramento Bee the rest of the coverage is about the term not the company. So this fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG Mtking (edits) 08:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I'm surprised that this article has been put forward for AfD. It might not be the best know org to the average layman but it has become well know to middle and higher management and and others within all sectors of the UK health care industry. It appears to prefer to be very secretive compared to other companies but that’s not the point, nor does it negate its notability within the UK.--Aspro (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does that address the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ? Mtking (edits) 10:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just need to look in the right places [48]. Or would some of you prefer the medical community and their patients to read on WP, orgs that you only are familiar with? MLI is just like an industry funded (lap-dog?) version of [49]. Which is becoming more common in the UK - Saves the UK gov paying for a gov. dept to do it. Is it not also, often pointed out, that all WP articles are 'works in progress'? Reminds me of Jimmy Wales having his stub on Mzoli's deleted before he could develop it further. Wikipedia an online encyclopedia torn apart. As noted on the WP discussion boards, currently, WP seem to be suffering from too few editors with the specific knowledge and time, against, those with too much time and too little knowledge (except in the filed of wiki-lawyering perhaps). --Aspro (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't quite know what point you are trying to make, but that first link does not mention the firm (well in the bit they allow the world to read). Mtking (edits) 11:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do think Aspro has a valid point though. It is remarkably difficult to get UK and other European commercial organisations past the notability guidelines, even if they have turnover in the billions, thousands of employees, or even dozens of outlets. The media generally do not produce company profiles of the sort the guidelines look for, and where they exist the independence is illusory as the information necessarily comes from company sources. Perversely the consquence is that if a member of the public, or anyone else, wants to find out about them they cannot go to Wikipedia, and have to rely on the company's own website or at best a few unsubstantiated rumours elsewhere. This isn't an easy dilemma to overcome. If this organisation is well known in its own right in relevant circles it is concievable there is enough publicly available material to scrape past the notability test (it isn't just about Google) and if the information about the company is verifiable that might be enough for a keep. NPOV is important of course. I am sure that the industry would say that self regulation demonstrates their desire to ensure the accuracy of drug trial results and that there is no reason why the cost should fall on the taxpayer. This cannot be allowed to turn into an attack piece even though there is a reasonable expectation that the very existance of this company would interest a lot of people. --AJHingston (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't quite know what point you are trying to make, but that first link does not mention the firm (well in the bit they allow the world to read). Mtking (edits) 11:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just need to look in the right places [48]. Or would some of you prefer the medical community and their patients to read on WP, orgs that you only are familiar with? MLI is just like an industry funded (lap-dog?) version of [49]. Which is becoming more common in the UK - Saves the UK gov paying for a gov. dept to do it. Is it not also, often pointed out, that all WP articles are 'works in progress'? Reminds me of Jimmy Wales having his stub on Mzoli's deleted before he could develop it further. Wikipedia an online encyclopedia torn apart. As noted on the WP discussion boards, currently, WP seem to be suffering from too few editors with the specific knowledge and time, against, those with too much time and too little knowledge (except in the filed of wiki-lawyering perhaps). --Aspro (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does that address the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ? Mtking (edits) 10:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agree with nom. I'm having difficulty finding references that refer to this place. Responding to AJHingston, re "It is remarkably difficult to get UK and other European commercial organisations past the notability guidelines" - It can't get past the guidelines b/c either 1) It isn't notable or 2) It is notable and something is wrong with the guidelines. If you believe the later, take your discussion to the policy talk page. NickCT (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There really cannot be any doubt that the notability guidelines have an unintentional bias. Look at the ease with which bands, or professional sportspeople, or actors in popular soaps, get in compared with large organisations, public bodies, etc. Cases make policy - WP does not begin top down by devising a set of laws and principles and applying them systematically; if it did it is unlikely that it would have the current contradictions. Nominations for deletion need to be debated on their merits and if the guidelines cannot be made to fit then is the time to consider tweaking them. Note that I did not say that this article met them as things stand, just that Aspro has made a very fair case for why this organisation should be included - the topic of drug trial fraud is very notable and if it is true that this organisation is the agency of choice for investigating it then that would point toward inclusion. This isn't a piece of spam. --AJHingston (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously this isn't spam. Obviously drug trail fraud is an interesting, and probably in many cases, a notable subject; however, you're basically making the argument that "X is notable. Y is closely related to X, so Y must be notable too", which is a bit of a fallacy.
- I think what's good to remember here is that notability is largely based on public perception. Sure MedicoLegal Investigations Ltd might be more important than porn actress Sasha Grey, in that MLI may have had a more substantial impact on more lives. I'd still argue though that Sasha deserves a WP entry and MLI doesn't b/c Sasha garners more public attention than MLI. Notability is what the public/press/reliable sources find interesting and worth writing about. Sometimes things of great notability, might be of little importance or vice versa. I think folks often take "not notable" to mean "not important", and that's not the case. NickCT (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that WP covers a lot of things that would not pass the notability test being used here. Whether something is 'famous' is used as test of notability, not an end in itself. Now, I'm in no position to say whether what Aspro is saying is true, but I assume good faith and my instincts tell me that the activities of this organisation are likely to be of great interest to journalists and others if they could get at them. Equally, the demands of client confidentiality mean that it is likely to be very well guarded. There may be no way round that, and deletion would presumably serve the interests of company and clients. But will it serve the interests of users? I think that the real difficulty with keeping it is actually verifiability, and that is a much bigger objection than notability at the moment. --AJHingston (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There really cannot be any doubt that the notability guidelines have an unintentional bias. Look at the ease with which bands, or professional sportspeople, or actors in popular soaps, get in compared with large organisations, public bodies, etc. Cases make policy - WP does not begin top down by devising a set of laws and principles and applying them systematically; if it did it is unlikely that it would have the current contradictions. Nominations for deletion need to be debated on their merits and if the guidelines cannot be made to fit then is the time to consider tweaking them. Note that I did not say that this article met them as things stand, just that Aspro has made a very fair case for why this organisation should be included - the topic of drug trial fraud is very notable and if it is true that this organisation is the agency of choice for investigating it then that would point toward inclusion. This isn't a piece of spam. --AJHingston (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is the sort of organisation that tends not to be referenced, for reasons discussed above. There's a good article about its work by its director in Pharmaletter a well known trade publication [50]--though obviously not 3rd party, it gives some perspective. The article isn't spam, there's evidence the material is factual, unless they're lying it's the leader in its field in the UK. I think it'll do. Considering the sort of outrageously spammy promotional articles we get, this one is responsible. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per the arguments of AJHingston and DGG. I've copyedited the article and added another ext link to an NHS document which seems to be at least partly independent from the company. —SMALLJIM 17:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The confirmation that MLI Ltd is the only company supported by the industry engaged in this work and the importance attached to its role, which is contained in the document by the National Institute for Health Research found by Smalljim, provides important confirmation of notability and content. The NIHR is certainly independent of the company. If MLI Ltd were an investigatory agency within government I do not think there would be the same reluctance to include it in WP, and the legal status should not matter. The boundaries are increasingly blurred in ares such as health care. --AJHingston (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The company is not a secretive organisation, anyone who is in the Medical industry with an investigative requirement will know of or wil have used MLI. They have a long history and have very senior well educated and well placed senior management. They do not publicise or overtly draw attention to themselves because the vast majority of their caseloads are of a sensitive nature and they let their results speak for them. Image if your local investigation company started publically reporting its caseloads, I suggest they would not be around for long. The idea of deleting this entry because there is little information out is not a sensible option. The industry knows who they are and so do the senior managers who use their skills. There is plenty of information out there. List of Directors, addresses, even a few court reports. seek and ye shall find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigtezstags (talk • contribs) 11:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC) — Bigtezstags (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: I only used the word 'secretive' because I was lost for a better superlative for a organization the doesn’t blow its trumpet and prefers to keep a low profile. WP is very US orientate and I find some editors here, assume European companies of any worth must also have PR companies blitzing the media with their message. Having said that, I think you summed them up much better.--Aspro (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The consensus is that the article should not be deleted. The quality of the writing and the style are issues which can be addresses through normal editing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commitment ordering
- Commitment ordering (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 textbook, or scientific journal, this is one big scientific article, not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, author is using wikipedia to promote himself and his research, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoav Raz, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of commitment ordering. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, while sections do reproduce Raz's research published elsewhere other sections are original synthesis to further the authors position on the subject, creating a personal essay. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, article is based primarily on Raz's publication in a way that is clearly to advocate his position on the subject. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all the references that actually mention this topic seem to be by Yoav Raz. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect. See the following examples:
- 1. the following quotations on CO appears in a 2009 book: Philip A. Bernstein, Eric Newcomer (2009): Principles of Transaction Processing, 2nd Edition, Morgan Kaufmann (Elsevier), June 2009, ISBN 978-1-55860-623-4
- Quotations:
- "Not all concurrency control algorithms use locks... Three other techniques are timestamp ordering, serialization graph testing, and commit ordering. Timestamp ordering assigns each transaction a timestamp and ensures that conflicting operations execute in timestamp order. Serialization graph testing tracks conflicts and ensures that the serialization graph is acyclic. Commit ordering ensures that conflicting operations are consistent with the relative order in which their transactions commit, which can enable interoperability of systems using different concurrency control mechanisms." (quotation from page 145)
- "Commit ordering is presented in Raz (1992)." (page 360)
- Bold fonts in source
- Phil Bernstein is a known researcher and authority in database concurrency control. --Comps (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quotations:
- 2. The textbook on transaction concurrency control: Gerhard Weikum, Gottfried Vossen (2001): Transactional Information Systems, Elsevier, ISBN 1-55860-508-8 , has two section dedicated to and named commitment ordering: One starts in page 102 and the other in page 700. The book references Yoav Raz's CO articles for the sections. Both authors are known researchers in this area.--Comps (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. the following quotations on CO appears in a 2009 book: Philip A. Bernstein, Eric Newcomer (2009): Principles of Transaction Processing, 2nd Edition, Morgan Kaufmann (Elsevier), June 2009, ISBN 978-1-55860-623-4
- Commitment ordering is a central element today in Concurrency control theory. It has enjoys increasing utilization and interest (see History of commitment ordering). Will be a mistake to delete, to my opinion, independently of all the reasons that you guess caused writing it. --Comps (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect. See the following examples:
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment presumably the paper and the conference proceedings were peer-reviewed, so that there are actually experts in the field who find this notable enough to publish? Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Was that a direct request for input from experts, or a rhetorical argument? So far as I know, Wikipedia does not automatically assume that subjects covered in peer-reviewed papers are notable under the GNG. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted in the deletion discussion of History of commitment ordering all referenced CO articles have been peer-reviewed by prestigious program committees and reviewers. Every expert looking into it will endorse this claim. I agree that experts in database concurrency control need to decide about CO's importance, as well as the validity of this article's accuracy and proper references. Not by those not experts. The notability of CO is also argued in the History of CO deletion discussion, and solid reasons are given there for this. The Wikipedia article History of CO itself clearly gives these arguments for notability. Quality of article in terms of appearance and presentation is a separate issue. I'm sure it is not perfect, even after years of iterations and rewriting, but I'm also sure it can continue improving. --Comps (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC) I also believe it is very reasonable in term of quality. --Comps (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Peer-reviewed articles and academic conference presentations on a subject would usually be considered sigificant coverage, and peer-reviewed journals are nornally reliable sources. The independence wpuld follow from the fact that the journals are peer-reviewed and edited independently. So it would appear that this topic passes the GNG threshold. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted in the deletion discussion of History of commitment ordering all referenced CO articles have been peer-reviewed by prestigious program committees and reviewers. Every expert looking into it will endorse this claim. I agree that experts in database concurrency control need to decide about CO's importance, as well as the validity of this article's accuracy and proper references. Not by those not experts. The notability of CO is also argued in the History of CO deletion discussion, and solid reasons are given there for this. The Wikipedia article History of CO itself clearly gives these arguments for notability. Quality of article in terms of appearance and presentation is a separate issue. I'm sure it is not perfect, even after years of iterations and rewriting, but I'm also sure it can continue improving. --Comps (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC) I also believe it is very reasonable in term of quality. --Comps (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain - Yoav Raz appears to have enlisted a bunch of grad students as Wikipedia editors. This creates WP:COI and WP:UNDUE issues which make it difficult to determine best how to proceed. This will not be resolved quickly though AfD. --Kvng (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no problem if judged logically and properly. "Yoav Raz appears to have enlisted a bunch of grad students as Wikipedia editors." is unsubstantiated an irrelevant to the discussion, as long as facts are correctly presented, , with no phylibustering (which I have not seen here), and logical deductions are made. --Comps (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep and stubify. There seem to be enough sources on the subject by people other than Raz to make this worthy as an encyclopedia topic. However, there are severe WP:COI and WP:NPOV problems; for instance, several of the non-Raz references I looked through said that CO is the same thing as strong recoverability, while our article (without adequate sources) argues that it isn't. I don't think most of the current articles text is usable, and if the problem editors can't be persuaded to let the article be edited down to a more encyclopedic state then it may have to be deleted outright — it isn't so important a topic that its absence would be a big problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong recoverability has a definition identical to that of CO (in History of CO article). Please go to the strong recoverability articles (in History's refs) for definition. However the definition has not been utilized as in the CO invention (i.e., strong recoverability has no methods and algorithms which CO has) and thus has nothing to do with the CO patents. Otherwise the patents would have been disputed long ago. The strong recoverability articles are explicitly referenced in the CO patents, exactly to have this scrutinized by the patents' examiners. Independently of this CO preceded strong recoverability. --Comps (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As said above all this needs to be determined by experts, not by not-experts. Specifically also the importance of CO that you (not an expert; please tell if otherwise) doubt. I bet that every expert will endorse CO's importance. Phil Bernstein, who is a known expert in the field, already did in the book Bernstein and Newcomer 2009 (referenced), listing CO as one of the four major database concurrency control methods, and describing its unique ability to allow different CC mechanisms' interoperability. Also any possible bias assumed here in the article needs to be detected by experts, if exists. Re stubifying, I see no reason for this, if CO is indeed important as claimed here, and if the article is accurate. --Comps (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- all this needs to be determined by experts - I suggest that you may be interested in brushing up on the concept of Wikipedia:Notability, on which this discussion is based. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep and rewrite As per David Eppstein. There are some independent references to this work, but all I've found are fairly trivial (i.e. a single sentence mentioning this exists.) —Ruud 13:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not know why you call such citation "trivial". A citation is an acknowledgement in the validity and non-triviality of a publication (otherwise ignored). The CO articles have been cited in tens of academic articles, without any dispute; the CO patents have been cited in hundreds patents (see Google Scolar and Google Patents by Pat No.)
- Google scolar for "Commitment ordering"
- Google scolar for "Commit ordering" (many different articles for the alias)
- Google patents for Patent 5701480 (One of three CO patents) --Comps (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- I do not know why you call such citation "trivial". A citation is an acknowledgement in the validity and non-triviality of a publication (otherwise ignored). The CO articles have been cited in tens of academic articles, without any dispute; the CO patents have been cited in hundreds patents (see Google Scolar and Google Patents by Pat No.)
- Keep and rewrite if necessary. Also someone to think about copyvio/OTRS. We should not reject material simply because it originates from a (or even the primary) researcher in the area, but we do need to be careful about areas where the information is not part of the generally accepted wisdom of the field, and of course be aware of WP:UNDUE. Rich Farmbrough, 17:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC).
- Delete - incomprehensible to the average reader. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The average reader cannot understand also many other Wikipedia articles like Calculus of variations and Standard model (examples I already have given) beyond the trivial intro. He may be able to understand after studying the needed background. In this regard Commitment ordering is simpler than the examples since relying on smaller bodies of Mathematics and context. --Comps (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is an important article, on a central subject in concurrency control of databases and transactions. It is a fact-based article, neither an opinion or position in any form, nor a soapbox, contrary to the lead paragraph above. (to be elaborated) --Comps (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are several problems with this article. The precise title "Commitment ordering" seems only to be used by Raz. I'm not sure whether he intends to use it as a general term or as a particular algorithm (mechanism?) for enforcing the "CO property". "Commit ordering" is used more often and by a much larger group of people. The name "dynamic atomicity" is also used more often and User:Comps even admits that it is equivalent and precedes "Commitment ordering". I think the title should be Dynamic atomicity.
- Regarding the name Commitment ordering:
- "Commitment ordering" is the full original name used by Dr. Raz. The name seems to be analogous to the name of another concurrency control method: "timestamp ordering" (In both CO and TO "objects" are ordered in transaction precedence order). As noted in the article this is the name of both the history (schedule) property and the methods, algorithms to produce such histories, which are patented. Like the name interchange "atomic commitment" <-> "atomic commit", also here we see the synonym "commit order", where people often prefer the shorter form.
- Regarding "Dynamic atomicity": Dynamic atomicity was defined as a history property only (no generic algorithms). It is used primarily in the context of programming languages. It originated at the MIT and was compared to Commitment ordering thoroughly in the deleted article History of commitment ordering, now in user space for rewrite ([51]). Database text books and articles have used the name "Commitment ordering" which better describe the property in the database jargon than the name Dynamic atomicity, a jargon unique to the MIT group, typically used for Abstract data types, not databases (atomicity has a different meaning in databases and the MIT jargon). --Comps (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not easy writing on a specialized topic for a general encyclopedia. WP:JARGON suggests that we should write at one level below that at which the subject is studied. I think this would mean an undergraduate computer science student. Even though User:Comps has put a lot of effort into this article I think it clearly misses that standard.
There is also the problem that the article over-emphasizes the work of Raz. I'm not saying that he should be ignored, but there are other people publishing in this field too.
I'm really not sure what to suggest should be done. User:Comps is probably the only person in this discussion who is an expert in this area, but he seems to have produced an article strongly biased towards Raz's work. On the other hand, he is of course a volunteer like all of us.
It is not easy writing on a specialized topic for a general encyclopedia. Dingo1729 (talk) 05:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect to the comment: User:Comps is probably the only person in this discussion who is an expert in this area. It might be more true to say that User:Comps is the only person to have put themselves forward as an expert in this area. I have a PhD in Computer Science [52] and have taught concurrency at a university level; whether that counts as being an expert probably depends on where you draw your lines. I hold that expert status is irrelevant here, since this discussion is about balance and WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RS is put to rest by the quotations above, in the the conversation of the first reply (Delete): The latest most notable text-books on transactions and transaction concurrency control respectively describe Commitment ordering! --Comps (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, I accept the correction. Dingo1729 (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The specific subject is Database concurrency control described in Concurrency control and covered in the text-books referenced there and in Serializability.
- "User:Comps is the only person to have put themselves forward as an expert in this area." I do not remember if I explicitly said I was an expert, but I am willing to do it now. I wrote most text in the related articles here (over a period > 5 years), and will be happy to put them to any professional scrutiny. I'm glad Wikipedia has a good coverage of the area, and Commitment ordering is included as an important piece, now and even more in the future. It is pity History of commitment ordering was deleted, since it covers interesting issues like those raised here above with Dynamic atomicity. --Comps (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect to the comment: User:Comps is probably the only person in this discussion who is an expert in this area. It might be more true to say that User:Comps is the only person to have put themselves forward as an expert in this area. I have a PhD in Computer Science [52] and have taught concurrency at a university level; whether that counts as being an expert probably depends on where you draw your lines. I hold that expert status is irrelevant here, since this discussion is about balance and WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:25, 23 November 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. causa sui (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Howard G. Malley
- Howard G. Malley (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 individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although this is a poorly written start of an article, the March 30, 1985 issue of Billboard confirms that, along with Craig Golin, he was the video producer of We Are The World, the most spectacularly successful rock and roll charity event ever held. A Google Books search verifies several accomplishments not mentioned in the article. He's notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Per WP:NRVE, notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. In this case GNews hits and GBooks Hits are sufficient to support a claim of notability. However, the article needs a strong cleanup. --Cavarrone (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Another tenet needed to establish WP:NOTABILITY requires that the topic has been the subject of "significant coverage". I do not see how the examples you have given are "significant coverage". They are basically listings of the the subject's name. "Significant coverage [as defined by Wikipedia] is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Are there any articles beyond just a quick listing of the subject's name? reddogsix (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True, all we know that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability", BUT the guideline also says: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".--Cavarrone (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with reddogsix. The things he's done are notable, but there's no signifigant coverage about him. --Madison-chan (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Producer of a very famous video. People are notable for the things they do. Very few people's private life is notable--its their accomplishments. The only people whose personal life is actually written about in a subtsantial way are performers and sports figures and those few thousand people in the world people who are actually famous .That would give a ridiculously abridged encyclopedia. Producers are notable because of the shows they produce, just as authors for what they write, and businessmen for the businesses. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above; no doubt there's an interesting career, but I don't see any significant coverage about the person as an individual; notability isn't inherited from one's works. Neutralitytalk 07:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- if notability isn't derived from a person's work, what is it derived from? The minutia of his daily life? DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Neutralitytalk 06:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- if notability isn't derived from a person's work, what is it derived from? The minutia of his daily life? DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 22 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ZY Partners
- ZY Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Law firm that does not appear to pass notability criteria of WP:ORG. Current sources listed mainly come from the firm's own website. Other sources include one blog and an Intellectual Property website that doesn't mention the firm. Tone is somewhat promotional. I found the firm mentioned in this Spanish financial news website, but I could find no other coverage. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. My own searches confirm the same; Chinese results are mostly adverts, listings, blogs, and PR. This subject appears to fails WP:ORG, and probably also specifically WP:COMPANY for its rather promotional nature combined with a lack of significant coverage by WP:RS. JFHJr (㊟) 05:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG, I was doing same search for sources at the same time as the nominator and came up also empty handed. Mtking (edits) 05:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Law firms need some kind of long term historical significance before they become appropriate subjects for encyclopedia articles. Nothing I can find in English establishes that, and most of the Chinese language links are internal. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:24, 15 November 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. causa sui (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stadionul Romcomit
- Stadionul Romcomit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Defunct Romanian stadium of unspecified seating capacity, demolished in 1934. No non-Wikipedia references found at Google Book search. Does not appear to satisfy WP:N, unless multiple reliable sources with significant coverage (not necessarily in English or on-line) can be found. Edison (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This was one of the oldest stadiums in Romania. There are three references to mainstream Romanian newspapers articles, covering the subject of old Romanian stadiums, in which the Romcomit stadium is described in detail (among other 3 old stadiums in Bucharest). Razvan Socol (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The refs in question were added after the start of the AFD. Just mentioning that to clarify the article was unreferenced at the time the AFD was started. Did you read the articles? Do they in fact have significant coverage, and basically, what do they say about it? Being "one the oldest" of some local class of things in a country does not confer automatic notability. It still has to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sufficient sourcing; that it has been demolished since is irrelevant to notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 22 November 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 Perkins School of Theology. Editors may merge material from page history where appropriate. Jujutacular talk 19:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Methodist Bishops' Collection
- Methodist Bishops' Collection (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 collection of writings and manuscripts by Methodist Bishops, collected by Bishop Leete. Not mentioned much other than by Leete, per Google Book search and Google scholar search. Tagged as unreferenced since February 2008. Edison (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. StAnselm (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless someone comes up with sources, in which case, merge to Perkins School of Theology, the library that now appears to hold this collection of materials. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect - a clear merge to Perkins School of Theology; it's in the school's Bridwell Library. Neutralitytalk 08:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect as Neutrality. This is an archive collection. I am not qualified to judge the notability of the archive, but incorproating this paragraph in an article in the School where it is kept, or (if that article becomes too large) or a forked article on its library is by far the best solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 22 November 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 closed as moot. Article deleted by User:Boing! said Zebedee as WP:CSD#A10. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mazhai Nerathu Mazhaithuli
- Mazhai Nerathu Mazhaithuli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
We need a CSD for things like this! non notable film, hasnt started filming yet, no gnews. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to director A. R. Murugadoss until such time as the topic meets WP:NF and the redirect can be reverted and the artcicle then expanded and sourced. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:52, 15 November 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. clear consensus; when nominated, there was minimal sourcing, but it's been added since--considering the state when nominated, I want to specifically say I do not regard it as an absurd or disruptive or even unreasonable AfD nomination. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consulate-General of Japan in Saint Petersburg
- Consulate-General of Japan in Saint Petersburg (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. consulates are rarely rarely notable. nothing in gnews and google merely confirms its existence. [53]. I'd be willing to reconsider if someone can find actual indepth coverage in Russian or Japanese. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see any assertion of notability, so I don't see why we need to crowd AFD with this type of nomination. A speedy deletion or at most a prod would suffice.--TM 13:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This gives history of the building -- which is notable -- most of the buildings along that section of the Moika River Embankment are rich in history -- often being tied to the Russian Imperial aristocracy. Russavia Let's dialogue 09:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- only one source is provided. significant third party coverage in various sources is what establishes notability. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Libstar, I believe you have been requested a million times before to notify article creators of discussions relating to articles they have created. I see nothing on my talk page in relation to this. Can we get some sort of guarantee that you will information creators in the future? Russavia Let's dialogue 09:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- there is no rule about notification, you found this AfD anyway. LibStar (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - obviously, given the sources provided by Russavia. Pantherskin (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- only one source is provided. significant third party coverage in various sources is what establishes notability. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding more sources This is another source indepedent of the subject, and is from 1971 -- the year in which the Japanese consulate opened in Saint Petersburg -- which at that time was of course known as Leningrad. Of course google searches for "Генеральное консульство Японии в Санкт-Петербурге" and "Генеральное консульство Японии в Ленинграде" show other results across web, news, books and scholar. There are of course other ways to search, including "консульство Японии в Санкт-Петербурге" and "Генконсульство Японии в Санкт-Петербурге". There are of course other sources such as this, which if the WMF is happy to pay for me to go to Russia and arrange for access to archives and the like, I'd be happy to throw myself into such a venture for at least 2 years and get all of this done. Russavia Let's dialogue 13:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Russavia, and I'd also motion for the WMF to send him archive-prowling in Russia. I think that he has shown well enough that this consulate does pass WP:GNG.--Slon02 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Callaway
- Robert Callaway (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 (found nothing on Newsbank), and WP:NSPORT, having never played in an NFL game. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Haven't had a chance to evaluate the coverage yet, but there do appear to be a number of articles about Callaway. See, e.g., Index of article about Callawy, Detroit Lions' local star Robert Callaway should find a home in NFL (mlive), Readers hope Flint Beecher's Robert Callaway will succeed with the Detroit Lions (Flint Journal), The lack of notoriety motivates Flint Beecher's Robert Callaway to become an elite NFL player with the Detroit Lions (Flint Journal), Flint Beecher's Robert Callaway moves to third on Detroit Lions depth chart (Flint Journal). Cbl62 (talk) 20:39, 3 November 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, The Bushranger One ping only 04:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not ready to call this a keeper yet. Would change my position if he plays pro or other sources are drummed up.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep just re-signed to the practice squad again [54], seems to get decent media coverage from ESPN, and other sports websites. Go Phightins! (talk) 21:40, 11 November 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, v/r - TP 02:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Practice squads are generally not notable in wikipedia, and mentions of signing to one can't be said to be 'significant coverage'. Unless he's played in a season game for the league, he doesnt meet Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#American_football.2FCanadian_football — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clovis Sangrail (talk • contribs) 05:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator and per Clovis. Doesn't quite touch the floor. JFHJr (㊟) 05:15, 15 November 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. Deletion concerns have been addressed. Sources have been added establishing the subject's notability, and the article has been cleaned up. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Khatm ul Awliya
- Khatm ul Awliya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article was originally speedy deleted as a copyright violation of [55]. Its still a close copy, but probably not a copyright violation. However the article is unsourced and thus unverifiable for readers. It is also a personal point of view and seems to be a very narrow and minor theory within Islam; though I'm happy to be disabused of this belief if incorrect. If this is a notable viewpoint, it needs proper sourcing both of the theory and its impact. Sparthorse (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rewritten the article (no copyvio any more), added citations and links. It is a major concept in Sufism, the mystical branch of Islam. MOVE to English "The Seal of the Saints" would be helpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to the English name: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks WP:RS to meet WP:GNG … none of the Sheiks mentioned in the article are notable enough to have articles here. Happy Editing! — 68.239.65.132 (talk · contribs) 16:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And what about the hundreds of reliable sources found by the Google Books and Scholar searches that I linked? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And what about it looking like a WP:COPYVIO of this (from the first search list) before I removed the honorifics? Most appear to be mentions or references to it, not "significant coverage" of or about it … that it exists (and may be purchased online) is not in doubt; it's the notability that is in question, i.e., it is still unsourced. — 68.239.65.132 (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Our article is about the more-than-a-millennium-old concept of the seal of the saints, not about a modern book that can be purchased online. I can't believe that you actually looked at the Google Books results before claiming that they are do not have significant coverage, for example the second result is a book from an academic publisher with a chapter about the subject and the third, from a university publisher, has five pages of coverage. Many similar sources can be found by looking further. Notability is about the existence of sources, not the current state of the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And what about it looking like a WP:COPYVIO of this (from the first search list) before I removed the honorifics? Most appear to be mentions or references to it, not "significant coverage" of or about it … that it exists (and may be purchased online) is not in doubt; it's the notability that is in question, i.e., it is still unsourced. — 68.239.65.132 (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And what about the hundreds of reliable sources found by the Google Books and Scholar searches that I linked? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:33, 6 November 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, v/r - TP 02:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP, Rename, Rescue - this is the clearest 'Rescue' candidate I've seen in a while.The "Seal of the Saints" is a key concept in the writings of Ibn al Arabi (1165 - 1240), a leading Islamic thinker and spiritual teacher. This article should be about the concept, linked to Ibn al Arabi, and sourced by reference to the many books about al Arabi's thinking and in particular the "Seal of the Saints". The material is difficult, at least for non-muslims, but it is classic and undeniably Notable. There are heaps of sources. I will tag for Rescue now, add some sources, and do a bit of wikifying. It's a classic lesson in looking behind what an article says to what it's actually about before deleting. And perhaps a lesson in cultural sensitivity, too - easier to trash what you don't trouble to understand. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've cleaned up the article - still pretty sketchy, wikified, added some refs. If you can help, please do! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but move to English "The Seal of the Saints" with redirect from the Arabic. This is a major concept in Sufism, the mystical branch of Islam. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Chiswick Chap, I have some books on this I'll slowly improve the referencing Tachfin (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, Tachfin and other editors, improve the referencing from books, but do it fairly promptly, so the article does not get deleted because of referencing issues. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with what others have said. This seems to be significant and references have been found. Dream Focus 12:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Actually the first sufis who write the book called "Khatm ul Awliya" was Hakim al-Tirmidhi, and Ibn Arabi wrote a reply to this book --Lokamaya (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus is that there are enough reliable reports about the organization - since nomination the article and the sourcing has been greatly improved by User:Chiswick Chap - (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya
- Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya (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 not my field of specialty at all, and I don't quite know what this falls into, but it is a tone concern with the edits of User:Namonarayana ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — the only ones by the account, all to this article. Doesn't quite seem all that notable to me, either, perhaps just another think tank. Raymie (t • c) 05:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The sources that I can find in English all seem to refer to the subject as the publisher of Satchidanandendra Saraswati's writings, so if independent notability can't be established then I would suggest merging/redirecting to his article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 30 October 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, Davewild (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm very wary of deleting things like this from India - firstly we aren't very good at reading Sanskrit, Kannada, etc, and secondly a lot of the Indian newspapers did not have online archives until very recently. But there do seem to be reliable sources:
- The Hindu newspaper does actually have a brief entry this week, for a talk given at Adhyatmaprakasha Karyalaya, Bangalore. This impeccable source shows existence, and that the organization is a place for religious discourse as claimed. (We don't need long entries for this purpose.) Here's another example from The Hindu 9 June 2011.
- Devasthanam: Sankara Acarya (page 1, Shankara's life) references a book on Shankara published by APK, so confirming that APK acts (as it claims) as a publisher as well as a forum. I suggest that these two alone establish basic notability. I've added a few basic refs to the article and tidied it up a little. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article seems to have many problems. But APK has published good scholarly work in the local language ( Kannada) which is not available in electronic media or in English. I would suggest not to delete this article in a hurry. We can wait for some more editions before coming to a conclusion.--Skbhat (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: APK may be a non-profit, but this page smacks of self-advertising. I feel it violates WP:N, WP:SPIP, WP:COI and WP:NPOV. There is no other paper apart from Hindu that mentions it (even there, the orgn. is mentioned as a small note). According to Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies), Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Veryhuman (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I hear what you say, but I actually don't think so. I suspect someone went along to an APK meeting and thought, why aren't they on WP - and did a newbie job on the page, complete with the honorifics natural in India that seem so much like blatant 'selling' to us in the West. I've added some sources - I agree the existing ones are thin. Will look out some more evidence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have added substantial quotations with refs from The Hindu and The Times of India, and have de-peacocked the article, so previous 'Delete' claims no longer true. Hope you find it better now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I still dont consider the article worthy of an encyclopedic mention. My opinion doesnt say anything about the organization - it really may be doing significant work. However, on Wikipedia, a wiki entry needs to be strongly supported by secondary sources. Note that most references added are either self-cited WP:SPIP or original research WP:OR. I did a search myself on Google, but I couldnt find anything much. Plus, as Raymie mentions below, the article is awkwardly written, especially the Reception section. There are only 6-7 words in the two neutral sources (ToI and Hindu) that talk about this organization. The author tries hard to mention those occurrences, but that is clearly not the way a Wikipedia article is written. Veryhuman (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's getting much better, but I'm still concerned that it seems kinda spartan and rather awkward in writing. Are all the odd capital letters in that one quote intended? Raymie (t • c) 01:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmm, good point. The odd capitals in that quote were in the original, it's a kind of phonetic spelling. I think I'll be bold and take them out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 6 November 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, v/r - TP 02:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I would vote a keep. The foundation is very old and quiet known in IndiaJethwarp (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite well known is Original Research. I'd be glad if this statement is supported by Reliable sources. Veryhuman (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the sources for notability are tight there in the article. The two English language Indian newspapers that we have always relied on here as RS for India-related topics. To say that the articles are only from these papers seems a little paradoxical. (Especially when very few others are available to most of us working here) DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the improvements made by User:Chiswick Chap since this process was commenced. The Hindu and The Times of India put this page pass the bar, as noted by User:DGG above. BusterD (talk) 14:27, 23 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Led Zeppelin covers and tributes
- Led Zeppelin covers and tributes (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 collection of Zep-trivia, unsourced and poorly written and organized. A list of covers and tributes is, in my opinion, unencyclopedic to begin with, besides the perennial problems in such lists of sourcing and notability of entries. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also nominating the article's cousin, for the same reason: Tributes to Led Zeppelin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Drmies (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but as one article. Editing and sourcing are both required but I don't see the subject as intrinsically unencyclopedic. Better as a separate article than cluttering up the band article, which is where this sort of content would likely be added if this article did not exist.--Michig (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, consolidate per Michig. Lots of sources about Zep tributes, I agree there's nothing unencyclopedic about it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge together, as above. Yes, this is one of those articles that is apt to get messy, but it's certainly notable. I would recommend merging Tributes to Led Zeppelin into Led Zeppelin covers and tributes, as the latter has the more useful title and more structure to it. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:52, 19 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tore Eikeland
- Tore Eikeland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completing nomination for User:85.166.140.237:
This is a person who has an article on Norwegian wikipedia.
He was not a "major player" in any way, during the Utøya massacre, to my knowledge.
Any notability apart from being shot and killed alongside less than 100 other individuals, will have to be demonstrated in the article about the attack.
Therefore I have removed him from category:2011 Norway attacks.
(I am not even sure that he is notable as a subject for an article on wikipedia. His name might perhaps only belong in a future article about the local/chapter' of AUF where was a leader — in Bergen or in Hordaland.)
Nomination for deletion of the article, has my support.--85.166.140.237 (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Eikeland is one of two Utøya-victims that has an article on no.wikipedia.org - the other was Håvard Vederhus. Verderhus was leader of AUF in the most populated county in Norway, Oslo, while Eikeland was leder of AuF in the 3rd most populated county, Hordaland. In the local elections on 12 September 2011, Eikeland was elected into the Hordaland County Council. [56] Eikeland (and Vederhus) is the two most notable victim in the 2011 Norway attacks, but I don't know if they are notable enough to have an own article on english wikipedia.Mentoz86 (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already an ongoing discussion on wikipedia about the notability of the victims of the shooting, [57]. Vederhus was found notable for being leader of a national organization. None of the leaders of local chapters of AUF were found notable (for being leaders of local chapters). P.S. I have previously used IP-address 85.166.140.237, in this discussion.--85.166.141.247 (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mentoz86 seems to have missed a major point from the article in Bergens Tidende [58]: "(The reasoning is that the person in question is not electable, and therefore can not be elected,)«Begrunnelsen er at vedkommende ikke er valgbar og kan da heller ikke velges". There is no article about Vederhus, so please leave his name out of the discussion. So far, only Mentoz86 thinks that leadership of a local chapter of AUF, qualifies for notability.--85.166.141.247 (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a promising prospect with an incredibly sad fate, but did not hold any really notable positions yet. Geschichte (talk) 17:36, 13 November 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, v/r - TP 02:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteComment, he was never was elected to political office in a general election. (From time to time (in a number of countries) a person who is dead is still listed on an election ticket. That names on a ticket receive votes, is not above the notability threshold that we are discussing — even when the person is already dead. Mentioning his name in an article about that national election, might be OK (but that is a discussion that does not belong here).--85.166.141.247 (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I changed your delete to comment, since your IP was the one who started the discussion. Geschichte (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - "up and coming"-politician. Sources indicates he had a strong position in the youth section of his party. and thereby recieved the attention in these sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:21, 23 November 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. We seem to be split pretty much straight down the middle here. Even discounting IP !votes and the indefinitely blocked user, the waters don't become much less muddy. Therefore, no consensus. Perhaps a re-nomination in a few weeks, without some people deliberately muddying the waters, might find a consensus one way or the other. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SuperKombat
- SuperKombat (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 was deleted by AfD three months ago and recently recreated. A CSD by another user was denied, but I thought it was worth discussing at AfD. The organization was just created this year and doesn't appear to be notable to me, but I don't have strong feelings about it.
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are either the events sponsored by the organization or, in the case of LocalKombat, an organization run by the same people promoting smaller events. Papaursa (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SuperKombat World Grand Prix I
- SuperKombat World Grand Prix II
- SuperKombat World Grand Prix III
- SuperKombat World Grand Prix IV
- SuperKombat World Grand Prix Final
- Local Kombat
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User Schiavello (aka user Minowafan aka user WölffReik) twice blanked this discussion, removed it from martial arts AFD page, and removed the AfD tags from all of the articles. I asked him once not to do it and, after I reverted his edits, he promptly did it again. I reported it to WP:ANI and they confirmed those were all the same account. Minowafan was the person who recreated the previously deleted articles. Papaursa (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Except for some interviews with the promoter, I'm not seeing significant coverage. Certainly the events all lack significant coverage and fall under WP:ROUTINE. They also fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. With better sources the articles on the organizations might be salvageable. Astudent0 (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the events, weak delete the organizations I think the strongest case for keeping can be made for the main article listed above. However, I couldn't find the significant independent coverage I think it needs to be kept (but I feel a bit uncomfortable about that). The events lack significance and good sources, while LocalKombat seems like a minor organization without good sourcing. Mdtemp (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. So long as anything is verifiable, it is suitable for the website that purports to cover the sum total of human knowledge. No real "need" to delete these that somehow benefits civilization. --143.105.13.115 (talk) 20:19, 14 November 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, v/r - TP 02:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all - This is, if you had done your homework apart from your own personal knowledge, a reputable fighting competition in Europe. I live in New Zealand, and have a vague idea of this contest. If you don't actually think it exists, go google some torrents for its existence, it has televised coverage as other sports do and a huge fan base around the world. There is absolutely no reason to delete it. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, of which users add to it. Not a biased, militarized online journal who as the ranks rise, different decisions on certain pages existence are made. Using google to search for this isn't going to get you very far, as most of it's websites are under .nl domains, which are dutch and aren't found easily unless using a dutch search engine. Basically you want to purge a page and all that is connected to it because your biased to the English language? The sport is Europe's answer to K-1 and is promoted throughout European countries under SuperKombat, instead of K-1.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.229.34 (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - Events don't seem all that notable, and almost all Ghits are unreliable, but some of the kickboxers appear to be notable. The only one that really needs to be deleted is LocalKombat. --Madison-chan (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Having notable kickboxers doesn't make an event notable. An event needs to be long-term significant (see WP:SPORTSEVENT). Papaursa (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - per Astudent0. Neutralitytalk 08:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all - All of these pages are referenced and notable. These are not simply local shows featuring no-name fighters. They could be compared to kickboxing's versions of Strikeforce or DREAM. Even if the event pages are deleted, the promotions themselves should at least be kept. Local Kombat, although a poorly written article on here, held many big cards featuring world-class fighters spanning over seven years (2003-2010). It was a historically significant promotion in kickboxing, and SuperKombat is now the second biggest promotion in Europe. --WölffReik (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WölffReik's outstanding and convincing rebuttal of the flawed nomination. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Delete all as WP:RECENTISM, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. I see no policy-based arguments above for keeping. The pages universally lack sources meeting the WP:IRS standard, most have been previously deleted and then recreated without consensus, and it's apparent to me socking or incorrect use of multiple accounts is taking place. User:Papaursa points out above AfD rules are being ignored or bypassed in order to promote a keep outcome. In view of this activity, it's possible WP:PROMOTION is being violated as well. Failing deletion, merge events into promotion organizations. BusterD (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep all Tonight, on an live aired gala by Eurosport Fight Club, Eduard Irimia, the promoter of SuperKombat from Romania, gathered all fighters of the postponed K-1 event to be held in China. 80% of fightcard are of created fighters' in Wikipedia. This organization is probably the most eminent one in Europe for 2011. If you are tend to delete these, what's next? Delete all Kickboxing champions' articles, as well? Why are some people out here so much obsessed to wipe kickboxing articles, since we've got tones of UNREFERENCED articles from varied disciplines? Why!? Umi1903 (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that an organization created this year, one whose first event outside of Romanina is this weekend, is the preeminent kickboxing organization in Europe says a lot about the state of kickboxing right now. Feel free to put up those other unreferenced articles for AfD. Mdtemp (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Why wasn't this article deleted per WP:G4 based on this previous AfD? OlYeller21Talktome 23:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An editor did put it up for AfD, but it was denied. Mdtemp (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all due to coverage in verifiable sources that establish sufficient Wikipedic notability. --131.123.123.124 (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are all the IPs from Ohio? Mdtemp (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Asks the "temp"? account created one month ago whose edits consist entirely, even right off the bat of just trying to delete MMA related articles... Dude, why are you responding to/harassing everyone who dissagrees with you anyway? That's three posters in a row you reply to in this AfD. Give it a rest. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that you are a new editor. Please review Wikipedia:Civility. Mdtemp is entirely entitled to make relevant comments. Neutralitytalk 07:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Asks the "temp"? account created one month ago whose edits consist entirely, even right off the bat of just trying to delete MMA related articles... Dude, why are you responding to/harassing everyone who dissagrees with you anyway? That's three posters in a row you reply to in this AfD. Give it a rest. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all per User:Umi1903 with whom I agree the most. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has 15 edits, and only two edits in the main namespace (both dealing with MMA topics). Neutralitytalk 07:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete SuperKombat (WP:G4) as it was not declined by a Admin. Mtking (edits) 21:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All the rest lack of notability of this event. Mtking (edits) 21:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge per precedent. I recently joined the Mixed Martial Arts Wikiproject and I see there that a similar recent discussion suggested that these kind of events be joined with the main article of the franchise. These events do get some international news coverage and so it is helpful for those interested in Mixed-martial arts history to have these articles organzied here, especially those who cannot translate them into English. The subject is notable as being perhaps the premier MMA promotion in Romania and the articles are generally referenced. Surely something is salvageable here. No, it is not on par with the UFC, Strikeforce, or Bellator, but I am not convinced that it benefits Wikipedia to scrap it altogether. I do wish these events had more women fighters involved, however, because I would like to see women's mma given more air time. I tell you, sure, most of the men would crush them, but they are entertaining and skilled fighters, too, but anyway, sorry for getting off topic there. But yeah, do something other than deleting because notability is confirmed because of coverage in multiple reliable sources, major promotion that has held multiple events in a historically important country (Romania) and participation of historically relevant fighters in the events. Whether or not we should have articles on every MMA event is of course a different matter, but even that at worst we would redirect the ones that are merely results articles the main article for reader convenience, right? --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note I have struck two three !votes from the IPs above as they belong to other editors in this AfD. Per the WMF's Privacy Policy, I will not reveal who they belong to, but those editors should know better. –MuZemike 18:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. clear consensus after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tool Integration Language (TIL)
- Tool Integration Language (TIL) (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 specialised modelling language. Article was deleted once for lack of notability. The reference now added does little to improve the situation. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet general notability. Single-purpose account and conflict of interest potential. Seems the usual sad case of a poor new user not being familiar with guidelines. Article created on the first edit of Mattbiehl, who has only made edits on this article and one talking about it. The first author of the one reference is Matthias Biehl. Clearly the title does not comply with conventions (the trailing acronym in parens). An article on tool integration language might stand a better chance of survival. That is, an article on the general topic as indicated by the lower case title. It could, for example, cite the paper here from 20 years ago on the subject, and give others up to and including the 2011 one on similar subjects. We generally do not consider subjects of a single student paper as notable, but wait until at least one other independent source at least mentions it. Perhaps userfy if the editor is willing to come up to speed with policy? W Nowicki (talk) 18:38, 6 November 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, v/r - TP 02:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable Computer progamming (?) language. I'm sure it exists, just isn't notable enough for an article. --Madison-chan (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not notable enough for its own language. I would support W Nowicki's suggestion for a more creation of a more general article and inclusion of this specific instance within that. --Kvng (talk) 16:28, 16 November 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. –MuZemike 00:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sussex Thunder
- Sussex Thunder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently non-notable British American Football team. Nothing other than a sprinkling of coverage. A google web search turns up a BBC News article and 3 of articles on the Daily Mirror's American Football blog (all in 2010). A google news search turns up little beyond articles (with inconsistent regularity) in local newspapers. Google book search seems to return a title that uses Wikipedia as its source. Perhaps the following quote from the Google news summary of an article (Miami Herald article on a Miami Dolphins match in London) sums the up Sussex Thunder's notability "One, the Sussex Thunder, plays in front of crowds that team chairman Tony Miller guessed at "30 or 40 people."". Searching around for photos suggests to me that 30 or 40 is generous.
A second issue is that since I cleared out sections that were purely advertising in nature and/or cut and paste from the team's website, there is little of encyclopaedic value left. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - if the statement that they now play in the premier division of the British American Football League is accurate, they were a team at the top level of the sport in their country, and are therefore notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:According to the website of their league they are in "Division 1 South". For completeness, that site states that the Premier League teams are Bristol Aztecs, Coventry Jets, Farnham Knights, London Blitz, London Warriors and Tamworth Phoenix. Pit-yacker (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sources given. If independent reliable sources are found and it looks good, I'd happily change my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:52, 22 October 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, Davewild (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Found this at ESPN along with this BBC source and that's about it. Gave up at page 12 of an ordinary Google search for "sussex thunder football". Pmresource (talk) 10:15, 29 October 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! 06:05, 6 November 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, v/r - TP 02:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RELISTINGISEVIL I say call it "no consensus"--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - All Ghits are unreliable except for that one BBC link. --Madison-chan (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per "The Bushranger"'s rationale and per sources provided by Pmresource. The article's subject is notable. --Cavarrone (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whilst, I'm probably inclined to agree with User:Paulmcdonald that there is no consensus (possibly due to the lack of interest in (or anyone who knows about) the subject of the article). As far as I can tell, BushRanger's rationale was incorrect. They are not in the top league of play in this country.
- Even then, I can no longer find any assertion in policies that sports teams that play in the top league in their country are automatically notable. IHMO, such a situation would probably be more sensible.
- The policy in question in essences infers an equal notability on all teams that play in a top league. That means a team who plays in a minority interest league such as the BAFL premier (e.g. London Blitz) (or any other even more minority interest sport) is equated with a team that plays in a league of world notability such as the FA Premier League (e.g. Chelsea F.C.) or even the NFL regardless of whether the team itself is actually of note. Such a comparison is more or less like comparing apples with peas. The problem is, a more accurate comparison of notability for any British American Football team is with a Sunday League (aka Pub League) soccer team rather than a FA Premier League or NFL team.
- As far as I can tell Pmresource was demonstrating the paucity of sources on this. If this team is really notable, where are the match reports? They dont even manage consistent coverage in local rags. some Sunday League teams do at least manage a consistent level of regular coverage in the local press. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment erm, the first "source" mentioned above relates to some dude's fantasy football team and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while the top level of American football in the UK might just about be claimed to be notable, I don't believe the lower levels are. As mentioned above, teams like this don't get any significant coverage even in their local press and are far less notable even than teams at the 10th level of football (soccer) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- BTW I definitely don't agree with the notion that a team at the top level of any sport in any country is inherently notable. I wouldn't expect to see an article on here about a team at the top level of cricket in Norway, baseball in Uganda, or pelota in Saudi Arabia..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? (WP:CSB) - The Bushranger One ping only 00:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely that's because notability isn't inherited. If a sport in a country has little or no notability, its absurd to automatically confer notability on certain teams just because they play in the "top flight" in that country, and/or because the sport in question is notable in other countries.
- I would suggest that the (it seems former) poilicy in question was intended as a general "yard-stick" to combat malicious afd. It would certainly be correct to assume that a team such as Chelsea (or one in the NFL) was notable. However, such teams are notable in their own right. Not through the rather strange logic that American Football is notable in the US and top flight teams in sports are generally the most notable, therefore a top flight American Football team in the UK must also be inhererntly notable. I fail to see how a team who fails to maintain regular coverage in even local papers and whose own chairman, perhaps generously, describes typical match crowds as "30 or 40 people" could ever be thought of as notable.
- Fact is, I think your link to WP:CSB is self defeating. In my opinion there is a systematic bias conferring an unwarranted notability onto some things in the UK because their cousins elsewhere in the world are notable. The UK still has its own distinct culture. Part of that culture difference means that things that are a big part of everyday life in other countries (such as American Football, College sports, etc.) have nothing beyond extreme niche interest. I would say it is a fair bet that if you went to the average High Street in the UK and surveyed people about American Football in the UK upwards of 95% (possibly even 99%+) would struggle to name a single team. Ironically, the handful of execeptions that are likely to come up in such a survey (e.g. London Monarchs) are generally defunct. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? (WP:CSB) - The Bushranger One ping only 00:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW I definitely don't agree with the notion that a team at the top level of any sport in any country is inherently notable. I wouldn't expect to see an article on here about a team at the top level of cricket in Norway, baseball in Uganda, or pelota in Saudi Arabia..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:39, 19 November 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. –MuZemike 00:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Buddha Bar
- Buddha Bar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disputed prod. Was prodded for concerns that it does not pass the WP:ALBUM; the article is essentially a list of songs it contains. Prod removed by User:Zarashen with the rationale "There is no reason for the deletation of this page. If this is done, an important page will be deleted." Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, this seems to be primarily a restaurant/club chain, with some notability there. The compilations seem to be much less notable. however, I am having trouble finding references from third parties that discuss the restaurant in depth. Like too many subjects here, theres a lot of circular notability/walled garden quality to this. Here's a google books ref that might help: [59]Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:51, 14 November 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, v/r - TP 02:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Zero sources, zero indication of WP notability. Note that the subject of the article is the albums, not the restaurant. This looks like some mix tapes created by the restaurant. The "label" is a red link and it looks like it too is a part of the restaurant. The "label's" web site lists restaurants and lists the subject mix tapes in its one paragraph description of itself. North8000 (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. I really wanted to vote keep, got encouraged with hits, but disappointed whenever I looked into them. The restaurant and music seem about as notable as each other. Even considering the restaurant's public legal entanglements and controversies (WP:NOTNEWS), there's not enough in-depth coverage of the WP:ORG itself on which to base even a re-write. The book results indicate it's somewhat of a trendy tourist attraction (I think one said a good back up in case "Le Queen" doesn't work out), but not much else. The bar is largely a destination for its music, and book results indicate its albums got mention in some press, even good mention. But there's absolutely nothing in-depth or substantial about the multiple sources; not even going into reliability. JFHJr (㊟) 06:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would like to keep These albums are hardly unworthy of an article. They are well known compilations of ambient/lounge music - yes, they are mixes created at a popular bar/restaurant but, similar to the Café Del Mar albums (and of similar genre), the albums themselves have become just as well known as the venue. In the Oxford Street HMV in London, every single Buddha Bar album is on sale in the lounge music section and, judging by the way they are displayed and labelled, they evidently sell well. I, for one, actually wanted to know what Buddha Bar actually was once, and was able to find a brief summary here. It's also worth noting that on file sharing networks, a lot of unidentified lounge music tracks and mixes are simply labelled "Buddha Bar," often along with (similar compilation albums) "Cafe Del Mar" and "Hotel Costes" (the names of similar compilation albums), which again shows it's popularity as a source of this type of music. However, I understand that a lack of decent sources is a problem here. It seems rather puzzling that, whilst there are countless websites selling the albums and whilst virtually all of their songs are uploaded on YouTube, getting lots of views, a search engine brings up little biographical material on the DJ who mixes the albums, Claude Challe, and very little on the albums in terms of their background, history etc. One possible reason for this is that the albums are from France - perhaps there are potential sources out there written in French. These albums are popular and it would be a shame to delete this article, but the lack of sources is definitely an issue. 124.181.113.213 (User talk: 124.181.113.213) 19 November 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 05:11, 19 November 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. –MuZemike 00:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deepak Tripathi
- Deepak Tripathi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article fails to make a case against WP:PROF (as a historian) or WP:AUTHOR as a journalist. I find his name as an author and co-contributor on GBooks but nothing obvious in terms of awards or impact on the historical record. Fæ (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a noted BBC journalist who might pass WP:Author via having his books subjects to independent reviews. I have added a few of his works and a few reviews of them. Old versions of the article have lots more of his work. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:54, 14 November 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, v/r - TP 01:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Lacks in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. But my impression from the material and sources that wp:notability is likely. North8000 (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - journalists by their nature write more articles (and books) than are written about them, and with 23 years at the BBC he ought to qualify for notability as a professional journalist in the public eye. However the following should be enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR:
- http://hnn.us/node/141328 History News Network: Marjorie Cohn's Review of 'Breeding Ground'. "Tripathi’s excellent work ends with a call to replace the military strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan with development, reconciliation, and reconstruction." "Breeding Ground makes a significant contribution toward understanding the origins and triggers of terrorism. Tripathi traces the development of a ‘culture of violence’ in Afghanistan—largely due to resistance against foreign invasion—from the “U.S.-led proxy war” against the USSR to the current U.S. war."
- http://thisishell.net/tag/deepak-tripathi/#.TsKtlFYg5VI ThisIsHell.net Podcast 23 July 2011
- http://www.jofr.org/author/deepak-tripathi/#.TsKuH1Yg5VI Journal of Foreign Relations (14 different articles by Tripathi)
- http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19283 Global Researcher: Ramzy Baroud's Review of 'Overcoming The Bush Legacy in Iraq and Afghanistan'. "While reputable author and world renowned journalist Deepak Tripathi agrees with this grim view, he doesn’t think all is lost. He believes that there is still a chance, an opportunity even to redress the injustice and reverse the terrible mistakes that were made. A compelling writer and a meticulous researcher, Tripathi’s work is both gripping and comprehensive. His latest book, Overcoming The Bush Legacy in Iraq and Afghanistan serves as a glaring reminder of what military power can do when it goes unchecked, and when it is combined with religious fanaticism or misguided political ideology."
Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR, with 3 significant books with good publishers, and substantial reviews, which are the usual 3rd party sources for authors. 14 articles in good journals . That's sufficient demonstration that 3rd parties--the publishers, and especially the referees and editors of that journal, find him notable . The quotation given just above, which is a review not a blurb, proves it. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With the sources given above, the article should be easy to improve to address the concern I raised in the nomination. Fæ (talk) 06:38, 22 November 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. –MuZemike 00:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ZeuAPP
- ZeuAPP (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 software, does not meet WP:GNG SudoGhost 05:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. Probably WP:COI too. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:00, 14 November 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, v/r - TP 01:52, 15 November 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. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beshingamist
- Beshingamist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Beshingamism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined PROD, with reason "Neologism; WP:MADEUP". The author should consider entering their neologisms into the more liberal Urban Dictionary rather than staid old Wikipedia. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as soon as possible - Non-notable, non-sensical neologism that I had never heard of before until reading this Wiki article. Like the Nom said, this is more appropriate for Urban Dictonary, not Wikipedia. --Madison-chan (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. SPA not only proposes brand-new neologism of no notability whatsoever, but trumpets it as such within the article. Fails WP:NEO and WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted as a hoax. Close please. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 15 November 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. –MuZemike 00:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of rapid application development tools
- List of rapid application development tools (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. PROD contested in IP comment on talk page. PROD was proposed by Hammersoft with this reason: all of it unsourced, target for spam, edit warring, etc. I can see reasons to delete and reasons to keep. Neutral. Pnm (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Addressing PRODder's justifications:
- (1) "target for spam, edit warring". I take this to mean that "this is an article that is actually of real interest". Unlike PRODder, I consider this a strong reason to keep.
- (2) "all of it unsourced". Almost every entry is wikilinked to a WP entry. Some are well-referenced, some mediocre, some in need of help. Take it up with the individual articles, please.
- (3) "all of it unsourced". Or does PRODder mean that this list as a concept is a non-obvious invention. Well, it seems obvious enough to me, and to the 15,000 visitors a month who visit it. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Rapid application development starts with a definition, but it's very open-ended, and nearly any programming tool could be used with the methodology described. What exactly meets the criteria for inclusion in this list? Should the tool have specific functionality for RAD methodology? Should a reliable source say the tool is used for RAD? Here are some inclusions I question: FileMaker, IBM Lotus Notes, Zoho Office Suite, Qt, Visual Basic, Gupta, Zend Framework, Django. I grant that these are all application frameworks, what makes them "rapid application development tools"? Some prominent omissions I question: iOS, Windows Mobile, .NET Framework, Apache Struts. If these don't belong, what are the criteria? --Pnm (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where Rapid application development is too mushy, I would suggest editing to firm it up. Explicit criteria for inclusion on this page would also be welcome. If you think individual items on the list don't belong, esp. if they are lacking RAD-specific sourcing here or in their own WP entries, then I would suggest that you delete them and provide your reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbes Goodyear (talk • contribs) 05:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've suggested two possible sets of criteria: (1) tools with specific functionality for RAD methodology and (2) tools which a reliable source says are used for RAD. Neither is good. But I don't see how anyone could "firm this up with editing" until there's a good definition of what belongs. --Pnm (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. According to AfD guidelines, this can be improved. This topic is notable as I see many reliable sources using Google Scholar for "rapid application development tools". PolicarpioM (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A lot of software companies claim that their development tools are 'RAD' tools when they're not, so reliable independent sources are needed, but some of those in the list can be sourced and there's no reason to delete.--Michig (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "CAN" be sourced and "ARE" sourced are entirely different. Also, simply linking a product to some other Wikipedia page counts as a self reference. This article has _zero_ references. Pnm is quite correct; anything could qualify as an entry in this article. How about MS-Access? How about Basic? 10 go to 20, 20 go to 10. Tada! I just wrote a program! Rapidly no less! This article as is is pretty useless. It's about as helpful as an article saying "List of oxygen using life on Earth". --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As per Hobbes Goodyear, no valid justification given for deletion. Rapid application development is clearly notable and a list of tools is appropriate. Article needs improvement but that's not a reason to delete. --Kvng (talk) 16:40, 16 November 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. –MuZemike 00:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Joey Primiani
- Joey Primiani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lack of Notability Runtown (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Restored 15/11/11 - some vandal blanked the request. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The template was removed in this edit by User:Seblons, who appears to have a WP:COI in respect of this article (s/he seems to be Joey Primiani), who created the article, and who has been its main contributor. Ian Spackman (talk)
Delete. Setting aside the apparent tone of self-promotion, I am afraid that I fail to see the notability here: a former Google intern who, along with a co-developer, brought out a Chrome browser extension which simplified sharing web pages on Twitter, etc. It may be a very good plugin, but that hardly seems to warrant a biographical article. Ian Spackman (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Ian Spackman, above. It is indeed an excellent plugin, but we still need sources about this person - and I can find none. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:21, 21 November 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.