- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 04:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sardorbek Eminov
- Sardorbek Eminov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Concern was Fails notability guidelines - has not played in the fully professional league or cup and not received significant coverage in reliable sources. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Has participated in (and subsequently won) an International football tournament. Has his own biography in most major football web portals. -RoseL2P (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom, has not competed at a notable level and has not been subject of reasonable coverage; therefore does not qualify for an article. Playing in an international club tournament does not confer notability when the clubs involved are not professional. C679 09:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 04:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brain Occupation in Traditional Chinese Medicine
- Brain Occupation in Traditional Chinese Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is pure pseudo science and written in an outdated style. It should be a subsection of the Traditional Chinese medicine article. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then wrong venue: this is a merger proposal. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the nominator is suggesting a part-merge (of that which is not already replicated at Traditional Chinese medicine) and a deletion of this unlikely search term. That content which is not already there should be included there (it won't be much at all from the looks of it) so that this article can be deleted. I don't think this is a "traditional" (excuse the pun) merger proposal. Stalwart111 03:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the sources provided aren't about Chinese medicine at all. This looks to be an WP:OR essay based on some tenuously referenced (WP:SYNTH, basically) ideas and concepts. Stalwart111 03:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article, as currently written is difficult to read and comprehedn to the point that ther eis no mergeable material even if there was a desire to merge. The bulk of the article is just a preamble about Traditioanl Chinese Medicine, and the aprt that is about "brain occupation" is unintelligible. As for the notability of the topic, I can find no sources covering this. The references supplied have nothing to do with this and appeaer to have been grabbed based on having the words brain and occupation in them. -- Whpq (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
29th House of Representatives of Puerto Rico
- 29th House of Representatives of Puerto Rico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hopeless incomplete article. Should be moved back to the workspace of the author to get finished before launching. The Banner talk 22:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. You can finish the article yourself by incorporating the information from [1]. This is the incoming House of Representatives which will be sworn in in January 2, 2013 (in 2 weeks). If there's something that you consider incomplete please point out exactly what and remove that portion or complete it yourself. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to be rude, but did you read the list of members? The Banner talk 22:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This problem can be fixed through editing. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The importance of this article is very clear. The AfD process is not for article cleanup. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Request closure as speedy keep Unfinished artcile article is now finished, more than a month after launch... The Banner talk 20:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 04:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Hoelgaard
- Daniel Hoelgaard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only semi-professional with no real merits, so falls short of our sports guideline which demands professional or highest-level competitors. Geschichte (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. I checked several major news outlets and none have anything on him. Arsenikk (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails both WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is some coverage around ([2][3][4][5][6][7]), arguably enough to pass WP:GNG, although I'm not familiar with the sources. --Michig (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2012 (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) 22:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Subject hasn't done enough to be notable yet. 1292simon (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Suzuki RF series. MBisanz talk 04:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suzuki RF400R
- Suzuki RF400R (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:PRODUCT. There is no coverage at all of the Suzuki RF400R in any publications. This article exists on the basis of blogs and other crowd sourced sites. It is a Permastub. Deleting every unverifiable fact leaves exactly nothing. It's not 100% certain the RF400R ever existed. Note that motorcycle models are not considered inherently notable, per WP:MC-MOS and WP:NRVE. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Suzuki RF series. Mention of it, if confirmable, can be done there. Remember redirects are cheap - cheaper than deletion, in fact. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dean O'Banion. MBisanz talk 04:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John Duffy (mobster)
- John Duffy (mobster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an article about the murder of a nonnotable mobster. Maybe this killing deserves a mention in the article about Dean O'Banion, but there is no reason for an article about Duffy. The Old JacobiteThe '45 21:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He's not notable. Shorthate (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He seems notable, but there are inadequite references and sources. I will reverse my opinion if such sourcing can be found. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Dean O'Banion. The circumstances surrounding Duffy's murder are detailed in several books, and at least one contemporary newspaper article. However, this looks like a case of WP:BIO1E, and I don't think this event has any enduring significance, except as a chapter in the life of O'Banion. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Sue Rangell.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Doolittle Raid. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 17:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
David J. Thatcher
- David J. Thatcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In a similar manner to the discussion and conclusion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard E. Cole, this biography fails the notability test of WP:SOLDIER. It should be redirected to Doolittle Raid per WP:ONEEVENT, the same result as Richard E. Cole. Note that a parallel AfD is in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert L. Hite. The two cases are much alike. Binksternet (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per nominator. Bgwhite (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep as the nomination is fatally flawed: Thatcher was a participant in the Doolittle Raid (see WP:SOLDIER #5) and thus has sufficient notability for an article prima facie. It should be noted that this AfD nom appears to be motivated by the desire to win an edit war. [8] The nominator ought to know better and should be given a caution per WP:POINT. Belchfire-TALK 21:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lay off the preaching tone, champ; I filed this AfD only after I searched for sources that would allow the article to be kept. I disagree with your interpretation of how important was Thatcher's participation in the Doolittle Raid. He did not shape the event in terms of planning, leadership or heroics. I think he was carried along as a normal participant. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Edit war" is with a banned user who was banned for sock-puppetry and vandalism. All the editors who want to keep the article in the article's history is one person. Do you research before going off on an editor. Bgwhite (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The user User_talk:199.106.164.143 is not banned. Yes, you should do your research. If he is a sock, there are remedies that do not involve edit-warring and initiating spurious AfDs. Belchfire-TALK 09:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Edit war" is with a banned user who was banned for sock-puppetry and vandalism. All the editors who want to keep the article in the article's history is one person. Do you research before going off on an editor. Bgwhite (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lay off the preaching tone, champ; I filed this AfD only after I searched for sources that would allow the article to be kept. I disagree with your interpretation of how important was Thatcher's participation in the Doolittle Raid. He did not shape the event in terms of planning, leadership or heroics. I think he was carried along as a normal participant. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - the article subject appears to be known for one event only, and (as yet) a lack of reliable sources to show independent notability. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Doolittle Raid. Per nomination. EricSerge (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - This article fails WP:BIO, and needs to be redirected to the Doolittle Raid. many people were involved in that raid, they do not all deserve their own Wikipedia Article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Taking part in a notable event does not automatically make a person notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per nominator....William 12:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per nom. Intothatdarkness 19:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Rag. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 20:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Rag Blog
- The Rag Blog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- WP:NOTABILITY - Notability is not inherited from The Rag
- WP:COI - Article editors appear to have a close association with the subject of the article
- WP:SOURCES - References cited in the article do not meet WP:RS or WP:GNG. References for The Rag (notability is not inherited) are included.
- WP:BLOGS & WP:SELF
- Delete or merge to subsection of: The Rag - PeterWesco (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to The Rag. This particular topic about the blog itself has received some coverage in reliable sources, including these Austin Chronicle articles: [9], [10] and there's this passing mention in the book On the Ground: An Illustrated Anecdotal History of the Sixties Underground Press in the U.S., but this isn't enough to merit a standalone article (the first link provides significant coverage, but the latter two only have mentions. Haven't been able to locate additional sources specifically about the blog itself. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some other links: The Rag Blog was named Austin’s best political blog by CultureMap. This is from The New York Times. This is by Jonah Raskin. Rag Blog articles distributed by Truthout. AlterNet distributed this one. This is from Paul Krassner's bio in his latest book. John McMillian describes The Rag Blog in Volume VII of Conflicts in American History: A Documentary Encyclopedia, but there is no online link. Tdreyer (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Tdreyer[reply]
- You have listed articles that are written by an author on the blog (By Jonah Raskin) and the NYT article is a one line quote from the blog which does not meet WP:GNG. WP:GNG states - "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. It also states: "Independent of the subject"
- Lastly, it does not seem entirely right that you are defending this article because with the WP:COI discussion that is taking place. This specific reason being used in that discussion... AfDs PeterWesco (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge This seems like a case of inherited notability to me. Merging to a much smaller section in the other article seems appropriate. Gigs (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect to The Rag, per nom. & others. Fails WP:GNG & WP:WEB, a standalone article is not warranted.--JayJasper (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Names of demons
- Names of demons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Advanced search for: "Names of demons" | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
The page has no sources, is very unorganized and has no links to it (orphan). sageinventor 20:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources given and seems to represent a fringe view, at the very least not encyclopedic. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite correctly stated. sageinventor 00:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, why is it named Names of THE demons. Who are the? Are there not many demons? sageinventor 00:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It was named names of the demons, Sageinventor, because the original 2003 creator of the article (The Warlock (talk · contribs)) seemed to like putting extra definite articles into article titles and no-one in the nine years since had the wit to simply rename the article to names of demons, even though classification of the demons got renamed to classification of demons in 2004. Uncle G (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- SPEEDY DELETE as duplicate material. see:Lists_of_demons. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/list? What would someone think of creating a list of demons? Or merging this to the list since one probably does exist?) sageinventor 00:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Completely unsourced and could be simply WP:OR. Holyfield1998 (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep (non-admin closure) --LlamaAl (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Michel, 14th Prince of Ligne
- Michel, 14th Prince of Ligne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This person doesn't meet the general notability guidelines, no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Rotten regard 20:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Shorthate (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - He was Prince of the Holy Roman Empire. That is automatically notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Query As the Holy Roman Empire ceased to exist about 200 years ago, how on earth can somebody nowadays be a prince of it? PatGallacher (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Query - I'm unclear - we have a page for Grandes de España (Grandees of Spain). The subject's article suggests he is Grandee of Spain but it is not clear as to whether he is a grandee (which would be covered by the GdE article) or the Grandee (is that even a separate title?). He does not seem to be listed at Grandes de España either way. But I'm also curious as to the above from PatGallacher - the vast majority of these hereditary titles were formally abolished by their various governments and people seem to carry them on out of self-aggrandisement or for lack of anything better to do. So is the subject a pretender? (Sorry, that should be pretender) What is he otherwise notable for? Other than having some famous relatives and having come down with an acute case of WP:INHERIT. Stalwart111 04:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cautious keep - Although I think we have too many articles on deposed royals and nobles, as far as I can make out the title Prince of Ligne does form part of the system of nobility of Belgium, an existing monarchy, so I think it passes nobility. We ought to investigate which of his titles are valid. PatGallacher (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would disagree that Belgium being a monarchy contributes to the notability of members of a nobility without any constitutional role. It only means that those members of the royal family who are a few heartbeats from becoming head of state should be considered notable. I would apply the same argument to the UK, where those nobles who have had a constitutional role as members of the House of Lords are considered notable, but the rest are subject to the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I am making some attempt to prune nobility-cruft on Wikipedia myself, there are dangers of overdoing it. In my view, the crucial distinction is between noble or royal titles which are still officially recognised by an actual government and those who are not, the latter are not automatically non-notable but there is no automatic presumption of notability and in a lot of cases they aren't. "Constitutional role" is open to interpretation, in the UK we might end up deciding that even such important figures as e.g. the Duke of Argyll are non-notable. PatGallacher (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep head of an important noble house, hopefully someone can translate into English the text from the French Wikipedia's article on him which is more detailed. - dwc lr (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep head of one of Belgium's historically most influential families. FactStraight (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The family may be historically influential, but has it been influential during Michel's time as prince? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. IAR keep, as this passes the notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sigri Mitra Gaïni
- Sigri Mitra Gaïni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO. There are no independent and reliable sources indicating any significance to this article whatsoever. It may be possible to merge the article into the Faroese Prize article, but I am not convinced that even that would be worthwile. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Winner of a major national literary prize and had a lead role in a film of national significance. The article has had further sources added since nomination and more can probably be found (I haven't looked yet). We should beware of the problem of entrenched bias when dealing with people who are famous in small countries with little understood languages (and whose media may be hard to access online). Yngvadottir (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Yngvadottir's logic. I am not especially familiar with WP:BIO but entries in the National Library of the Faroe Islands and NYT would presumably qualify. Ben MacDui 08:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Yngvadottir's logic. Obviously notable, even if not well known to English speakers. --SouthernNights (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Several quality references have been found, and I no longer believe that this article should be deleted. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Augusta Stevenson
- Augusta Stevenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article fails WP:BIO, and has no sourcing to speak of. Without the Library of Congress registry, there would be no reason to think that this person ever even existed. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The sourcing is certainly poor and some details are contradicted in the biography I located on the Indiana University site (here). I have placed a note on the article Talk page about the contradictions. Given that the subject's books remain in print - indeed some available as audio books - I would be disinclined to deletion, if it can be avoided by adding more robust details. AllyD (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am inclined to agree. I looked pretty hard and could find nothing. However, sometimes these delete tags can save an article and I was hoping that would be the case here. If sourcing can be found that meets WP:NOTABILITY, I will very happily withdraw the nomination. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Would the sheer amount of books that she's written count towards notability? I know that with some of the notability guidelines people can squeak by notability guidelines if they've made an overwhelming contribution to their particular fields. I'm not sure if authors fall under this, though.User:Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also noticing that there are some mentions of her in papers from the early 1900s, but much of this is hidden behind paywalls.User:Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also getting more than a few hits in Scholar that suggests that she's fairly well used, or was, in various classrooms, with her name being dropped several times in relation to school libraries getting her books and people naming her as an example of educational writers of the time period. [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] User:Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've had a look through databases and newspaper libraries and there are various bits and pieces of coverage, both from time of publication and more recently. Although you could argue some of the coverage is not very in depth, she certainly played an important part in the "Childhood of Famous Americans" series which has been in print for 75 years, is widely referenced, cited and praised, and is still used for teaching; her other books (the plays) had less long-lasting impact but were widely reviewed in their time. And she lived to be 106, which isn't itself grounds for notability but is still impressive. I've added sources to the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stanley Salmons
- Stanley Salmons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The PROD was disputed on 7 December, and since then no attempt has been made to improve the issues with the article. The article fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:PROF, and while there is a claim that he "was awarded for the development and use of the first implantable muscle stimulator" no reliable sources could be found to even verify this, let alone demonstrate that this has made a "significant impact" in any field. SudoGhost 19:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Reliably described as "a leading authority in the field of medicine and biomedical engineering," a claim corroborated by quotation in the NY Times and extensive GScholar presence. No substantive reason for deletion advanced. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "A leading authority" means absolutely nothing, every puffed up person and business in existence is described as "a leading authority"; that does not satisfy a single notability guideline. Failing every single relevant notability guideline is a "substantive reason", so "no substantive reason" isn't going to cut it; articles have to demonstrate notability, and this one doesn't even come close to doing so. Vague assertions to being a "leading authority" leaves much to be desired as far as keep arguments go, and does not contribute toward the notability of the subject. - SudoGhost 19:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the claim that the individual is "a leading authority" was not written in The NY Times, but here, in a piece that reads like a poorly written ("He has written five other novels, which he is hoping publish") press release by an author who will write "whatever the story...know someone I should feature?" Even ignoring that fact that "leading authority" doesn't show notability, the NY Times (assuming I'm looking at the same one) is trivial coverage, briefly quoting him, but does not collaborate any "leading authority" claim. - SudoGhost 20:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your analysis is utter crap, and your mutilated "quotations" substantially distort the materially they are excerpted from. You clearly have been involved in a personality conflict with another editor involved with this article, but that in no way justifies waging war on the article subject. The article does not state that its subject received an award for "the first implantable muscle stimulator, but that his PhD was awarded for his work on that subject. That claim is likely supported by published scientific work like this repeatedly cited scientific paper[18], which can be found offline and which you have apparently not checked. The phrase "leading authority" is used in hundreds of Wikipedia biographies, as well as used regularly by highly reliable sources like the NY Times -- and, despite your histrionics, being quoted by the Times on a scientific subject is generally evidence of an academic's stature in their field, contributing to notability. You have reduced a cited writer's comment to gibberish here; what she actually posted was "I'm the JC's Business and People editor. Whatever the story - start-ups to successes - I want to know who's up to what in the community. Know someone I should feature? I'd love to hear from you, so please send me a message." This is hardly undying prose, but in no way supports your insinuation that the author writes indiscriminate puff pieces. And you provide no shred of justification for disregarding the subject's extensive record of scientific publications, as well as such other strong indicators of stature in his field and notability as editing at least one book in his field for a major academic publisher. I am sure my disgust is conspicuous here, but the extent to which Wikipedia, particularly in the deletion process, tolerates, and too many editors encourage the thoughtless disparaging and ridicule of people of genuine achievement repulses me. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep your comments civil, or keep them to yourself. Instead of attacking others, how about you back up these claims or actually show how this article is notable, or how it meets a single notability guideline? This is a promotional article created by a person with a noted conflict of interest, and lacks any sourcing that demonstrates any shred of notability. I never once even hinted at "disparaging and ridicule" towards the article's subject, so that's a pointless rant that does nothing for your comments. Please do not confuse "this is not notable" with some form of disparaging; it isn't. Professors have publications, that's nothing unique; ignoring that I did not "disparage them", that is not notable unless reliable sources have indicated that it is.
- The article is not notable, short of you demonstrating otherwise, it does not belong on Wikipedia, no matter how much you attack other editors. If my analysis is "utter crap" then where is this NY Times source that you claimed shows that the article's subject is "a leading authority"? The Times never comes close to saying anything like that. Merely being quoted by the Times is trivial coverage, and does not contribute toward the notability of a subject, it never has on any BLP, there's no reason why this one would be different. Don't insult someone by saying the reason they nominated an article to AfD is "not substantive" and then further insult them when they refute that; you're not doing yourself any favors, only making your rationale look very weak. - SudoGhost 22:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete- Parts of the article seem to contradict fact, and I am led to wonder if the subject of the article hasn't been editing. There are a great many claims in this article that are not proven and are completely unsourced. It reads like it was written by his agent. I am also pretty sure that "the first implantable muscle stimulator" was called a "pacemaker", making this article even more dubious. Impressive claims require impressive sourcing, and this article has no such sourcing at all. Completely fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BLP --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It should also be noted that the article itself was created by his publishing agent User:AndreaUKA of UKA Press, as revealed in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AndreaUKA/Archive. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep
Weak delete- I'm not entirely up-to-speed with the drama that has surrounded this "set" of articles so perhaps my reading of things hasn't brought me to the same place at Sue Rangell (above) but I'm still inclined to suggest deletion. I'm seeing some (though not a lot) of coverage by the subject, rather than of the subject. The one article I could find about the subject was this article from satirical pseudo-science publication the Weekly World News. Hardly a WP:RS, certainly not WP:MEDRS. Ha ha. There are a couple of passing mentions of him in New Scientist magazine, but nothing we could consider "significant coverage". Of course, he has written some books but they are not extensively cited (not because they are unreliable, but seemingly because they are about fairly technical, niche subjects). I see merit in Carrite's suggestion that he has had a "sufficient career" to justify a claim of notability, but I can't see a lot of sources that could verify that career, which I think is a problem. I'm more than open to being convinced, though, so if someone has sources they think should be considered, please go ahead. Stalwart111 04:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum - I wasn't strongly in favour of deletion anyway, but comments/sources from Tokyogirl79 and DGG were enough to convince me that there is enough to keep this article, even if my position is still "weak". Stalwart111 01:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Over 100 published articles appears notable. Mrfrobinson (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dare I, that be the first to ask - where? Stalwart111 05:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a few of his journals to the article, but I can vouch that there are a TON of them. From what I can see, they're all released in peer-reviewed journals. I'm sourcing them, but I'll admit that I'm not sure what, if anything, that might have as far as impact goes on notability. Does that make him more notable or influential of a person or does it mean that he's just very prolific when it comes to writing journals?Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I thought Mrfrobinson meant 100 articles about the subject (which would have surprised me), but I see he meant by the subject, which was my initial concern anyway. Have changed my !vote anyway, as per my comments above. Stalwart111 01:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry should have been more clear, I was referring to articles by him. Should also be noted that he listed listed as the primary on a lot of the peer reviewed articles I found, not just listed as a secondary or tertiary adviser. Mrfrobinson (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dare I, that be the first to ask - where? Stalwart111 05:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. I'm seeing where some of his work is being cited in some textbooks such as this one] from Tectum Verlag and this one from Wolters Kluwer Health. I'm not as familiar with WKH, but Tectum Verlag is supposed to be a peer-reviewed academic publisher from what I can remember of it. He might pass WP:PROFESSOR with some digging? He looks like he's one of those guys that is cited often, but isn't really ever written directly about. (Except for by WWN, lol.)Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see more citations here: [19], [20], [21],[22], [23], [24], [25], [26], "S+Salmons"&dq="S+Salmons"&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7_7OUL1qhIHQAcKsgYAO&ved=0CDEQ6AEwATg8. This one mention in New Scientist sort of refers to him making some sort of breakthrough with rabbit muscles. Since he's an older scientist, there's a very real possibility of a lot of mention of him not making it onto the internet. If we can find more to show that his research has "has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", he could pass part 1 of WP:PROFESSOR.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- His muscle stimulator is mentioned in this scientific journal.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: He's received a fellowship with the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine and was (or might still be) the Chair of Medical Cell Biology at his current university. I'm not too savvy with that, but isn't that considered to be a relatively high up position ala part 6 of the professor stuff? ("highest-level elected or appointed academic post") Not trying to be difficult, just not sure if this is high enough or if that university would be considered prestigious enough. There is the "Emeritus Professor" title, but that's something that can often mean several different things in academia. (IE, being a prestigious thing or just meaning that he's retired.) I'm just a little leery about this one because while his work isn't really talked about nowadays, his stuff is coming up as references in various academic texts of the past and present. He's fairly close to passing, but I'm not sure if he passes 100%.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This German journal entry in a Georg Thieme Verlag textbook states that he is a pioneer of one of the things he's done (my German is very poor but I believe it's in relation to his electronic neuromuscular stuff).Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He only has to pass one of the WP:PROF criteria. It's possible he passes via 3. (is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor) As a Fellow of the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, this might qualify. This page details the requirements for that. Not sure he passes 5. (holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research). He was a full professor at Liverpool, which is a major UK university, but the post appears to be as an ordinary professor not the holder of a "Named" or "Distingished" chair. Professor Emeritus is a title given to all full professors in the UK when they retire. Having said that, in his day, full professors were fairly rare in the UK. Now it's a much more common rank. I don't think 6. applies (held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.) This tends to refer to really high posts like Vice-Chancellor, Provost, President etc. of a university or the presidency of a major academic society. If his research has been described as "pioneering" per the Georg Thieme Verlag reference, then this might fulfill 1. (the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline). It would be good to have a second source affirming the pioneering nature of his research. Voceditenore (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Addenda re "impact". The New York Times article confirms nothing in that respect, one line describing him simply as a "researcher" at Liverpool + a brief quote from him. The number of papers published in journals, books edited etc. is in itself not all that relevant. That's what all academics do. It's their job to write them, and a lot of them. Using sheer numbers is like assessing whether a surgeon is notable because of the number of operations s/he's done. What's really critical is the number of citations by authors other than the subject. Note that most of the citations in Google Scholar to Salmon's paper mentioned in another editor's comment above are in other works by Salmons [27], but GS also tends to underestimate citations because it only checks works online. Does anyone here have access to Web of Knowledge or Scopus? They're much more reliable as citation indexes. Voceditenore (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've just found several more descriptions of his work as "pioneering" in several reliable sources,including:
- I'd say this now passes via WP:PROF Criteria 1. (the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline). Voceditenore (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets several of the WP:PROF criteria, (and also GNG, which is an alternative). I am not prepared to say that the nomination was irrational. The editor who wrote it has entered a number of biographies, mostly for authors published by a particular small publisher; the article on the publisher and several of the bios have been deleted as non-notable, an opinion in which I concurred every time. Many of their other bios have problems, some severe--both a inadequate references, and excessive promotionalism. I am checking all of them, & those I cannot fix adequately I will nominate for deletion. The version of this bio at the time it came here was done very poorly, with extensive lists of even minor publications. But even a highly promotional editor can sometimes write about something really notable, and write in such a way that the problems are fixable. This article is one of them (and so are a few of their others). Fellow of a major professional society has consistently been held an indication of notability. in practice, almost all professors at major research universities have been considered notable (Liverpool, being in the Russell group, counts as a research university) though that's not yet accepted as a formal criterion. I am reluctant to trust adjectives of distinction by colleagues when out of context, but several of those here are in sufficient contest to demonstrate notability. I prefer to go by objective standards, which in the science means citations. and in this case there are 4 articles with 100 or more citations in G Scholar (in spite of their publications in the 70s and 80s, when GS coverage was incomplete).
- I'm much less tolerant of promotionalism than I used to be. Writing low-grade articles with a COI does harm to everybody: the encyclopedia, the subject of the article, and the reputation of the author. I'd advise the ed. to get advice at AfC or elsewhere to avoid further problems. But I'd also advise the nom and the delete commentators to look a little beyond the article, to look at the actual subject. It's the subject that has to be notable. If one really wants to do it, it is possible to construct a plausible argument against almost any possible sourcing, and lose one's balance. (it has been known to happen to me also; enough of my recent AfD nominations have been closed as keep that I need to think more carefully before nominating). Voceditenore and Tokyogirl are the ones who dealt with this correctly, by fixing the article. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree with DGG with a lot of this as far as the nomination goes- I can see where it'd raise an eyebrow enough to where a nomination could be justified. I can also see where it'd be hard to search for sources because so much of the stuff that would show him as being notable was buried under a mountain of journals that he wrote. (I didn't think his own journals showed notability, so I'm glad to hear a definite on this that I can tuck away for future article work.) That a lot of his biggest work happened pre-Internet and before it became more common to see any science or medical talk in the news didn't help much either. Thanks to the hard work and editing of Voceditenore to bring the article to its current status, it looks great and notability has been established.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 18:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources that make him notable for his published work are not buried under a mountain of stuff. They are readily available. See my comment below. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep - per DGG. I think this is another example of how an article can be saved by running it through the AfD process. This boorish, uncited, unsourced puff piece was turned into a decent article. TokyoGirl really did a good job here, somebody should barstar her. (I already have). This AfD is what Wikipedia is all about. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 with a Google scholar h-index of 26. This information is easily found by clicking on the link at the top. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY - visibly improved. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Grant Hardy
- Grant Hardy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be a notable scholar. I'm not seeing much coverage of him at all, and his highest cited Google Scholar work is cited by 37, which is low (about a third of what's average) for the top hit for a China scholar. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Shorthate (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He has published many works and has made an impact within the area of his study. His scholarship on the Book of Mormon is notable and makes him worth having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If that were true, there would be reliable third party sources documenting the impact he had on the field, or giving plaudits for the book. His book on Mormanism has a Google scholar citation count of 7. The first book on the source list for the article Book of Mormon, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, has a Google scholar count of 242. The second has 118. The third, 71. Obviously, different fields of study and different topics are going to have different benchmarks for how cited a work has to be before it can be considered a major piece in the field, but I can't think of a field where 7 means anything. As for his work on Chinese history, there I can speak from expertise, major works are going to have around 100 citations, minimum. Minor works by top scholars can see around 50. 37 is very low. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to fail WP:PROF.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Non-notable pbp 19:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 04:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neda Karafili
- Neda Karafili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't assert why the subject is notable or suitable for inclusion Mifter (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: plenty of Ghits but needs someone with time to translate them and ascertain if they are reliable and assert notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article about a person appears to be non-notable in reliable sources for significant coverage. I also concur with the nominator. TBrandley 19:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 minor planets/18101–18200. Consensus is to redirect (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18104 Mahalingam
- 18104 Mahalingam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for astronomical objects. Neelix (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or redirect per Hullaballoo and DGG comments on analogous debate. Nothing else to add, really, apart perhaps a read of WP:PILLARS: look at pillar number one, click on the link for almanac, read the article, and take your own conclusions. --Cyclopiatalk 23:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (for now) – This article in current form does meet the "almanac" function of what Wikipedia, and thus would be keep-able. As the the point about finding an insufficient amount of significant coverage: There are 18,129 articles in Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs, with even more if you include the parent Category:Asteroid stubs. Their lack of sources to substantiate notability is (I assume) similar to this one. We should consider the deletion status as a block, rather than on a piecemeal approach. Senator2029 “let's talk” 05:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with the last point: we risk throwing away babies and bathwaters. Regardless of which inclusion criteria we agree for minor planets, we don't know which stubs are about subjects of more or less notability. It has to be on a case-by-case basis, unfortunate as it may be. --Cyclopiatalk 11:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is Senator2029's last point that I agree with most; a bot has gotten us into this mess, and a bot should get us out of it. It will be much easier to save the babies piecemeal after the bathwater is removed than to remove the bathwater piecemeal around the babies. Neelix (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with the last point: we risk throwing away babies and bathwaters. Regardless of which inclusion criteria we agree for minor planets, we don't know which stubs are about subjects of more or less notability. It has to be on a case-by-case basis, unfortunate as it may be. --Cyclopiatalk 11:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to List of minor planets/18101–18200. There seems to be no nontrivial coverage of this object outside of database entries, so it fails WP:NASTRO and the consensus of similar past AfDs is clear. I do think that some sort of automated approach to this sort of article is better than one-at-a-time AfDs, but in the meantime when individual ones are listed here we should not be keeping them in contradiction to what an established guideline states. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect. WP:NASTRO is VERY clear on articles such as this. "Almanac" arguments for keeping these stubs have already been debated during the RfC and vote on NASTRO. It would be nice to have an automated way to clean these up, and some users have tried to implement an approach, without much success (if I recall). If asteroid-stub-lovers insist on dePROD-ing, or refusing simple redirects, then one-at-a-time is the best we can do right now. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Davit Ghazaryan
- Davit Ghazaryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A junior judoka who has never competed as an adult, even in his home country (according to judoinside.com). Therefore, he has not come close to competing at the highest level. A medal at the junior olympics does not show notability. The only source is his fight record, so he appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -
He is not a junior anymore, he's now 19. Hehas compteted as an adult, check the reference (you will need a translator). Also, this shows he has multiple sources, so he does not fail GNG.
I didn't realize Olympic level isn't the highest level.--TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ATHLETE gives no critera for judoka.--TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again - opinion. And there are plently of athletes pages with just a single source. That WP pages is mainly meant for MMA fighters. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But WP:MANOTE does, unless you're claiming judo is not a martial art. Papaursa (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Article gives same "general" critera as ATHLETE --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you look under the criteria for martial artists? "3.Olympic participant or world champion of a significant international organization; -more than a few dozen competitors, 4.Repeated medalist in another significant event;- (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion)." Papaursa (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Who says the Youth Olympics aren't signifigant? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you look under the criteria for martial artists? "3.Olympic participant or world champion of a significant international organization; -more than a few dozen competitors, 4.Repeated medalist in another significant event;- (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion)." Papaursa (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Article gives same "general" critera as ATHLETE --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Under Generally acceptable standards: have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics.
So, he doesn't fail ATHLETE or MANOTE.--TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, judoinside.com doesn't show any senior (i.e., no age restriction) competitions for him. Previous discussions have said junior events, even the junior olympics, do not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But there is a link about him participating in a senior intern. tournement.--TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, judoinside.com doesn't show any senior (i.e., no age restriction) competitions for him. Previous discussions have said junior events, even the junior olympics, do not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, news.am does. As long as a WP doesn't say that, it's just opinion. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been consensus in previous AfD discussions. Also, see Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 13#Youth Olympics. Papaursa (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, news.am does. As long as a WP doesn't say that, it's just opinion. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream made many good points that no body provided a good argument against. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Youth Olympic Games are controlled by the International Olympic Committee and done the same way as the Olympics, the only difference is the age requirements. Skilled athletes from around the world earn their way there, and get ample media coverage worldwide. So shouldn't competing in this make them notable enough to have a Wikipedia article?
- And who says no sport does? The Youth Olympics are pretty new and have only been held once so it's not like most sports have a standard yet. In the end these athletes ranked highly in the most elite competition they are eligable for. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets WP:ATHLETE.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I cite the following examples of showing junior martial artists aren't notable. First, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Katheder was a just completed discussion of a taekwondo competitor who medaled at the youth olympics and yet was found not notable. Second, at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 European Junior Judo Championships discussion it was determined that the 2009 and 2010 world junior judo championships were not considered notable. Papaursa (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Antonia hasn't faced senior competition, whereas Davit has. Plus, she competes in a different sport and should probably be treated differently. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's no evidence to show he's competed at the highest level of competition, which would mean the top level for adults. I've seen plenty of discussions in various sports and they always conclude that junior competitions don't show notability. I like Papaursa's analogy to show why the highest level is an absolute idea, not a relative one. Mdtemp (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Has not competed at the highest level. I don't believe youth competitions are enough to show notability. He may become notable (perhaps next Olympics?) but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - So as I understand it, reliable sources world wide will not write about anyone who 1. has a connection to judoka and 2. has not come close to competing at the highest level. I really don't understand why that line of thinking would make sense to anyone, even those who are young. The point of Wikipedia is to have written articles. Google news does not bring forth enough source material for the article. There's a mention at kazarianfoundation.org. In the end, there is not enough source material to meet WP:GNG so there is not enough content from which to write a Wikipedia article. If Ghazaryan compete at the highest levels but there was not enough source content from which to write a Wikipedia article, would everyone jump on the band wagon and iVote keep? What text would you then put in the Wikipedia article? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 17:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As per MDtemp above. 1292simon (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - the reality is we don't yet have a notability standard for the Youth Olympics, but I don't an AFD for a bronze medallist in an obscure sport should be the place for that discussion. WP:NOLYMPICS "passes" competitors at the Summer Olympics or Winter Olympics and medallists at the Paralympic Games, but does not mention Youth Olympics. I think it's a safe bet to work on the basis that if medallists at the Paralympics are considered "presumably" notable, then the same could/should/would apply to the Youth Olympics. But this probably isn't something that could be determined without some input from the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics. Until then, we need to rely on the "default" notability standard - WP:GNG - and I can't see any way the subject is going to pass that one. So it's probably a case of WP:TOOSOON until we determine whether or not Youth Olympians are notable and/or the subject receives more coverage. Stalwart111 05:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the highest level. No real indicator of notability. Holyfield1998 (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG, no editorial references regardless of competition level consideration.--Nixie9 (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I'm closing this a little early due to the very significant BLP considerations, DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sudha Ruparell
- Sudha Ruparell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Negative BLP with no convincing sources that she is really involved in the scandal mentioned in the article. The Banner talk 16:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Was unable to find sources that show the article subject meets WP:BASIC. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG, a few brief mentions is all that I could find. Also has issues with WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E, which would need to be overcome if further sourcing was discovered. 137.43.182.141 (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. —Ed!(talk) 19:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Allama Yahya Abassi
- Allama Yahya Abassi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league or a full international fixture. This remains valid. The one match for South Sudan referred to in the infobox was an unofficial match against the Kenyan club Tusker F.C.. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. —Ed!(talk) 19:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Raspberry Pi. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 20:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Raspbian
- Raspbian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability other than a few blogs that pretty much cover anything Raspberry Pi related. Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's the current default OS, though yes, it's only relevant to the RPi. If this is removed there should at least be more info on it on the Raspberry Pi wiki page. Xero Xenith (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a paragraph or two about Raspbian on the Raspberry Pi page would be a nice addition to that page. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above. — Silas S. Brown (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I could find some primary sources and secondary sources, in the form of technical blogs and wikis, that aren't considered reliable, but could fall under WP:ELMAYBE. Not enough for a standalone article, but enough for a merge to the Raspberry Pi article--Raspbian is already mentioned and referenced on that page, but as above, a couple of paragraphs added would be useful. Mark viking (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tenby International School, Penang
- Tenby International School, Penang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisting per the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 15 which felt that no policy based reasons for keeping had been adduced and also that sources provided in the DRV should be discussed. As the DRV closer this is a procedural listing and I am neutral Spartaz Humbug! 14:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - secondary schools are customarily considered notable enough for Wikipedia. This school teaches kids till age 16. I've added a couple of independent sources which clearly confirm the school is newsworthy. Though this school is a private one, I think extra consideration should be given to the fact there may be additional coverage in Malaysian, under the school's Malaysian name, for example. Sionk (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Claiming that "secondary schools are customarily considered notable enough" is a circular argument (citation, please; see also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). The references now added are churned press releases, or only give inherited notability, or both. That there may be Malaysian references, even though none are provided, fails to satisfy WP:MUST. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As neither a guideline nor a policy, WP:MUST is not something that is capable of being satisfied. I think you are looking for WP:NRVE. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While NRVE applies, MUST says "Any claim that sources exist must be verifiable, and unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable". That condition is not satisfied. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As neither a guideline nor a policy, WP:MUST is not something that is capable of being satisfied. I think you are looking for WP:NRVE. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Claiming that "secondary schools are customarily considered notable enough" is a circular argument (citation, please; see also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). The references now added are churned press releases, or only give inherited notability, or both. That there may be Malaysian references, even though none are provided, fails to satisfy WP:MUST. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've been arguing that schools need to show they are notable, and this one is notable. It should probably be merged into a broader Tenby Schools article because I found many sources discussing them and the school can probably be best discussed in the context of the other schools also owned by Tenby. I added 5 references to support notability in the further reading section. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've !voted "keep", but your argument is "merge". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject, the one school, is notable enough to warrant an article on its own, which is the question here at AfD. From an editorial standpoint, it probably should be merged into a bigger article, and then spun back out later if that article gets too long. But not deleted. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've !voted "keep", but your argument is "merge". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails to satisfy WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG. Perhaps non-English, non-Western script sources can make clear that the school is notable, but with the present sources it is not clear. (I assume that sooner or later somebody will be able to read and judge those "foreign" sources.) The Banner talk 18:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC) foreign = my personal POV[reply]
- What about these sources does not meet the GNG? [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. As an alternative to deletion, would you be agreeable to merging the article into an article about Tenby Schools? --Odie5533 (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have fun with rewriting the article. When an article is challenged over its notability I do not want to presume its notability, I want proof of it. So, after your rewrite, I will check if I can alter my vote. The Banner talk 21:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources don't need to be in the article to be considered so your refusal to assess them basically makes your contributions to this discussion irrelevant. Spartaz Humbug! 02:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but when the notability is challenged, it is necessary to prove it. And of the six sources you have mentioned, none complies with WP:RS. The Banner talk 20:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On what grounds are you claiming that the New Straits Times and The Star don't comply with WP:RS? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The content of the articles make them fail. The Banner talk 11:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On what grounds are you claiming that the New Straits Times and The Star don't comply with WP:RS? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but when the notability is challenged, it is necessary to prove it. And of the six sources you have mentioned, none complies with WP:RS. The Banner talk 20:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources don't need to be in the article to be considered so your refusal to assess them basically makes your contributions to this discussion irrelevant. Spartaz Humbug! 02:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have fun with rewriting the article. When an article is challenged over its notability I do not want to presume its notability, I want proof of it. So, after your rewrite, I will check if I can alter my vote. The Banner talk 21:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What about these sources does not meet the GNG? [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. As an alternative to deletion, would you be agreeable to merging the article into an article about Tenby Schools? --Odie5533 (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The sources cited above don't show notability for the subject. This source is in the Advertorial section as a paid advertisement, which is not a reliable source. The others [34][35][36][37] are routine coverage by a local paper; noting that "registration is open at a school" and "a teacher won an award who happens to be associated with the school" does not contribute to the notability of a subject; I think WP:NGO's advice would be prudent here: "Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead." Barring a possible language barrier, I'm not finding any reliable sources that show notability for the subject, and it appears to fail WP:ORG. - SudoGhost 01:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can hardly dismiss news coverage about the school because it is local in scope. The school is local to itself, after all :) This article seems to be non-trivial, about the opening of the school in 2006; this one (2010) is an in-depth account of the construction of their new campus. They're national news sources, from what I can see. Sionk (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the argument for "if an article only has local sources" is that local newspapers are more likely to have routine coverage just because it's in the area, not because it's notable or particularly important, only that "it's in the same area as you". While I'm not suggesting that local newspapers are not independent, it's the same general concept: the more removed from a subject the source is, the more notable the subject is likely to be. If only routine local sources can be found, that doesn't really show notability for the subject. - SudoGhost 02:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So are you suggesting its a subset of NOTNEWS? ROUTINE directs to N(events) so that's not necessarily applicable to a school. Spartaz Humbug! 03:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They're national news sources, so the 'local' argument seems to be a red herring. Sionk (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is my understanding that although The Star is a national paper, it is the primary "regional" newspaper that covers such topics per region. As far as English-language newspapers go, that one seems to be the only one that covers local topics in the capacity that local newspapers would, so it's not intended as a red herring in any capacity. But yes, I do think that "school registration is now open" is pretty routine coverage. - SudoGhost 03:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have always said that all secondary schools are notable. I continue to support that line. If others consider my opinion is invalid because I have not quoted a policy at them, they misunderstand the spirit and purpose of both Wikipedia and of AfD discussions and should probably transfer their efforts to dogmapedia, where I'm sure they'd be much happier. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the consensus at the relevant guideline is that schools are in fact not inherently notable, it is not against the spirit or purpose of Wikipedia to suggest that community consensus should have some part to play in an AfD discussion. If it is notable, point out why, and that would help greatly. It merely being a school is not a sufficient reason, per Wikipedia consensus on the matter, and WP:ITEXISTS does not become valid merely because you "have always said it". It's not that "you have not quoted a policy", it's that the relevant notability guideline for schools specifically points out that your rationale is not a valid one. - SudoGhost 16:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion stands. Don't bother telling me it's invalid (or indeed telling me anything, since you clearly don't agree with me and I clearly don't agree with you). I'll leave that up to the closer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, but please don't try to tell other people that "if you give weight to guidelines, policies, or any other consensus instead of my opinion, which ignores all of the above, then you belong on dogmapedia instead of Wikipedia". Nobody is considering your opinion invalid because you didn't "quote a policy", that is a red herring and misses the point entirely. - SudoGhost 16:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Our invariable practice for the last 4 years has been to keep articles on all secondary schools with a real existence, on the assumption that they will be eventually shown notable. (actually, I think the reason why the consensus has been so strong is that many people--including myself--think the all secondary schools by their very nature are sufficiently important in their community that they should have an article, and that the GNG argument, however true, is not needed.)Consensus is what we do at WP, and the guidelines are the guidelines we follow--a guideline we universally ignore in practice is an effect a rejected or obsolete guideline, and common practice as expressed by hundreds of discussions over multiple years is as much a guideline as if it had been written down as such. (the only essential difference is that as a practical matter one or two people strongly opposing have been able to successfully prevent changes in guidelines, but that doesn't happen at afd unless nobody is paying attention. There also seems to be a feeling that 2/3 vote is necessary to make policy and perhaps guidelines also, or decide an rfc; only the predominance of the policy based arguments is necessary to keep or delete at afd. ) The relevant WP policy here is WP:V, which is satisfied by the sources available. Whether the GNG is applicable here is entirely up to us-- since we can by consensus make exceptions to any guideline, and since this particular guideline says on its face that it does not always apply, we should feel perfect easy about making whatever exceptions we please. I note that the practice on secondary schools has a correlate practice that we do not normally make articles on secondary schools--the guideline is a compromise--equally exclusionist as inclusionist. There are some people here who would be perfectly ready to make and defend articles on any primary school where they can find two local sources, which might be 10 or 20% of them. As for the local sources argument, other reason for discounting local sources in some cases is that they are not selective: especially if the town is small enough, a local newspaper will make some sort of an article for any local book author or local band, or --if they are really desperate for content--any author who comes to give a book talk at the library or band who performs in the town hall. But this does not always apply--it does not apply to schools, because they normally do not make articles on schools unless there is something worth saying about them, and therefore I'd accept them here. My main rule in cases like this is simple: do not erode what little degree of compromise we have at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 18:48, 17 December 2012
- My main rule in cases of this is: the school must prove that it is notable as soon as the notability preseumption is challenged. So, no more guesswork or POV, just sources to prove the notability. The Banner talk 20:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The notability guidance documents are intended to describe the community's current apparent consensus on what sort of articles can appropriately exist. In the situation of secondary schools (as in many other matters) they fail to do so satisfactorily. Consensus seems to be to keep such articles. It would be best for the documentation to be changed: there is no requirement for the community, or for individuals, to change their opinions to fit the documentation. The notability guidelines are to guide us, not to constrain us. As it happens I think the references (now) cited actually fulfil the notability guidelines (New Straits Times, AsiaOne) but in my view that is not crucial to why the article should be kept—it is not sensible to haggle over each school. Thincat (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you think the article should be kept? You cited consensus that they are generally kept, but if you don't think they should be kept you could argue it should be deleted (WP:CCC). What is making you decide for keep over delete? --Odie5533 (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Specifically, it meets the notability guidelines. Generally, it is not sensible to haggle over each school. (And I think far too much reliable, referenced information is lost through quibbling over what does, or does not, constitute a notable topic. Division of information into articles is to an extent arbitrary). Thincat (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you think the article should be kept? You cited consensus that they are generally kept, but if you don't think they should be kept you could argue it should be deleted (WP:CCC). What is making you decide for keep over delete? --Odie5533 (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This seems notable enough. Secondary schools should be presumed notable, as is custom, unless there is some real, very serious, reason to think they are not. Please review WP:OUTCOMES. They are practically snow-keeps. In almost every instance when a secondary school has been brought to AfD, sourcing has been found. I cannot recall a case when there was ever a successful AfD on a secondary school. I'm not saying it has never happened, I simply cannot recall the occasion. It has been this way for years, and this is why we have this consensus. I am a solid deletionist, but even I know when something is a waste of time for everybody. If you add up all the time it took for everyone to respond to this AfD, a whole article could have been written. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, Common Outcomes is not a valid argument for keeping the article. It reflects only the outcomes, not any policy or guideline. The Banner talk 22:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The applicable policy is WP:BURO, which says, "Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected." The existing community consensus, per all deletion discussions for the last few years, is that articles on verifiable high schools should be kept. The fact that the proper documentation of this consensus has been prevented by a small group of editors, including at least one who should know better, doesn't stop that being the consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, I think that there is less "consensus" than you realise. But it is a fact that the proponents of maintaining school articles are rather noisy and therefore capable of roar down any opponents! The Banner talk 22:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd. In my opinion it's the deletionists who are the noisier and more inclined to shout down opponents (usually with thinly, or non-, veiled suggestions that the latter's opinions are less valid than theirs and therefore theirs should carry more weight, despite being thinner on the ground). The simple fact is, their views have less support and they don't like it. The deletionists have managed to get this debate relisted (I'm not quite sure how), but despite their best efforts to make a WP:POINT they're still in the minority. Can we please close the debate for a second and final time and end this periodic pantomime. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, I think that there is less "consensus" than you realise. But it is a fact that the proponents of maintaining school articles are rather noisy and therefore capable of roar down any opponents! The Banner talk 22:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - the sources identified in this AfD are sufficient to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - even if we didn't have the consensus of automatically keeping articles on secondary schools, there's enough sources to establish notability, albeit from local sources. Still, they're from newspapers, and that's good enough for me. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Secondary schools are generally considered to be notable if its existence is verified through reliable sources. This is the common consensus. TBrandley 18:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not an argument. The Banner talk 19:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an argument, per the WP:BURO policy (not a mere guideline like WP:ORG) that I quoted above. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Does Self-fulfilling prophecy ring a bell with you? Because articles are often not deleted, articles should not be deleted? The Banner talk 19:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's not the argument. It's that all of the reasons that have been given at AfD for many years as to why it is a good idea to keep articles on verifiable secondary schools are still valid, and it's a waste of everybody's time to keep repeating them. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Does Self-fulfilling prophecy ring a bell with you? Because articles are often not deleted, articles should not be deleted? The Banner talk 19:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an argument, per the WP:BURO policy (not a mere guideline like WP:ORG) that I quoted above. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not an argument. The Banner talk 19:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Sourcing meets WP:GNG. Votes citing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES are not worthless however, they simply reflect 10 years of collective wikipedia knowledge about what one expects to find about schools, unless the nominator provides us some actual reasoning beyond "its not notable" without explanation.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Northwich Victoria F.C.. MBisanz talk 04:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1874 Northwich FC
- 1874 Northwich FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is about a recently (Nov 2012) formed football (soccer) team. Only sources are two very local news reports. Therefore fails WP:NCORP criteria. Team will be playing at the very lowest level of regional football therefore currently fails the notability criteria advised at WP:FOOTYN. Because this team has only just been formed and has no track record or wider impact, the article only serves as a news announcement at the moment. I'd argue that the article should only ever be re-created once the team has had significant success and impact beyond its home town. Sionk (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Northwich Victoria F.C. for now, although it's clearly a different entity. The situation at Northwich Victoria and the setting up of this breakaway club is worth mentioning there, but until this new club reaches a level where it would be considered notable we shouldn't have an article here. --Michig (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Michig sounds a pretty good solution. Information can then be spun into a separate article if 1874 Nortwich do become notable. Keresaspa (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Michig and then semi-protect both this and Northwich Victoria's articles for the short term, because I can easily see this being a target for vandalism, based on the acrimonious nature of the split in the first place. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Victoria are a semi-pro side therefore I think 1874 Northwich are notable as a breakaway of said entity. Mikeo34 (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No. That's a classic WP:INHERITED argument. --Michig (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think WP policies have to broken sometimes, in exceptional cases such as this. I believe 1874 Northwich are probably soon-to-be semi-pro, or at least not far off it. Perhaps you should give your own opinion for once and not relentlessly link to WP articles. This article is of huge concern to all non-league football fans, and I think deleting it would be petty and just plain ridiculous. Mikeo34 (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect as above. GiantSnowman 09:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect -- This is all too recent for a judgement to be possible as to what will happen eventually. I would not be surprised if the new club does not end up looking like a successor of Northwich Victoria. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect – If the club does start playing it would likely join the NWCFL in the 2013–14 season but before then, it should just be a subsection on the NVFC article. Del♉sion23 (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mile2 (company)
- Mile2 (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:CORP. Other than some coverage in this very niche magazine, there has been no independent coverage of this company in reliable sources. Note that the reference that is supposedly from Yahoo News is actually a press release. SmartSE (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The company might someday pass WP:ORG if references are found, but the current article is so promotional that it would likely be best to start over. The creator looks like a promising new editor, who would benefit from a chance to submit a good article from scratch.--Nixie9 (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lacks evidence of notability at this time. Only one of the sources cited in the article (this one) is not clearly either a company publication or a published press release. That one source, however, is an industry online magazine and appears to be an interview arranged for promotional purposes. My Google search did not find any other independent coverage (but I did find some more published press releases). --Orlady (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. —Ed!(talk) 19:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vile (album). MBisanz talk 04:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Created to Kill
- Created to Kill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable, unsourced, fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NSONGS Mediran talk to me! 13:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. —Ed!(talk) 19:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Vile (album). This was the original title of an album before it was renamed to "Vile". Since none of the content in Created to Kill is sourced with reliable sources, a redirect, rather than merging, is functional. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 04:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hamza Khilji
- Hamza Khilji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced BLP on purported music artist. Article was originally tagged for CSD by other user. I was tempted to do so as well, however did a Google search and did find numerous mentions of this person and his music, however most of them seem to be to unreliable myspace/facebook type pages, so I am not fully convinced that this actually passed notability guidelines. Travelbird (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are more than one 'Hamza Khilji' on social media sites. One of them does Remixing and publishes it over You Tube. No news, no charts, no touring dates: MUSICBIO. --Ben Ben (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete from policy-based arguments. Michig (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aston Chase
- Aston Chase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable estate agency. Referenced only through Crunchbase and the company site. The 'Press coverage' section is solely one or more directors writing or speaking about things, and is not independent press coverage about the company. Peridon (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The Crunchbase article's edit history shows it is primary, with editing by people associated with the company. Though various instances of people from the company being quoted in the press exist, no WP:RS secondary coverage about the company have been found that could meet WP:CORPDEPTH. It is just a firm going about its business. AllyD (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Aston Chase is a real estate company working out of the most prestigious regions of London.
Since it was established they have remained committed to their niche market. Reference to this kind of real estate market couldn’t be found in any related Wikipedia pages. Therefore, it's make sense that people who are looking for high-class properties will find there answer between Wikipedia pages.
Since I agree with the comments above I had remove the CrunchBase reference and I added a new reference from Euro Cheddar blog and another article. Reuvengrish (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Providing a service to people who are considering utilising the services of a firm is not the purpose of Wikipedia. For that, there are business directories, there is a firm's own website, and the prudent prospective customer can run a Google search for other customers' positive or negative experiences of a firm. AllyD (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would back up AllyD's comments. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Be realistic - would you expect an article in the Britannica? Working in a prestigious area and sticking to this market is no more notable than only dealing in two bedroom back street terraced houses - it's just more expensive. Please also note that blogs are generally not considered reliable independent sources WP:RS, and that one seemed to contain a comment from rather than about the company. We're not saying the company isn't doing a good job - but not every individual or company gets an article. Peridon (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Non-notable and farly commonplace; this is an encyclopedia not a trade directory. As for the above comment: "a real estate company working out of the most prestigious regions of London" if working out of a prestigious London region qualified for inclusion in Wikipedia, we would have the biographies of 10,000 whores, but we don't - do we? Giano (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. London real estate agency. They've gotten quotes and brief mentions here and there, but nothing beyond the trivial in RS sources, that I can find, or that is presented. They could become notable in time, but at this point having this article seems primarily a promotional exercise. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I still disagree. I don't see how Aston chase is different from all the other companies related to the category "Property companies based in London". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Property_companies_based_in_London) why should they have an article and Aston chase don't?
Reuvengrish (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Development of US Cheese in Asian countries
- Development of US Cheese in Asian countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article has multiple issues and is not written keeping wikipedia manual of style in view and it can be entirely rewritten and merged with another article American cheese. ⚕ Dr. ANK (。◕‿◕。) 07:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep is a mild preference here.The current state of the article is certainly as horrible as cheese, but that's a cleanup matter, not a deletion one. Your proposal for it to be merged is a good idea, however I feel that there is enough useful content (that needs a major rewrite, though) to warrant a separate page. Merging would swamp the content in this case. American cheese in Asia is a growing topic, with many news items pertaining to it, such as:
Asia Pizza Demand Boosts U.S. Cheese Exports, Kraft’s Costs, U.S. Cheese Industry Booming Thanks to Asian Craving for Pizza and Cheeseburgers, Global Cheese Consumption to Reach 21 Million Metric Tons by 2015, According to New Report by Global Industry Analysts, Inc.
Although, as overseas cheese consumption is not just limited to Asia, maybe we could include content related to cheese development/consumption in other parts of the world, such as Europe or Oceania, and rename the article to Development of American cheese in overseas industries? Cheers. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 09:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The current text and the title are equally bad. It's better to start afresh. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete With a picture already nominated as possible copyvio, I think this article is beyond rescue. Beside that, the article reads as cheese promotion. The Banner talk 16:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And a second picture nominated for deletion as possible copyvio. It doesn't make the article more reliable when the author is claiming pictures as own work, while it is taken from elsewhere. Even when it is decided it is not a copyright violation. The Banner talk 16:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unrescuable article with a horrific title that no one in their right mind would search for... maybe it was a joke article? Lukeno94 (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Reads like somebody's school paper converted into a WP article, and without specific referencing it's likely that the piece is laced with OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Much of the article reads like original research and synthesis. If anything, a brief mention of the development of US cheese in Asian countries could be added into the American Cheese article or related cheese article, but a whole article on this? Holyfield1998 (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hold. Article is part of the Wikimedia Hong Kong education program; would appreciate if this AfD can be put on hold until after New Year. Deryck C. 13:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC) (writing in my official capacity as WMHK volunteer)Course leader replied "Please treat them as normal wiki users so they can have the real experience with wiki community." Deryck C. 06:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely part of any education programme should be to teach that Wikipedia has inclusion standards that apply whoever creates an article. Our primary task here is to build an encyclopedia, not to provide students with easy credits. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope the editor also picks up the lessons over copyright and copyright violations.The Banner talk 23:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Some of the information could be folded into the American cheese article, but it's a pretty bad article as it now stands, and reads more like something written by the American cheese industry. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aarhus_Gymnastikforening
- Aarhus_Gymnastikforening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable secondary sources. Non notable?
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 16. Snotbot t • c » 06:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a football club who has played 65 seasons in the top flight, won the Danish league five times and participated in the quarterfinal of the European Cup is notable. I suggest the nominator read through WP:BEFORE, before nominating another article for deletion. The nominator has a point about the low quality of the article, but that is not a reason to delete it. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - Bloody hell, exactly how can you decide this club is non-notable? They're a fully pro side in a fully pro league, regardless of anything else, that makes them notable. Let alone all the times they've played in the main stages of European competitions. I can see two non-primary sources in the article as well. Reliable sources will clearly exist, the article does need better sourcing, but this AfD is a farce. Trout the nominator. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Per previous comments. Club plays in the Danish top tier, the fully professional Danish Superliga. Contrary to what the nominator says, there are multiple secondary sources present in the article. Certainly more are needed in order to improve the quality of the article, but its lack of decent sourcing does not suggest that the topic is not notable. Bizarre nomination. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep – You gotta be kidding me. This club has been around for over 130 years and has played in a fully pro league. And you say they're non-notable? – Michael (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ponsonby, New Zealand. MBisanz talk 04:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline history of Ponsonby, Three Lamps and Freemans Bay
- Timeline history of Ponsonby, Three Lamps and Freemans Bay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Significance of these 3 suburbs is not established, surely notably events could be covered in the Auckland article. Notability not supported by any references 1292simon (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It will always be an odd one out. The History of Auckland article suffices at this stage of article development. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This was split from Ponsonby, New Zealand in September 2006. It was written by Edward Bennett, who I understand to be a professional historian and who was at the time running historical tours of the area. I think it should not be deleted, but perhaps it would be appropriate to merge it back into the Ponsonby article.-gadfium 07:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per gadfium. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as lacks referencing for the claims made and because many do not appear all that notable outside of the suburb.NealeFamily (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 04:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ecobee
- Ecobee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A company that is of insufficient notability to warrant an article. There are refs and the company has won awards but that is not enough. We should use the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument to show that this company is getting undue commercial advantage by having a Wikipedia article. I am also suspicious of the editor (may be a WP:SPA?) since creating this article is the sole edit that she/he has carried out. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 17:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't meet WP:CORP. Morefoolhim 19:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable. Plaintive plaintiff (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comments. I've removed the self-published source. The company is mentioned in a New York Times article. This combined with the other sources seems to me to establish some notability. -- Stevefromcanada (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Stevefromcanada (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD[reply]
- Delete I can't find any revenue data, but this company appears to be too small to warrant a page at this time. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The company received 6.73 million dollars from the Ontario Emerging Technologies Fund in 2010. The company does not publish sales figures but claims to have sold "tens of thousands" of thermostats. -- Stevefromcanada (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Stevefromcanada (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure: I am an employee of the company in question. I chose to write the article on my own initiative as I believe the company warrants it. -- Stevefromcanada (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thank you for your disclosure. It is appreciated. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article sourcing is poor, but that's more to do with an editor new to Wikipedia than there being a lack of available reliable sources in which to establish notability. It's a bit tough going through the sarch results as it appears teh company has been quite prolific with its press releases. However, I did find coverage in Ars Technica, Daily Commercial News, Winnipeg Free Press, Globe and Mail, and PC magazine using google news. Some of teh coverage is less significant than others, but taken as awhole, I am satisfied that notability is met. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) talk 00:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The Globe & Mail article and the PC magazine article are the most significant, and they merely give it a paragraph in a list of similar devices. Full reviews show notability , but these are not full reviews. Not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The product has received enough coverage that it's borderline notable, and the company and the product cannot really be separated at this time. --Michig (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I'd have thought the awards would make this company notable. 1292simon (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Alan Liefting is (mis)using the wp:AfD process here to imply the article's creator is an SPA. This has also happened here.
- Is this in the best interests of Wikipedia? Whatever happened to Assume Good Faith? Why am I the only person complaining? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is obvious from the edit history and from the comments above that it was created by an SPA. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alan Liefting,@1292simon If this article's creator looks like an SPA to you shortly after joining Wikipedia and making his first edits (and having to deal with a deletion 2 days later), then all I can say is I must have been lucky to escape this kind of "welcome" when I first joined wikipedia. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Awards and coverage make it notable. And I am sorry to the article creator that you got dragged into this deletion process; it is deeply unpleasant to many editors and especially to new editors to have legalistic AFD proceedings started, rather than milder discussion and suggestions at the talk page of an article. --doncram 20:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep (non-admin closure) --LlamaAl (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Coler
- Nick Coler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As it is, the article fails WP:MUSICBIO as none of the references discuss this individual, they all merely list his name as a contributor to particular albums. Maybe the refs are out there, but I didn't find them in google. MJH (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Merge. Writing multiple hit songs for several artists [38], being a member of a notable band, and winning an award from a quality publication. These make him notable. --Michig (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually this leads me to believe that the Producer of the Year award wasn't for him individually. Given that his songwriting credits are also as part of the Xenomania team (please correct me if I'm wrong), and that he wasn't one of the core members of the KLF, I think perhaps a selective merge to Xenomania might be appropriate. --Michig (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see what you are saying regarding the music week producer of the year award being part of the xenomania team perhaps that should be edited to say that it was awarded to the team, of which he was one of 8 people, however i think he was undoubtedly one of the core members of the KLF, as its referenced by the 2 high profile partners of the group in their book, added to by the credits on his discogs pages and allmusic / prs lists and numerous other biographies including bbc biogs and official xenomania articles (which i linked in the article). To merge i thought would clutter up the xenomania page with unrelated items, such as alice cooper, klf, the rubettes, the tweenies, and seems unwieldy to do since the other core members have separate pages. Tim Powell and Miranda Cooper do (with whom he shares his ivor novello nominations), or am i misunderstanding and these should be marked for merging too. I'm not hugely involved in wikipedia yet, having only contributed a handful of pages, so perhaps i don't understand fully the criteria for a notable person, sorry if thats the case, my intention was to continue adding to the page as i gathered more information and fill the gap regarding . On the credits, i felt that there were definitely enough notable credits outside of xenomania, from the tweenies to alice cooper to goldie and the rubettes, and writing the hit lady rain for the australian band indecent obsession which was number a one for 3 months across asia that he deserved his own page. --Tsebaoth —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If you synthesize all the minor mentions, I agree that he might seem to be notable. All the credits include his name in listings, not discussions. These listings result in a storm of google hits, with no substance. An eight person team won a producer of the year award, and his name was in the list of members (he is just mentioned in passing in the long Xenomania article). For example, in the Kylie Minogue Boombox album where he is credited [39], he is one of 39 composers on the album and 7 on the one song he co-composed. I looked at several songs, and he is always among 5-7 other composers. Seems like a legit employed music guy, but behind the scenes. In the end, I am ambivalent, but reading WP:MUSICBIO it still seems to falls short.--MJH (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He has been nominated for 3 Ivor Novello awards, probably some of the most coveted songwriter awards in the world, for The Promise by Girls Aloud [40] [41], Sweet About Me by Gabriella Cilmi [42] and Hole in the Head [43] working in one of the most succesful songwriting teams in the UK at that time, before that he was an integral member of a very influential cult UK band the KLF, he was also integral in writing the stand out track for the Waynes World movie, Feed My Frankenstein with Zodiac Mindwarp and Ian Richardson and Alice Cooper, and being a core member of Xenomania for over 9 years [44] leading to him co-writing multiple top 10 hits, all visible by their discography listings. I am also preparing a full discography for this individual, which should be posted up in the coming months as i find more info about him. I would also have to take issue with the original assertion for deletion that none of these references discuss this individual. If you click through and read the references, he is discussed directly in the cult book "The Manual" by Jimmy Cauty and Bill Drummond, of which i own a copy, this is quoted in the article with a reference to an online copy of the book. And discussed Directly in the bmg article also linked as a reference and the Xenomania members article linked. I have also added other direct articles which discuss him or mention his involvement. The aspersion cast on the producer of the year award is not really fair or informed in my opinion, as the eight person team referenced who won the producer of the year award was Xenomania, an extremely notable group of songwriters (as the bbc put it in their independent biography of the team they are "a Phil Spector" and "a Mowtown of the 21st century") the biography is linked in the entry. This team is/was comprised of producers and musicians of note all other members of which also have individual Articles on Wikipedia. Because Xenomania's contribution to music is definitely notable, i feel that the Xenomania article on Wikipedia would be incomplete without Nick Coler's article also being included and linked through being as he was an integral member of this team and taking into account his previous contributions to popular culture and music, which i also feel are noteworthy. --Tsebaoth —Preceding undated comment added 22:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If you guys can add solid references where he is discussed, I will have no objection and will in fact be eager to withdraw the nomination.---MJH (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment have added a reference to a q magazine article which he is discussed and a reference to a fanzine article on the xenomania fansite, will try to add more as i get the time to edit but hopefully thats enough to stop the page being deleted until i can spend more time on it, have also just added a new creditlist i found from albumcredits.com listing more than 180 credits on tracks for the artists listed on the page where he is noted as composer / producer / keybaords / vocals / orchestral arrangements etc. I will be following these up with the PRS database in the uk to verify their validity, but have no reason to suspect they are not correct as albumcredits is a reputable source for industry journalists. Also have a link in there to songlink international news site with an article about his signing recently to BMG berlin :) starting to get the hang of this now... --Tsebaoth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.192.160 (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have added multiple references this evening, to articles regarding his involvement in a Royal Festival Hall show held in 2011 for songwriters of note where he was feature with Graham Gouldman of 10cc and Rob Davis of Mud , a review discussing his production / collaboration involvement with saint etiennes new critically acclaimed album, links covering his ivor novello nominations, an article providing corroboration of the producer of the year award including one that shows him holding the award and accepting it with the other 4 xenomania core team members, also included is an article which talks of his production and writing of the single for the Lemmings computer game in the 90s, this reference also mentions his work as a member of the KLF and a biography of the band YA YA from Allmusic which references his involvement as a Noted Musician and the inclusion of the songs he created with them in the Revenge of the Nerds movie soundtrack.--Tsebaoth —Preceding undated comment added 02:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Significant achievements, not just with one band. 1292simon (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although it's a poorly-written article and the references are somewhat obscure, it does appear he is a notable songwriter. Deb (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to KEEP with a promise of FIXING the issues noted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of Other Backward Classes
- List of Other Backward Classes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a multiple nomination that also includes the following article:
- List of Scheduled Castes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
For consistency with the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian castes, the lists of Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes should be moved out of article space until they (1) are reasonably complete and (2) can be properly verified through reliable sources. The current lists are very incomplete, they do not appear to provide the kind of context that commenters familiar with South Asia seemed to indicate to be necessary at that recent AfD, and sourcing is weak. These issues probably can be cured, but it is misleading for the lists to be in article space in their current form. Orlady (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel it is necessary and appropriate to note that editor Orlady has followed my edits for years and long-expressed hatred. It is a pattern of long-term harassment and bullying. Here, he or she is again nominating an article that I started for deletion. I don't feel it serves wikipedia for this saga to go on and on. This deletion is not in good faith....it is biased, personally. And there are no good grounds for deletion here, IMO. I grant that the deletion nomination may attract some supporters, and some may choose to chide me for noting the pattern of harassment of this editor, and some may choose to perversely support the deletion for reason of supporting Orlady in the long-running Wikipedia-wide battling. Feh on that. --doncram 21:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A further piece of evidence on the negative quality of this AFD, is that no one, including the deletion nominator, has raised any question or complaint or comment about the content or anything else in the OBC list-articles. The appropriate place to raise some question, IMO, is first at the Talk page of the list-article. Editor Sitush has commented at Talk:List of scheduled castes, seeming in mode of sharing information, not questioning the validity of the list-article per se. No content or source or any other complaints have been raised at the Talk pages. --doncram 21:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a clearly needed list-article, whose existence and development is a good start towards developing coverage of castes in India. It is an entirely a well-defined topic. Every item in it is verified properly by reliable source, the governmental announcement of the item being an officially designated OBC. Unlike for other castes, there exists a definitive source for this list. It is marked incomplete and under construction. The deletion nominator seems not to have familiarized self adequately with the topic. I suggest the nomination should be withdrawn. --doncram 21:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 21:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 21:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - I note that the creator hasn't familiarised themselves with the topic despite all this being previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian castes, which was a discussion in which the creator participated. They did not have much clue then and they seem not to do now. The subject is more complex than it appears and I've already had words with them about it. Since having those words, the list has not developed in the slightest and, meanwhile, the creator has wandered off to produce numerous other seemingly poor quality lists on numerous other subjects and left this one standing with the appearance that there are only two "castes" in India. The format will not work. The only feasible way to present the information is as multiple lists, by state/union territory as, indeed, the Indian governments do themselves. This is in particular the case because naming conventions differ from one region to another even when they may be referring to the same community, and because there are both state and central lists. I also note that the creator still has not managed to comprehend that this is not a list of castes and therefore cannot develop our "coverage of castes in India". One is a list of "classes" and the other comprises mostly tribes and non-Hindu communities etc, even though it is called "Scheduled Castes". The lists merely copies freely available content published and updated on the web by the two official central list sources (one for OBC and one for SC). If it is appropriate to regurgitate this info on Wikipedia then fair enough but at least get your terminology right.
At the very least, this needs to be userfied and I'd very strongly encourage the creator to stop going about things like a bull in a china shop and actually listen to the people who know something about this subject. - Sitush (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with several assertions by Sitush in the above statement. --doncram 21:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course you do, Doncram. That's the nature of ignorance. I'm already continuing my demonstration of your complete lack of clue at List of Other Backward Classes. Honestly, you are doing more harm than good here. - Sitush (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with several assertions by Sitush in the above statement. --doncram 21:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Invalid nomination. Poor or incomplete content is NOT a reason for AFD. How do you think we built this fucking thing if it wasn't by starting from poor quality articles? Grow up the lot of you. Greglocock (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? "The lot of you"? So far, there is one for and one against. I am trying to find a workable solution. - Sitush (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are at least 3 people involved in this AfD and it is not the right forum. You have a content dispute which should be resolved on the Talk page, and you have a bad AfD nomination which should be withdrawn. Greglocock (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have reviewed the Afd on the caste article and the only valid argument for closure/deletion there was lack of RS (in my opinion it was a poor but defensible position). Since this list is compiled from local government sources they are RS and so the arguments for closure must rest on something else. Greglocock (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not in fact based on local government lists. It is based on a national list that differs from the state lists. I have no problem with this list article remaining if people are happy for us to basically reproduce what is already freely available in one place on the web. However, it really, really needs to be compiled in userspace and moved over when complete, preferably after being checked for accuracy.by someone who knows the subject a bit better than Doncram does This is pretty much what Sandstein} was getting at in leaving the door open at the original AfD. There are very good reasons why having a list such as this could be harmful to the project if presented in partial form. - Sitush (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; I agree with the nominator that the list hasn't scratched the surface, I also agree with Sitush that this page would actually be a list based on lists, as I have indicated to Doncram. However his explanation makes me choose keep. I will copy the explanation here: "Yes, i actually think identifying that "Koli" or another group is named as OBC in some states (and list them) and not others would be helpful, and that other commonalities will be noted. This could "add value" and allow for more consolidation in the list (one entry for same name in all of its states) and a shorter list, or more room for extra description of each, than we might expect from your rough estimates. And, value is to be added is by making the list searchable and sortable in various ways (currently I don't know of an Indian government document that allows us to search for all instances of "koli", for example; one big list provides that searchability. We can handle pretty huge lists. But mostly value is created by providing, for each, a link to a corresponding articles (or indicating by a redlink that no corresponding article exists). It would be pretty much impossible for a person to rely upon the category system alone, or any other way, for making sense of India's many OBCs... And yes, Wikipedia does have the manpower to keep lists of thousands of items up-to-date where explicit sources are available (and it would not be a tragedy if the article was slightly out of date, sometimes, as long as it was explicit on what date it was updated through). It is rather a lot of what I do, e.g. in maintaining and developing within lists of historic sites (e.g. 85,000+ large List of RHPs and 2,400+ large List of NHLs) and many other lists like List of Masonic buildings that include other things, too. There exist List of bridges and List of ships and many other types of big lists... try Lists of lists? " I have highlighted the part that made me vote keep. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You seem to be saying that the lists have a place in Wikipedia because they have the potential to be useful. Please note that I have not asked for these lists to be deleted. My only request is to move them out of article space (i.e., to user space) until such time as they are sufficiently comprehensive and thoroughly enough sourced that they can be judged "ready" for article space. This would be consistent with the conclusion reached by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian castes, which deals with a closely related list that has similar issues. (This request is at WP:AFD instead of WP:Articles for userfication because there is no centralized process for "Articles for userfication".) --Orlady (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for proposer what damage is being done to the encyclopedia by having it in mainspace where it will attract more editors? What benefit is gained by userfying this? Is this not deletion by stealth? Why not just stick an 'under construction' banner on it? Greglocock (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Caste" (together with related topics like OBCs) is a profoundly contentious topic. I understand that users who work on related articles are accustomed to getting death threats because the articles have offended people. Having lists that are incomplete and contain errors (due to matters like confusion over transliteration, combined with having a creator/maintainer who is still in the early stages of learning about the topic) are an invitation to further trouble. --Orlady (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for proposer what damage is being done to the encyclopedia by having it in mainspace where it will attract more editors? What benefit is gained by userfying this? Is this not deletion by stealth? Why not just stick an 'under construction' banner on it? Greglocock (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't gotten any death threats, and I really don't want "protection" by Orlady. Is this meant on my behalf, to "help" me, personally? That hardly seems consistent with Orlady's repeated attempts, and some successes, to have me blocked or banned. Orlady, stop with the obsession.
- Is the proposal to move this to my userspace, or to Sutish's, or where? I really really don't think that Orlady wishes to delegate authority to me to develop the list-article and then to restore it to mainspace whenever I feel it is "ready". I rather think Orlady would never ever "approve" of any article ever developed by me, and would wish for some new gate-keeping review before the article could be promoted back to mainspace. This is not workable, it is not meant to be workable, I rather think it is meant to kill the list-article. --doncram 18:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern in creating this AfD was for protecting the integrity of Wikipedia, not any particular editor(s). (AfDs are about articles, not about users.) In requesting userfication, I didn't specify where these pages should be "userfied" to. That's not my concern; that's something to be decided by the people who want to work on the pages. --Orlady (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the proposal to move this to my userspace, or to Sutish's, or where? I really really don't think that Orlady wishes to delegate authority to me to develop the list-article and then to restore it to mainspace whenever I feel it is "ready". I rather think Orlady would never ever "approve" of any article ever developed by me, and would wish for some new gate-keeping review before the article could be promoted back to mainspace. This is not workable, it is not meant to be workable, I rather think it is meant to kill the list-article. --doncram 18:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep assuming good faith that the list will be expanded. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 19:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Poor quality nom In my opinion the nomination is poor because it draws a false parallel with the caste article. The reason for deletion for the caste article was The "delete" opinions argue - in some detail, based on the specifics of the discussion surrounding castes in India - that there are no reliable sources on which this list could be based. If this argument is true, then the core policies WP:V and WP:NOR mandate the list's deletion. As it happens, the "keep" opinions mostly do not address or rebut this argument; at most, they broadly assert that sources must exist, without however naming specific reliable sources that could be used as a basis for this list. The argument for deleting the list as unverifiable is also supported by the fact that three days ago, apparently without opposition, the list was reduced to the one entry (of potentially several thousand) for which a source is cited. Consequently, because the argument of unverifiability appears valid and has not been rebutted, the list is deleted. ie mostly about source verification. The sources here are local governement definitions, which would seem to me to be verifiable. Greglocock (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Orlady, I agree with you with a few corrections, the lists (per Doncram) will be based on government lists written in the Roman script, so no transliteration or RS issues. Also I am not saying anything about potential usefulness, it is Doncram who has made those promises, I say let us AGF. Regarding user space/main space debate I really don't know enough about how others contribute to an user space article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want the article in my own userspace, and in general there are problems with userspace articles; they tend to attract less other editors' contributions because a) it is unclear if the "owner" wants the contributions, b) real discussions worth having will not happen because persons having disagreements will wait for the article to come back to mainspace, c) it is likely that any contributions made will not make it to mainspace. Another editor may create an article at the mainspace location. And some editors choose to move a userspace-constructed article to mainspace in an edit that copy-pastes and deliberately leaves behind any edit history. There may be a few exceptions, but I myself generally would not contribute to any article in anyone else's userspace. --doncram 18:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I had an experience that is described above with one article that I created in my userspace.[45] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please elaborate on how your experience with your incomplete draft of Death of Savita Halappanavar informs this discussion? I'm afraid I don't see the point you are trying to make, so you may need to expand upon your comment (if you still think it is relevant). --Orlady (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I had an experience that is described above with one article that I created in my userspace.[45] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want the article in my own userspace, and in general there are problems with userspace articles; they tend to attract less other editors' contributions because a) it is unclear if the "owner" wants the contributions, b) real discussions worth having will not happen because persons having disagreements will wait for the article to come back to mainspace, c) it is likely that any contributions made will not make it to mainspace. Another editor may create an article at the mainspace location. And some editors choose to move a userspace-constructed article to mainspace in an edit that copy-pastes and deliberately leaves behind any edit history. There may be a few exceptions, but I myself generally would not contribute to any article in anyone else's userspace. --doncram 18:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The topic of this list-article was given a lot of attention in big ANI discussion which has been closed but not yet archived (currently shows at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Doncram on Indic communities). A lot was said there, but bottom-line about this list-article, Sitush did not oppose having this list-article, and somewhere clarified that he supports having this article. I can't find Sitush's exact statement on that, there; his statement might have been at another Talk page. And Sitush has edited at this list-article, and perhaps a new consensus has emerged at its Talk page (that no one ever wanted unsourced statements in the article, despite brouhaha to the contrary). With this list-article, there is a clear way forward: develop out the list, using the government sources. Proceed on long process of finding proper links to caste/community/OBC/SC articles, and of identifying where caste/community/OBC/SC articles are needed, etc. Sutish is participating in this, editing at Koli people article and at Kharvi article in recent days, which is due to those being possible links from this list-article. It would be a big step backwards to remove this list-article. --doncram 18:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To follow up, i think i was recalling Sutish's statement above (within this AFD): "I have no problem with this list article remaining if people are happy for us to basically reproduce what is already freely available in one place on the web." About what is available somewhere else, that is a lot of what Wikipedia is, it incorporates a lot of public domain and other stuff available, and then magically adds a lot of value by interlinking between articles, and so on. This material is not available in just one list anywhere, it is in a bunch of government documents. Sutish goes on: "However, it really, really needs to be compiled in userspace and moved over when complete, preferably after being checked for accuracy...." About accuracy, the list-article is under a lot of scrutiny. I think it can proceed with careful editing to use exactly the same wording as in the government document sources. And about it "really really needs to be compiled in userspace", a) there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline saying that notable topics must be developed in userspace, b) as discussed above that would probably kill development, c) it would postpone real discussion that belongs at the article's talk page. --doncram 20:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy. Made my mind up. Subsequent to creation of this list, it existed for over a week with just two named communities, which gives a massively misleading impression of India's OBCs even allowing for a standard "this is a partial list, feel free to add to it" type of disclaimer. Disputes concerning classification under India's reservation system give rise to riots and deaths, and Wikipedia itself has been subject to protests in India due to perceived misrepresentations (Yogesh was involved in one relating to maps). The WMF is trying to push Wikipedia in the subcontinent and poorly compiled lists such as this, which may well gain a high profile because reservation is a hot potato that never cools, will not assist their efforts. Unless this list is as complete and accurate as is possible, it does neither Wikipedia nor its readership any favours. This was in part a rationale used in the recent deletion & subsequent userfication of List of Indian castes. It is not a rationale based on censorship.
Despite the existence of official lists, sorting this particular thing out is not a trivial task. In particular, ensuring that the various linked articles are correctly targeted is going to take quite some time - and if they are not correctly targeted then we are going to see problems arising on all those related articles, which means even I (who have about 1300 Indic community articles watchlisted) would likely have to substantially increase my watchlist. As a subsidiary point, I would strongly oppose redlinking communities in this list, mainly because transliteration issues mean that there are many alternate names and just because the Govt of India opts for one particular version does not mean that it is the name by which the community is most commonly known. If userfied, the India project could be notified of its existence and might be willing to assist in development & to discuss precisely how to get the best out of the thing: userfication, in other words, need not be prohibitive to eventual existence. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Sitush for coming back with a new opinion, but I disagree with your reasoning now to "userfy" it (again, to userfy it to where? and for whom to decide when it is mainspace-ready? why would any Wikiproject India members choose to contribute to a non-mainspace list with an uncertain path to mainspace?). The current list has not been developed out by me at least, because I agreed to pause in its development in the ANI episode opened by Sitush. To argue that the list should be userfied because it hasn't developed during this AFD and ANI episode is circular. The sources have not been disputed. The validity of the topic has been affirmed. The way forward is to develop it to a complete form, easily and quickly using the already accepted, available sources. I and a few others can do that, i am sure with plenty of scrutiny by Sitush and probably involving some discussion at the Talk page. This can be done without linking to separate articles; I agree that process of linking must go slowly. There will be content questions about what other article to link to, which is quite properly part of wikipedia development and which are best dealt with in Talk page of a mainspace article. Note there is a fine proposal at the Talk page of the article about principles for proceeding forward. There seems to be consensus there. --doncram 14:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) I haven't really come back with a new opinion. I've gone from commenting to making a formal !vote.
You are misrepresenting me. The AfD was List of Indian castes and the ANI episode came after this AFD seemingly cause you to rush into action. There was a gap and you did nothing for a week or more. "Userfy" means what it says - you created the article and so it should return to your userspace. However, if you would rather it was placed elsewhere - for example, as a subpage in the India project space - then that is fine by me. Where it should not be at present is in mainspace. As with a lot of the NRHP lists and the continual discussions surrounding userfication, so too this one is an example of something that is inappropriate right now. Go work on it, go make an appeal for help/guidance etc and move it to mainspace when it is complete. After all, this is one of those lists that actually can be complete at a given point in time. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) I don't support userfying it to a project space, either. I'd be a bit worried if it were in projectspace, that there would be some other kind of Ownership asserted for that, too, as if any editor could not move it to mainspace, and as if it were to be someone's (Sitush's?) prerogative to judge if it was ready.
- 2) About "As with a lot of the NRHP lists and the continual discussions surrounding userfication", I think you, Sitush, have some gross misunderstandings, based on repeated ANIs and other conflicts started or fanned by editor Orlady. That is basically refering to past hullabaloo, bunk, caused by the AFD nominator, Orlady in a long-running series of disputes that IMO amounts to harassment in the common English language definition of that term, and which, per the ANI about this OBC list-article, is headed towards an arbcom. There was and is no valid wikipedia policy or guideline supporting Orlady's obsessive interest in userfying pages on legitimate topics. I have in fact created many thousands of list-articles and individual articles on historic sites, and I believe that not one has been successfully removed permanently by editor Orlady, despite many many attempts. I think Wikipedia is by far a worse place for editors entertaining these attempts. It is not as if this or any other past attempt has been productive, in terms of the costs imposed (high requirements of many persons' time, contention driving people away) vs. benefits (dubious benefits: successful expression of disdain upon initial drafts of articles, contention driving people away if that is what you want).
- 3) Exactly, this can easily be a complete list, just by an hour or few hours editing using the available sources already identified. Enough with this AFD. I am inclined to go back to editing the article, now, though I had paused in deference to Sitush and others' stated concerns. No one, not a single person, has replied in disagreement to principles to go forward, stated at the list-article's Talk page. No one has the right to prevent development of a valid topic. --doncram 21:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm owning nothing here and if you think I or anyone else is then take me or them to ANI. Orlady is not the only person who has been challenging your creation of NRHP-related mainspace lists (another misrepresentation, perhaps?). I've not looked at the article talk page or this AfD for a few days because I needed to calm down a bit after the recent ANI report. I will be looking at it, obviously, but if you are going to keep misrepresenting things then I'm likely to find it difficult to work with you.
You've turned this AfD intoThis AfD seems to becoming a personalised affair and it is going to deteriorate here and probably at the article talk page unlessyoupeople can back off from doing so. Why not open an ArbCom case, as was recently suggested? - Sitush (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I'm concerned, building an article in project space is a fine alternative to userfying it. The point is that it should stay out of article space until there's broad consensus that the content is defensible (presumably meaning that it's verifiable and reasonably complete, that any known disputes and/or conflicts between authorities regarding classifications are acknowledged and identified through appropriate annotations, and that potential ambiguities and confusions related to the idiosyncrasies of transliteration and spelling have been explained through appropriate annotations). --Orlady (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) I haven't really come back with a new opinion. I've gone from commenting to making a formal !vote.
Note on dates: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian castes was started on 24 November. The two articles that are the subject of this AfD were created on 28 November; the list creator then explained his rationale for creating these lists in the earlier AfD, and discussion of concerns about these lists began in that AfD almost immediately thereafter. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian castes closed on 2 December. List of Scheduled Castes has had essentially no substantive editing since 28 November. This AfD was started on 8 December. List of Other Backward Classes had no substantive edits between 28 November and the start of this AfD, was expanded a bit on 8 December after this AfD was started, but has had no edits since then. The "Doncram on Indic communities" ANI started a few minutes after the last edit in the OBC article. --Orlady (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]
- In this edit I am indenting and identifying the additional statement by Orlady. Otherwise, what the hell is this "Note on dates" supposed to be??? It was presented, unsigned, small-sized and outdented and thereby seeming separate from Orlady's previous statement, as if it is an objective, normal part of an AFD, not requiring attribution. It is in fact a statement by editor Orlady, seems pointed towards discrediting me in some way. So what about any of the dates. This list-article was indeed created during the previous AFD on List of cases. And, this list-article was edited by me after the opening of this AFD, but not further after the opening of the ANI, which has since closed. Big deal, so what. And, sign your statements, from now, on, editor Orlady. --doncram
- I'm not particularly capable of reading the mind of someone else, but the obvious point is that the chronology shows that you have been misrepresenting things in this discussion. I've no idea why - not being able to read your mind either - but that it how it seems. - Sitush (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doncram,, your rhetorical question above - why would any Wikiproject India members choose to contribute to a non-mainspace list with an uncertain path to mainspace? - actually merits a response. I've no idea if WP India or anyone else would contribute to development, whether in mainspace or elsewhere, but nor have you. That moving the thing out of mainspace might cause it to have "an uncertain path" back there merely appears to demonstrate your own concern about the viability of the list. I have no doubt that it is viable but it will take many hundreds of hours of work to create in a manner that is useful, accurate, not undue etc, and it will require a fair amount of maintenance across thousands of articles thereafter. If you think that it would have an uncertain path back to mainspace, why on earth is it in mainspace now? - Sitush (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- [EC with Doncram] I outdented it again (the visual effect resulting from Doncram's adding it to the end of my comment was horrendous) and added my signature. It is not a statement of opinion. Rather, it is a collection of factual information that I compiled by looking up page histories, after reading various statements made here about the sequence of events. I figured that I could save someone else the trouble of wading through the page histories. Sorry that I forgot to sign it the first time. --Orlady (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In this edit I am indenting and identifying the additional statement by Orlady. Otherwise, what the hell is this "Note on dates" supposed to be??? It was presented, unsigned, small-sized and outdented and thereby seeming separate from Orlady's previous statement, as if it is an objective, normal part of an AFD, not requiring attribution. It is in fact a statement by editor Orlady, seems pointed towards discrediting me in some way. So what about any of the dates. This list-article was indeed created during the previous AFD on List of cases. And, this list-article was edited by me after the opening of this AFD, but not further after the opening of the ANI, which has since closed. Big deal, so what. And, sign your statements, from now, on, editor Orlady. --doncram
- Comment It looks like Rich Farmbrough is trying to do this either off-wiki or at least not in mainspace. Way to go. Perhaps we'll get the opportunity of a preview but, hey, anything is better than the current palaver. - Sitush (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Userify:I agree that such a list isn't a trivial task. Actually it is an understatement. The comment that the page hasn't been expanded makes me remark that a Afd tag doesn't make the place inviting for editors. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, many articles are "rescued" after being proposed for deletion. See Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron for more information. --Orlady (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Also see Wikipedia:Userfication. --Orlady (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into (or back into) the head article Other Backward class. It's a short list, and that article is also relatively short, there's no reason to have them separate. Do that, and a lot of the cited issues go away. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are going to be about 1,200 rows, similar to the few in the list-article now. Having the list in place, and with some existing rows, has established what "works", i.e. that the list format works and the use of the exact language from the source. Another editor is developing an expanded version off-line apparently, to put into list in one big edit, per discussion at Talk of the list-article. --doncram 23:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Erk! can that suggestion in that case. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The extremely incomplete character (and, thus, the misleading character) of the current OBC list has much to do with why I proposed userfying the page. (The list still had exactly two entries when I started this AfD, 10 days after the article was started.) The Schedule Castes list (also included in this nomination) is similarly incomplete. --Orlady (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That would make sense - to temporarily pull it into userspace until it's ready to go Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is/was never anything misleading about the list in its initial or current draft. It is clear that there are many OBCs. (Only 1 or 2 or 3 of India's many states are named, is one clue.) The links to the sources go right to lists showing more items. There is no "misleading character". What on earth is misleading? What possible mis-interpretation could anyone have? And, if you can construe one, would that not be addressed better simply by developing? Not an AFD issue. AFD is not for editing.
- That would make sense - to temporarily pull it into userspace until it's ready to go Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The extremely incomplete character (and, thus, the misleading character) of the current OBC list has much to do with why I proposed userfying the page. (The list still had exactly two entries when I started this AfD, 10 days after the article was started.) The Schedule Castes list (also included in this nomination) is similarly incomplete. --Orlady (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Erk! can that suggestion in that case. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are going to be about 1,200 rows, similar to the few in the list-article now. Having the list in place, and with some existing rows, has established what "works", i.e. that the list format works and the use of the exact language from the source. Another editor is developing an expanded version off-line apparently, to put into list in one big edit, per discussion at Talk of the list-article. --doncram 23:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As discussed above somewhat, and elsewhere, there is disadvantage to "userfying". Elen of the Roads, to whose account would you userfy, mine, until I chose to deem it proper for mainspace or until you or who would judge it proper? Would you want to invent some new hurdle? There is no policy or guideline which suggests userfying.
- As background, Elen of the Roads, I started this list as part of constructively addressing items in the List of castes, in whose AFD it was pointed out that some items on it should be considered OBCs, not castes. So, I started moving out a few, and providing explicit sourcing documenting that the items were OBCs. All well and good. Then the caste list was deleted entirely, taking steam out. So the OBC list languished for a few days, which is no big deal. Development by me then was stirred at first by the opening of this AFD, but then was stalled by the ANI that erupted immediately following that development (simplifying: pretty much due to ANI-opening editor's glaring misunderstanding that anyone sought unsourced statements in the list ... it was only his statements in the list that were unsourced, not anyone elses, and he misinterpreted a request that he provide sources). I agreed in the ANI to pause in developing this. It would only be going backward, to suggest that the combined scrutiny of many editors (here and in the big ANI and in the edits at the list-article and its Talkpage) has done anything other than verify that this is a valid list topic, that there are definitive sources available, and that there is a straightforward path ahead. --doncram 01:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've no idea why the deletion of one list that even you seem to acknowledge was at best tangentially connected should have taken the steam out of developing something else but, obviously, our emotions will differ. Contributing in this sphere of Wikipedia is bloody hard going and will give rise to some off-beat emotional responses from time to time. Equally, we will have to differ regarding your statements regarding what happened subsequently. It will all come out in an ArbCom case eventually, I guess.
Your "no big deal" comment is nonsense, sorry. It merely indicates what has been said on several past occasions: your ignorance of impact and subtleties etc. Am I always right? Of course not! Do I understand the subject and the ramifications better than you probably do? I guess so, and so do others who have tried to explain your recent well-intentioned blunderings. Anyway, I'm hopeful that Rich might be going great guns here behind the scenes, which is precisely where this thing should be right now. Get the official lists transcribed in some non-public way and then sort out how it works in the bigger scheme of things. This list is something that we need to feel our way through and I'm grateful to Yogesh for agreeing that compilation and implementation is not a trivial task. - Sitush (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sitush, it seems I don't understand a lot of what you say. It seems to me that you are manufacturing disagreements. If you are committed to finding and expanding disagreement, you can probably accomplish that. But, what on earth is a "big deal" about a list of OBCs sitting for 10 days with no development. No misunderstandings possible on the part of anyone, even if it was viewed. You are not communicating successfully to me, anyhow. At the list-article talk page, you have also seemed to me to be manufacturing disagreement, stating that you disagree with some really basic principles, and not explaining how you disagree. I don't know that this matters; this is just feedback to you: I for one am not understanding a lot of what you mean, or where you are coming from, it seems. The main thing I get is a lot of hostility. In these recent interactions, you have used a lot of vile language and made a lot of accusations, using insulting words and obviously trying to belittle and insult, now with calling my editing "blundering". I am basically offended, sure, but still, I don't understand your point; you are failing to communicate anything much besides general hostility. --doncram 05:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not just me that you seem not to understand, is it? You didn't understand those whom you opposed in the prior deletion discussion concerning a list of castes (linked above). Umpteen people tried to explain but you could understand none of them? That seems to be what you are saying. I've tried again at Talk:List_of_Other_Backward_Classes#Linking. I am not prepared to follow you round what will be several thousand articles while making the same basic point. This list needs a lot of work and it is not a clever thing to have in article space until that work is done. Any doubt should be dealt with centrally and not spread around. - Sitush (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some discussion continues at Talk:List of Other Backward Classes. Thanks. Umpteen people tried to explain what? I'm sorry, your comments seem to add up to supporting the existence of this list-article, in mainspace, as a useful central focal point for sources and assertions about OBCs. The alternative, to leave assertions about OBCs at scattered hundreds of other articles seems not good. And the alternative of moving to a userspace seems not appealing. I am utterly convinced, Sitush, that you would not accept my developing this list article in my userspace, and then returning it to mainspace. I'll comment below about your deletion of userspace article on Jat clans. --doncram 21:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not just me that you seem not to understand, is it? You didn't understand those whom you opposed in the prior deletion discussion concerning a list of castes (linked above). Umpteen people tried to explain but you could understand none of them? That seems to be what you are saying. I've tried again at Talk:List_of_Other_Backward_Classes#Linking. I am not prepared to follow you round what will be several thousand articles while making the same basic point. This list needs a lot of work and it is not a clever thing to have in article space until that work is done. Any doubt should be dealt with centrally and not spread around. - Sitush (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sitush, it seems I don't understand a lot of what you say. It seems to me that you are manufacturing disagreements. If you are committed to finding and expanding disagreement, you can probably accomplish that. But, what on earth is a "big deal" about a list of OBCs sitting for 10 days with no development. No misunderstandings possible on the part of anyone, even if it was viewed. You are not communicating successfully to me, anyhow. At the list-article talk page, you have also seemed to me to be manufacturing disagreement, stating that you disagree with some really basic principles, and not explaining how you disagree. I don't know that this matters; this is just feedback to you: I for one am not understanding a lot of what you mean, or where you are coming from, it seems. The main thing I get is a lot of hostility. In these recent interactions, you have used a lot of vile language and made a lot of accusations, using insulting words and obviously trying to belittle and insult, now with calling my editing "blundering". I am basically offended, sure, but still, I don't understand your point; you are failing to communicate anything much besides general hostility. --doncram 05:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've no idea why the deletion of one list that even you seem to acknowledge was at best tangentially connected should have taken the steam out of developing something else but, obviously, our emotions will differ. Contributing in this sphere of Wikipedia is bloody hard going and will give rise to some off-beat emotional responses from time to time. Equally, we will have to differ regarding your statements regarding what happened subsequently. It will all come out in an ArbCom case eventually, I guess.
- As background, Elen of the Roads, I started this list as part of constructively addressing items in the List of castes, in whose AFD it was pointed out that some items on it should be considered OBCs, not castes. So, I started moving out a few, and providing explicit sourcing documenting that the items were OBCs. All well and good. Then the caste list was deleted entirely, taking steam out. So the OBC list languished for a few days, which is no big deal. Development by me then was stirred at first by the opening of this AFD, but then was stalled by the ANI that erupted immediately following that development (simplifying: pretty much due to ANI-opening editor's glaring misunderstanding that anyone sought unsourced statements in the list ... it was only his statements in the list that were unsourced, not anyone elses, and he misinterpreted a request that he provide sources). I agreed in the ANI to pause in developing this. It would only be going backward, to suggest that the combined scrutiny of many editors (here and in the big ANI and in the edits at the list-article and its Talkpage) has done anything other than verify that this is a valid list topic, that there are definitive sources available, and that there is a straightforward path ahead. --doncram 01:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The two main points here are state of the article in terms of completion/content and weak sourcing. These largely classify as surmountable problems to the article, too little content and poorly written which are not compelling reasons to delete an article. Mkdwtalk 09:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note: This is not actually a request to delete these articles. It is a request to move them out of article space -- to userfy them, per WP:Userfication, until they are reasonably well developed. --Orlady (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Userfication of an article will effectively amount to deletion of an article, as in general, the redirect left behind will be speedily deleted." - WP:USERFY
- The proposed plan of "moving" the contents out of the article space is essentially a removal and deletion from the encyclopaedia. If the encyclopaedia was published hardcopy, the contents would not be found in it and should be treated as a deletion. Ultimately, the landing page for this article will be a red-link and its contents will not be merged or redirected into another article space - that's a deletion. This is largely why userification is done through the deletion process. Userify is simply an essay that proposes an alternative in which the contents will accessible with out the need for undeletion process. Editors may userify any imminently deleted article regardless of consensus. As far as I know, userify is proposed through the deletion process, but it still is a deletion and not recognized as separate. Mkdwtalk 20:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely, that seems to be the best interpretation of "userfy" as an option: it means deletion. wp:Userification is an essay and very incomplete IMO. It seems to support userfying some articles to new users, at best, not anything like this situation. This is an AFD discussion, and only AFD reasons can apply. No one is pointing to any policy or guideline supporting deletion here. Opposition to the list-article just amounts to "I don't like it". --doncram 21:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfication of an underdeveloped/draft article is exactly the same as if an article is started in user space -- and doesn't get published article space until it is sufficiently well-developed that it conforms with relevant Wikipedia policies (WP:OR and WP:V are particularly relevant in this case) and will not become an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Content in user space is not lost (it's still visible to contributors); it's just not published yet. (I speak from experience when I say that user-space content isn't lost. A few years ago I started a draft article about National Conservative Political Action Committee in user space. I started it there because I knew the topic could be contentious and I didn't want to take it to article space until I was satisfied that it had a reasonably neutral point of view and did not give undue emphasis to certain topics. Before I finished it, another user started an article on the same topic, found my draft in my user space, and asked permission to add my content to the article.) --Orlady (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, Orlady, but I don't understand any objection on your part to this list-article, other than you don't like it. You mention sourcing as a possible issue, but no one has complained here or at the Talk page about the sources, which are government documents. In your opening the AFD you asserted that "sourcing is weak" but no sourcing problem has ever been identified. You mention original research as a possible issue, but there is nothing in the article that is questioned by anyone. Someone could possibly quibble with text by Sitush in the lede, but no one has. You suggest some articles could possibly become an embarrassment (which would amount to you feeling you don't like it?); I don't see how that can apply here. Could you explain what in the list-article is embarrassing to you, and how that amounts to anything other than you don't like it? You have gone around and around about it being an incomplete list, which is not a valid reason for AFD. If you feel that incompleteness is not adequately clear in the list-article, then please edit the lede to say that this is intended to become a complete list but is not yet one, perhaps conveying that there are many hundreds of groups that are identified as OBCs (factual, you can see that by looking at several of the state-specific lists). If you have tangible suggestions for the list-article, the place to make them is at the Talk page of the list-article. I'm sorry I don't see any reasonable reason for you to object to this list-article. --doncram 22:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfication of an underdeveloped/draft article is exactly the same as if an article is started in user space -- and doesn't get published article space until it is sufficiently well-developed that it conforms with relevant Wikipedia policies (WP:OR and WP:V are particularly relevant in this case) and will not become an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Content in user space is not lost (it's still visible to contributors); it's just not published yet. (I speak from experience when I say that user-space content isn't lost. A few years ago I started a draft article about National Conservative Political Action Committee in user space. I started it there because I knew the topic could be contentious and I didn't want to take it to article space until I was satisfied that it had a reasonably neutral point of view and did not give undue emphasis to certain topics. Before I finished it, another user started an article on the same topic, found my draft in my user space, and asked permission to add my content to the article.) --Orlady (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely, that seems to be the best interpretation of "userfy" as an option: it means deletion. wp:Userification is an essay and very incomplete IMO. It seems to support userfying some articles to new users, at best, not anything like this situation. This is an AFD discussion, and only AFD reasons can apply. No one is pointing to any policy or guideline supporting deletion here. Opposition to the list-article just amounts to "I don't like it". --doncram 21:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note: This is not actually a request to delete these articles. It is a request to move them out of article space -- to userfy them, per WP:Userfication, until they are reasonably well developed. --Orlady (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have to observe, from Sitush's Talk page, that Sitush just sought and obtained deletion of User:Sitush/List of Jat clans. That was difficult apparently because the list-article had a history of more than 5,000 edits, now all removed. I have not ever yet heard of that happening in Wikipedia; probably a substantial number of editors lost a good chunk of their contributions, just wiped out. Maybe it was all worthless, i dunno, but it seems sad. Anyhow the deletion/userification of that list-article was covered in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jat clans where the Nov 23 decision was delete, with note that the article was userfied to Sitush's space "to allow the category to be checked against the list contents." Sitush at their Talk page says they did cleanup all the linked articles. If all the items in the category are cleaned up, then I don't happen to get why the list of them would have to be deleted??? But my point is: I don't want my contributions to this perfectly-well-sourced List of OBCs to be moved into some userspace, and then deleted by the decision of their "owner", or to have the topic usurped by another new list-article coming in. Again there have been supportive arguments for Keeping this list-article, including by Sitush by my interpretation of what Sitush is saying (tho Sitush probably disagrees), and there is no dispute about any source in the article, and there is no policy or guideline-based reasoning opposing the article, AFAICT. --doncram 21:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is extremely unfortunate to hear about User:Sitush/List of Jat clans. I have petitioned the deleting admin to restore the page and offered my userspace as a host if Sitush does not wish to host the repair efforts as decided on 23 November 2012. The conflict of interest seemed quite apparent in that case since Sit was originally a delete supporter, so to have the article moved to his userspace would invite the article and the contents to be lost. Mkdwtalk 21:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As seems common, Doncram, you have completely misrepresented what went on. - Sitush (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? What was misrepresented? I don't get anything but hostility out of that statement, sorry. --doncram 22:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doncram, I am becoming fed up of your pathetic references to civility and hostility. You are gaming the system and I think that you know it. You can be as polite as you wish and still be uncivil. I don't give a toss about the choice of words because the issue with civility is intent.
The list that you refer to is completed unrelated to this discussion and you seem to have raised it merely to distort the userfication issue under discussion now. Nowhere in this discussion have I said that this list should be deleted, whereas in the one that you refer to, yes, I supported deletion and then went along with what the closing admin determined. And, demonstrating my good faith, over a period of three or so weeks, I went through every single one of the articles listed in the userfied content and fixed the categories etc. My guess is that you will see that activity if you trawl through my contributions but it is a sideshow here and - mixing metaphors - you are grasping at straws. I didn't seek deletion of that list. It was nominated by someone else and I agreed with the nomination, based on a hell of a lot more knowledge than the nominator possessed. I've since disagreed with something else that they nominated. People are being sucked into irrelevancies here. As is the 5000 edit criteria: 100 good edits and 4900 bad edits do not a list make. You know nowt about it, sorry, and you are commenting in a snide manner about something that you cannot even see now because you are not an admin. Now take it to Arbcom, since you said yourself that this general issue surrounding your behaviour can only be resolved there. - Sitush (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry that you interpret my statements in those ways ("pathetic", "snide", etc.). I am not meaning to be snide. It seems relevant to point out that userification equates to deletion, and in a similar big India-related list-article that some/many editors have seen as a valid list-article topic. At this point, I genuinely don't get what you are saying. Or what you are projecting my "intent" to be. Here you just accused me of misrepresenting something, I asked you how, and your reply does not answer that. I'm gonna try not to reply further; this seems offtrack from the AFD discussion. --doncram 00:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doncram, I am becoming fed up of your pathetic references to civility and hostility. You are gaming the system and I think that you know it. You can be as polite as you wish and still be uncivil. I don't give a toss about the choice of words because the issue with civility is intent.
- Huh? What was misrepresented? I don't get anything but hostility out of that statement, sorry. --doncram 22:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As seems common, Doncram, you have completely misrepresented what went on. - Sitush (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is extremely unfortunate to hear about User:Sitush/List of Jat clans. I have petitioned the deleting admin to restore the page and offered my userspace as a host if Sitush does not wish to host the repair efforts as decided on 23 November 2012. The conflict of interest seemed quite apparent in that case since Sit was originally a delete supporter, so to have the article moved to his userspace would invite the article and the contents to be lost. Mkdwtalk 21:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to me that the list content is still available via Category:Jat clans and its subcategories. Note that assignment of articles to that category hierarchy does not involve anyone making speculative/original researchy statements such as those recently added to Koli people, where it is now stated that groups with 'Koli' in their names are designated Other Backward Class in certain states (are these groups related to the Koli people or not?) and a note states that a "Goa group may be the group covered in Kharvi Wikipedia article." --Orlady (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not familiar with the Jat clan list but tend to think that an article with 5,000 edits had more than is completely captured by category tags. There's not even any means to know if an item is dropped by someone removing a category tag. If the list material was completely reflected in the categories, and that information is confirmed, why delete the list-article? One purpose it would serve would be to permanently index the articles...but whatever. About the statement in the Koli people article, there is a discussion for that at Talk:Koli people#Other Backward Class question. How best to word the mention of OBCs in the Koli article has been discussed there civilly so far. Making a tangible suggestion there for better wording could perhaps be helpful there, not here. --doncram 22:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is another procedural sideshow, Doncram. I mentioned recently that I am not prepared to play your divide-and-rule games across thousands of Indic community articles. It can all be dealt with centrally. If you want to stick a note on each article talk page that refers to the central discussion then that is fine by me but the idea that one should repeat the same arguments as I've mentioned at Talk:List of Other Backward Classes across all of those talk pages is ludicrous when, fundamentally, we are dealing with very poor primary sources here. Frankly, I've got better things to do in building this encyclopedia than stalking someone in the manner that you propose. - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what you are asserting can be dealt with centrally. Again, if central consideration of adequate sources is the goal, then having a list-article for such consideration helps enormously, rather than some piecemeal approach to discussion at hundreds of list-item-type articles. I'm going to try not to respond further, this doesn't seem productive. --doncram 00:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is another procedural sideshow, Doncram. I mentioned recently that I am not prepared to play your divide-and-rule games across thousands of Indic community articles. It can all be dealt with centrally. If you want to stick a note on each article talk page that refers to the central discussion then that is fine by me but the idea that one should repeat the same arguments as I've mentioned at Talk:List of Other Backward Classes across all of those talk pages is ludicrous when, fundamentally, we are dealing with very poor primary sources here. Frankly, I've got better things to do in building this encyclopedia than stalking someone in the manner that you propose. - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not familiar with the Jat clan list but tend to think that an article with 5,000 edits had more than is completely captured by category tags. There's not even any means to know if an item is dropped by someone removing a category tag. If the list material was completely reflected in the categories, and that information is confirmed, why delete the list-article? One purpose it would serve would be to permanently index the articles...but whatever. About the statement in the Koli people article, there is a discussion for that at Talk:Koli people#Other Backward Class question. How best to word the mention of OBCs in the Koli article has been discussed there civilly so far. Making a tangible suggestion there for better wording could perhaps be helpful there, not here. --doncram 22:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to me that the list content is still available via Category:Jat clans and its subcategories. Note that assignment of articles to that category hierarchy does not involve anyone making speculative/original researchy statements such as those recently added to Koli people, where it is now stated that groups with 'Koli' in their names are designated Other Backward Class in certain states (are these groups related to the Koli people or not?) and a note states that a "Goa group may be the group covered in Kharvi Wikipedia article." --Orlady (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are three belligerents here, (sorry for use of the word, unfortunately you come across as so), would it be possible to leave personal arguments out of this discussion. To me, Doncram's argument, that this list would add value to the government lists, made me vote keep, the list would have thousands of entries, Doncram has demonstrated ability (per him) in handling such a task, my vote is based on his promise, from the delete camp, can we have objective reasons as to why this list is bad for the project? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The list in itself isn't controversial, it would inform X in State Y belong to OBCs, with a government list entry as evidence. Very objective. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As there is a question as to the partcipation in Senior-level events, there appears to be similar no consensus to delete at this point (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Levon Pashabezyan
- Levon Pashabezyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
TKD fighter with some success as a junior, however that does not show notability. Subject currently is ranked at 109 in his weight division. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:MANOTE. Has not competed at the highest level as an adult and the article lacks significant coverage (only a listing of some of his results).
- Keep User TheShadowCrow has presented enough evidence to convince me. Papaursa (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He can't "fail" Athlete if no critera is given for taekwondo.
Under Generally acceptable standards: have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics.
Levon has competed at the World Championships twice. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't remove the AfD notice on the subject's page. Junior events don't count. I would agree he competed once at a world championship, although I couldn't find any results. I would also suggest you look at the martial arts criteria at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The link wasn't there at the time. And check his taekwondo page under "results". --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not appear to have recived significant coverage mutiple reiliable sources. Mtking (edits) 03:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It all depends on how you view notability. If you go to http://www.taekwondodata.com/levon-pashabezyan.a746.html#top you'll see he's competed twice at the senior world championships and five times at the European senior championships. It's true he's not had much success, but that seems like evidence he's competed at the highest level, especially given that he actually won a match at one of the world championship events. I find multiple world championship appearances and actually winning a match sufficient, but others may not. I agree the article needs improvement, but that's not an AfD issue. Papaursa (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak Keep His international record is unimpressive, with first fight losses in 6 of the 7 competitions mentioned by Papaursa, but the fact that he represented Armenia at 5 European championships implies that he was #1 in his country at least 5 years and a 5 time national champion seems notable. If so, it would be good if the article documented that. Mdtemp (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - His win record is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he has competed in multiple European and World championships at senior level. [46] and [47] are further evidence he did actually compete in the European championships. Someone with access to Armenian sources would be very helpful in expanding the article. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Daniel Catullo. MBisanz talk 04:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plane to Haiti
- Plane to Haiti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable enough for its own article. Self promotional offshoot of Daniel Catullo. Merge content, axe this page. First link is dead, but was from Catullo's own webpage. The artistdirect does not seem reliable either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No continuing coverage of this event in reliable sources. Normally I'd suggest a redirect, but the title is too generic for that. Pburka (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect: As for Pburka's concerns: is anyone really likely to search or link "Plain to Haiti" in any other context? WP:NOT doesn't even have a section for WP:NOTTRAVELAGENCY or WP:NOTAIRPORT. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Daniel Catullo. If there's ever another context for this phrase, we can always create a dab page. Guettarda (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not merge - fluff added to improve Catullo's image, by an editor with what looks suspiciously like a COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Daniel Catullo. It is not fluff, it was a charity event that Catullo created and funded to help the people of Haiti, not Mr. Catullo's image.--WPPilot 16:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Note - WPPilot is the creator of the article and main contributor of it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Orange Mike. The words "Plane to Haiti" aren't even in the body of the article. It's more about Catullo. In case it matters, this article was previously nominated for speedy deletion for not indicating why the subject was important. Catullo sounds real important. The subject, Plane to Haiti, does not. //Gbern3 (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 was a careful balancing act - if she was indeed more notable than just German titleholder, then this could likely remain. However, those additional aspects of notability are unsourced, and I cannot even find any offline resources to confirm. As such, this is also a poorly-sourced WP:BLP in addition to the WP:TOOSOON and non-WP:GNG aspects. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alicia Endemann
- Alicia Endemann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ANYBIO needs to win Miss Universe - WP:TOOSOON MJH (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As I stated with Jacques Christela. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, as with other Miss Universe contestant articles without notability elsewhere. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - winning a national major beauty title and representing her nation in a prestigeous beauty pageant trumps ONEEVENT.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Sang'gre Habagat above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Is this the same Alicia Endemann who is also a singer and (apparently very minor) actress who apparently was in something called House of Anubis? I was gonna say delete, but if this is the same person, these collective reasons (which individually probably aren't enough to make her notable, but together, add up) may offer some justification for a small article summarising her career.
If this is just a pretty girl with the same name, then delete the article and do so for all beauty pageant contestant articles where the only justification is that they competed in a pageant and there are no other sources to indicate notability.Mabalu (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Follow-up comment Rather than taking my above comment as a delete vote, I would like to clarify that if she does not have accumulated notability (i.e. she is not the same Alicia Endemann as the singer/actress),
it should be a redirect to Miss Universe GermanyMabalu (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up comment Rather than taking my above comment as a delete vote, I would like to clarify that if she does not have accumulated notability (i.e. she is not the same Alicia Endemann as the singer/actress),
- Keep as per FreeRangeFrog's statement on Alexia Viruez AFD. If there is precedent, that's good enough for me. Mabalu (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per every other recent beauty contestant AfD... she won a national beauty title and competed in Miss Universe, which is 2 events, not one, for starters. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:ONEVENT, so a mention in Miss Universe Germany 2012 is sufficient. There may be a wikipedia precedent for every man and his dog ("girl and her dog" perhaps?!) who have competed in a beauty contest to have their own page, but I believe most of them only have inherited notability. 1292simon (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it one event? A national beauty pageant, and Miss Universe, that's two events. She WON the national beauty pageant, so she is clearly notable... which is exactly what the precedent says. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it's impossible to compete in Miss Universe without winning the national title, I think they should be considered the same event for the purposes of notability. If every national candidate warrants a wikipedia page, we are gonna end up with a heap of boring WP:BLPs along the lines of "Jane Citizen won Miss *Insert Country* in 1968. She placed 38th in the Miss Universe that year.[ref]a reference[/ref] That is all". 1292simon (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it one event? A national beauty pageant, and Miss Universe, that's two events. She WON the national beauty pageant, so she is clearly notable... which is exactly what the precedent says. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as she passes WP:GNG, and she won a national beauty title and competed in Miss Universe (two events). --Carioca (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Miss Universe Germany. The only sourced content here is that she won this competition, and that's already in the Miss Universe Germany article. She may be notable, but that doesn't mean we should keep an article that isn't even a competent stub. --Michig (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep national beauty pageant titleholders and Miss Universe contestans are notable. — ΛΧΣ21 06:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 04:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
David Bergman (journalist)
- David Bergman (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG & WP:AUTHOR Darkness Shines (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the bibliography lists Bergman's articles as references, with one exception, and doesn't include anything with independent and significant coverage of the subject. Mephistophelian (contact) 17:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Royal Television Society awards prima facie ought to satisfy BIO as constituting 'significant critical attention'. Mephistophelian (contact) 18:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep, I've authored this article because Bergman is the only investigative journalist who has been tracking the fortunes of the immensely portentous International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh. As noted in the Washington Post [48] this tribunal is trying ten opposition leaders who are at the risk of capital punishment. David Bergman's serious journalism is objectively the best extensive treatment of this issue available, and people will want to know who he is.Aminul802 (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I've been keeping up with the war crimes tribunal's activities for a while now, and Bergman and his blog are by far the most comprehensive, thorough, independent and investigative journalism on this topic. following anything in bangla is out of the question for myself, so his work is a great help. He's not well-known only because Bangladesh isn't geopolitically significant, but as one of the most populous countries in the world, his work is recognized as notable in informed circles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umayma1 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC) — Umayma1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG, the main source of information about him is his own blog. The International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) has its own entry, referencing other media and campaign sources following the subject. If Mr Bergman meets the notability criteria in the future his entry can be re-created. --Phazakerley (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks coverage. He may have a good blog but right now an article isn't justified. Arguments for keeping are unconvincing.--Michig (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKeep.He could be mentioned in International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh), but the subject has not established notability in his own right (eg winning journalist awards)Now that the award has been added, it's worth keeping. 1292simon (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Delete - Fails WP:GNG and no real indicator of notability. The one Keep vote above isn't really a justification for a standalone article as even that editor admits the subject is "not well-known." Holyfield1998 (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain: All comments above on both sides seem right and reasonable to me. I did some brief research on David Bergman (journalist) and I have found information that I believe would make him notable, however, the article would need to be expanded to show this. People are voting on what the article shows us right now. This is one of those situations where the article just needs to be developed more to make everybody happy. My suggestion would be to move this article into either the creator's sandbox or mine and let's develop it (together if you would like). I have done recoveries like this before, and, in my estimation, the article is salvageable. Crtew (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I for one didn't just vote on what the article shows, I searched for sources that would demonstrate notability and didn't find any. Could you perhaps reveal to us what you found that you feel would make him notable? If there are sources that would lead to this being kept then let's evaluate them. --Michig (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added some of the information I found and his 1995 documentary won a Royal Television Society award. This alone meets one of the notability requirements for intellectuals/journalists.Crtew (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even with this addition, I'm not comfortable with some of the references used in this article. I don't think his blog bio is appropriate for Wikipedia. While it's a great place to start and good enough for a draft, it shouldn't stand alone in a Wikipedia article as a reference and should be taken as [dubious – discuss] until independently verified.Crtew (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think acting as researcher on an award winning documentary is enough in itself for an article on him, but others may disagree. --Michig (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC) I see that he also directed it, which goes a bit further, and may be enough, but it's borderline for a separate bio. --Michig (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He may not be a Steven Spielberg or anything but since we're considering a documentary film and he's an investigative journalist, both directing and researching the film, need to be seen in that context. The heart of an investigative film is its research. The producer Gita Sahgal, by the way, credits Bergman and his persistence for getting the film made in a published article. Crtew (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Crtew: If you have a close connection with Mr. Bergman (We're considering a documentary film and he's ... both directing and researching the film") please read WP:COI before editing the article. Travelbird (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a COI here. Could you explain? --Michig (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no conflict on my part. If you are hiring him Travelbird, then you would. But if you wanted to pass any information by the Wikipedia editors here, you can still do that on the talk page. We can use that and verify the information independently. Likewise, you can always upload a photo in Commons. Those are all accepted by the community. Crtew (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Crtew (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is surely a misunderstanding of Chad's use of 'we', and whether it connotes the editors participating in this discussion, which is my interpretation, or another party, e.g. a company seeking to recruit a director. Mephistophelian (contact) 18:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- There is no conflict on my part. If you are hiring him Travelbird, then you would. But if you wanted to pass any information by the Wikipedia editors here, you can still do that on the talk page. We can use that and verify the information independently. Likewise, you can always upload a photo in Commons. Those are all accepted by the community. Crtew (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Crtew (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a COI here. Could you explain? --Michig (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Crtew: If you have a close connection with Mr. Bergman (We're considering a documentary film and he's ... both directing and researching the film") please read WP:COI before editing the article. Travelbird (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He may not be a Steven Spielberg or anything but since we're considering a documentary film and he's an investigative journalist, both directing and researching the film, need to be seen in that context. The heart of an investigative film is its research. The producer Gita Sahgal, by the way, credits Bergman and his persistence for getting the film made in a published article. Crtew (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think acting as researcher on an award winning documentary is enough in itself for an article on him, but others may disagree. --Michig (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC) I see that he also directed it, which goes a bit further, and may be enough, but it's borderline for a separate bio. --Michig (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I for one didn't just vote on what the article shows, I searched for sources that would demonstrate notability and didn't find any. Could you perhaps reveal to us what you found that you feel would make him notable? If there are sources that would lead to this being kept then let's evaluate them. --Michig (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I move from abstain to keep. The award satisfies a minimal standard of notability as noted by Mephistophelian. More work is needed to find sources and I've started to add them and look for more. The assessment though at this point should stay as a stub until more information can be found and added.Crtew (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Transformers comics characters. MBisanz talk 04:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scraplets
- Scraplets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Plot only descriptions of non-notable fictional robots. Claritas § 16:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect somewhere - Google News provided nothing useful and Google Books provided several results (briefly continues at second page) but they aren't useful and some are minor mentions. Unfortunately, the best place for this would be Transformers Wiki but it couldn't be used as a source for this article. SwisterTwister talk 19:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:NOTABILITY. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge to List of Transformers comics characters where they are already mentioned. JIP | Talk 19:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable, so a mention in List of Transformers comics characters would suffice. 1292simon (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The title as been redirected to Relationship between religion and science. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Science and God
- Science and God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article reads somewhat like an essay. Any encyclopedic content should instead be added to the relevant articles listed at Outline of theology Noiratsi (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Far too much like an essay, it's a duplicated topic (as per nom), and bits of it smack of WP:OR. It was nominated for deletion just 5 minutes after it was created (which is not good procedure), but in this case, it probably doesn't matter as it's a duplicated topic. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Definetely agree. Reads like an essay and duplicates existing topics. Original content. Vacationnine 20:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you take a look at the list of references you will see that several books are written about this subject, there is an article with the name "science and religion" but its is mainly about the relationship of various religions and science, as you know every religion has its own view of God. Its is also very different from the article "existence of God". There is actually a section with the name "science and God" in a library which I have access to. unfortunately you didn't spend a minute reading the article. It is not an original research almost every sentence in the article is "referenced material" from a list of books around the topic. Besides other editors may help improve the article. I don't see why we should delete it? Kiatdd (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I hadn't noticed before that an existing article at Relationship between religion and science already presents a perhaps more encyclopedic view of the topic --Noiratsi (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When we discuss about "science and religion" we mean Christianity, Islam, Buddhism,...etc,etc and the way they are related to science. The meaning of God here according to kenneth Miller is the creator or designer of the universe and how science especially modern branches of science such as genetics and physics relate to it. Here we aren't interested at all in studying whether or not Buddhism teachings conflict with science. We aren't also interested in historical aspects such as scientific achievements of Islamic countries in the past. We like to differentiate between "religion" and "God". On the other hand, we want to avoid creationism which some consider pseudoscience. Creationism is like saying the universe was created a few thousand years ago and trying to find geological evidence for it!. Kiatdd (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at the article at Intelligent design, and the many relevant articles linked to therein? I understand your comments, but I still feel that the content, or at least the topic area, of Science and God is almost certainly documented elsewhere in the enyclopedia. I suppose we could use the page to present a list of the various articles which bear on the topic? --Noiratsi (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The series of articles about this topic is a long list including Intelligent design(ID). If you look at the first line of the article Intelligent design you will notice that ID is a form of "creationism" promulgated by the "Discovery Institute". It has political issues. I don't think that when Isaac Newton was commenting about the topic he meant intelligent design or he cared about Discovery institute. I agree that some of the articles in Wikipedia cover similar topics such as articles about God ,Creator, deity, ...etc,.Kiatdd (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When we discuss about "science and religion" we mean Christianity, Islam, Buddhism,...etc,etc and the way they are related to science. The meaning of God here according to kenneth Miller is the creator or designer of the universe and how science especially modern branches of science such as genetics and physics relate to it. Here we aren't interested at all in studying whether or not Buddhism teachings conflict with science. We aren't also interested in historical aspects such as scientific achievements of Islamic countries in the past. We like to differentiate between "religion" and "God". On the other hand, we want to avoid creationism which some consider pseudoscience. Creationism is like saying the universe was created a few thousand years ago and trying to find geological evidence for it!. Kiatdd (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think this article can be saved with a little re-wording so that it isn't quite so essay-like. Duplicate material can be linked or deleted. I believe I understand the intent of the article to outline the subject matter in a way that can be done without lumping the content in with any particular religion or "Intelligent Design". I would encourage the proponents of the article to quickly do this if they want any comments to keep the article, otherwise it is pretty much doomed if left as it is. I will hold my opinion to give editors a chance to do this. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NOTESSAY and WP:OR. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An essay is an article that reflects someone's "personal" opinion about something. Do you mean that the article reflects my personal view? The article has a section of contrary views to comply with Wikipedia neutral point of view policy which can be expanded and the section "notable scientists" can be expanded to included several other individuals. We also need a few more editors and more time here. I insist that almost everything in this article is referenced and is not synthesis of a new theory therefore it does not meet the Wikipedia's criteria for deletion and the page can be improved through regular editing, rather than deletion. Kiatdd (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have read your whole article and I can see why you argue that it does not meet deletion criteria. I'd like to link to some Wikipedia policies, to help you understand why people are describing the article as an 'essay'. Firstly, the article seems could be accused of giving undue weight to the pro-God viewpoint, especially since the anti-God view is explicitly titled "Counter-arguments". Secondly I think the tone of the article could also be made more impartial - the paragraph on Newton for example is heavily weighted by the inclusion of the sentence "whose discovery of the laws of gravity reshaped our understanding of the universe". Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, the article seems to go expressly against the guideline that you should not avoid existing neutrality debates by creating new articles. In fact, this very topic area is the one given as an example for that section of Wikipedia policy. I agree that the article does a good job of citing its sources - perhaps other editors could give some examples of the passages they think constitute original synthesis? --Noiratsi (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for your comments, however I would like to point out a few more details. Intelligent design(ID) and several other related articles are already classified as pseudoscience actually there is no debate here. we tend to avoid creationism too, we all agree that the earth was not created a few thousand years ago and we do not believe that there is scientific evidence for Noah’s flood. If you have a look at the Creation-evolution controversy article you will notice them. Therefore, WP:CFORK (content forking) doesn’t apply here.The name of the article implies that the article is not about a particular religion therefore it doesn’t promote a particular religion, however I agree with you on the neutrality of point of view (POV). But we want to make sure that we don’t delete articles simply because we have a different POV. As an example, we didn’t delete the article Existence of God we put a subsection of evidence against in the article instead. If an editor thinks that a passage from an article is provocative or simply wrong he or she can edit the page. There is also a talk page for every article in Wikipedia. Some comments may be from pro-ID guys, Michael Behe I think is pro-ID but maybe we can still have his comments here because he is a scientist. I am afraid but I don’t see any rational for deleting the article, I think it can be improved with editing and probably a talk page.Kiatdd (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a notable topic in theology, which has certainly gained a lot of momentum since 1990 - there have been numerous books written on the subject, and people may remember the Radio Four series "Science and Wonders" presented by Russell Stannard on this topic. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Science and religion. This is basically an essay that replicates that existing topic and borders on being a content fork. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect. As per Tom Morris. 1292simon (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would you please give more detail about why the article looks like an essay? Which line or paragraph? thanks.Kiatdd (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is to DELETE as an independent topic, although some aspects may be merged into other articles. Beware of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and WP:FANCRUFT (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Star Wars and Indiana Jones connection
- Star Wars and Indiana Jones connection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:FANCRUFT that totally fails WP:NOTE. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised position due to overhaul: Merge - article still seems a bit WP:OR. While individual bits are properly source, the existence of the article still suggests a meaningful connection that only the Gorden source begins to support. WP:GNG requires sources, plural, indicating significant coverage. The easter eggs and non-canon material is properly source to mention that the Easter eggs and non-canonical nods exist, but those no more carry this article than Judge Dredd vs. Aliens and Spaceballs suggest meaningful connections between those franchises and Prometheus (film). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Delete: Fancruft that isn't useful or notable to anyone but fans of either movie. Lugia2453 (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And not even all of them *raises hand*. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. per WP:FANCRUFT.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fancruft = WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Might be nice if people expressed a policy based argument than merely a personal preference. - jc37 23:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fancruft may equal "I don't like it," or may (as is stated above) mean "totally fails WP:NOTE." Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the most part, outside of articles on people (for various reasons), notability is pretty much IDONTLIKEIT as well. Why should we care whether information is in a list or a "stand alone page". It's merely a difference in presentation, which is essentially a subjective preference. Hence: IDONTLIKEIT... - jc37 23:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, I like it. I'm a Starwars fan. It's very interesting as trivia, but this sort of thing has no place in an encyclopedia. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Who says? Why does one kind of information have a "place in an encyclopedia", and another piece of information doesn't? How is that not subjective selection? I ask this, being rather well versed in WP:NOT. So please explain how this is not subjective. - jc37 00:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)I'm a Star Wars fan, too (my earliest memory is Darth Vader force choking one of the Grand Moffs after he mocked the Force). This material has no real sources, makes rather serious assumptions about what could as easily be homages and in-jokes, and generally is of no importance outside of the amusement of the Star Wars and Indiana Jones fandoms. Also, WP:NOTE is a policy on what is or is not included, that rather specifically requires multiple reliable sources (preferably academic or journalistic) about the article's subject (not just specific parts). This only cites an episode of the Clone Wars (WP:PRIMARY source original research) and a Twitter account. There is no defending this article. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, don't look now, but you may have just made a "policy-based argument" : ) - jc37 00:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, don't look now, but I made it yesterday. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I see, per my comments above. Sometimes it's clear enough to merely vaguely wave at some policy page. I've done it myself. But sometimes one should explain beyond subjective preference. And asserting that something doesn't meet WP:NOTE simply needs to be explained. - jc37 00:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, don't look now, but I made it yesterday. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, don't look now, but you may have just made a "policy-based argument" : ) - jc37 00:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)I'm a Star Wars fan, too (my earliest memory is Darth Vader force choking one of the Grand Moffs after he mocked the Force). This material has no real sources, makes rather serious assumptions about what could as easily be homages and in-jokes, and generally is of no importance outside of the amusement of the Star Wars and Indiana Jones fandoms. Also, WP:NOTE is a policy on what is or is not included, that rather specifically requires multiple reliable sources (preferably academic or journalistic) about the article's subject (not just specific parts). This only cites an episode of the Clone Wars (WP:PRIMARY source original research) and a Twitter account. There is no defending this article. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Who says? Why does one kind of information have a "place in an encyclopedia", and another piece of information doesn't? How is that not subjective selection? I ask this, being rather well versed in WP:NOT. So please explain how this is not subjective. - jc37 00:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fancruft may equal "I don't like it," or may (as is stated above) mean "totally fails WP:NOTE." Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A cursory glance at the page, particularly the only two "references," would have established how NOTE was not met, and would have been more cooperative and polite than badgering everyone to spell out what is obvious to anyone who actually looks at the article beyond the title. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? I look at this page before I edited here and all I see is: per FANCRUFT, per NOTE, per nom, per NOTUSEFUL, per FANCRUFT. I don't see any explanations. And as NOTE is subjective, it needs explaining. Read the very first line of NOTE. It's a test. So one needs to explain how it applies in a particular situation.
- As for "badgering", this is a discussion page. You should probably expect discussion. - jc37 00:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "A cursory glance at the page" meant "the article" (indicated by the mention of references immediately after), not this page. NOTE requires reliable secondary sources, and anyone who glances at the article can see that it lacks those completely. I expected informed discussion, as in "this is my position based on my examination of the article and understanding of policies and guidelines," not "I didn't bother to engage in common courtesy of actually looking at the article and will not bother to stick my head out the window, so what do you mean when you say the sky is blue?" Ian.thomson (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The applicability of NOTE still would need explaining.
- And incidentally, as for me, I have proof that I looked over the article: My delete comments directly below.
- Anyway, perhaps in the future you'll "bother" (to use your word) to explain the applicability of NOTE to a particular situation. I have hopes anyway. - jc37 00:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "A cursory glance at the page" meant "the article" (indicated by the mention of references immediately after), not this page. NOTE requires reliable secondary sources, and anyone who glances at the article can see that it lacks those completely. I expected informed discussion, as in "this is my position based on my examination of the article and understanding of policies and guidelines," not "I didn't bother to engage in common courtesy of actually looking at the article and will not bother to stick my head out the window, so what do you mean when you say the sky is blue?" Ian.thomson (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR.The wiki that this was copied from [49], also doesn't list references for this. Unless/until at least some of these are referenced and this concept is fleshed out more than merely one film series having one or more homages to another, it should be deleted. - jc37 23:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is unreferenced, but this is widely discussed in reliable sources.[50][51][52][53][54] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources aren't exactly "independent of the subject", are they? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the respective Star Wars and Indiana Jones articles. As a fan, I love this kind of stuff, but I don't think it's notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support that for material that is reliably sourced and not original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - but merge the material into other articles per Fortdj33. --Noleander (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: On the face of it, the topic appears trivial, especially with the way the article is structured. However, I think attention should be paid to Colapeninsula's sources. Star Wars Insider, Orange Coast, and Vanity Fair have commented on the relationship. Looking at Google Books results, I see that The Hidden Magic of Walt Disney World makes a connection. It looks like The Complete Spielberg makes connections: "Star Wars' lovable droid duo R2-D2 and C-3PO are carved into stone walls of the Well of Souls as hieroglyphics. The biplane that spirits Indy away from the tribesman reads OB-3PO." I would recommend re-structuring the article so similar items are grouped together. For example, everything related to "I have a bad feeling about this" could go into one paragraph. I also think that connections should be noted by secondary sources as a threshold for inclusion, so we can say that so-and-so connection has been highlighted elsewhere. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I also wanted to note that Empire of Dreams: The Science Fiction and Fantasy Films of Steven Spielberg makes a few good comparisons between the Indiana Jones and Star Wars films. Perhaps this article could expand its scope to include themes rather than just Easter eggs. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are verifiable reliable sources, then I would support keeping this. - jc37 00:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I also wanted to note that Empire of Dreams: The Science Fiction and Fantasy Films of Steven Spielberg makes a few good comparisons between the Indiana Jones and Star Wars films. Perhaps this article could expand its scope to include themes rather than just Easter eggs. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sourcing Erik has found. Needs work, obviously, but that seems a pretty compelling argument that the problems can be fixed through regular editing, rather than deletion. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The worst collection of unreferenced trivia copied from a fansite. Not a viable encyclopedia entry. Anything sourced and worth keeping can be merged in to the respctive articles without any loss of utility. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I confirm that I still think deletion is the best course of action, even though the aricle was improved by trimming out the worst cruft. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMerge. Not notable as a topic. Merge as per Fortdj33. 1292simon (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Comment: I have given this article an overhaul by including a "Shared themes" section and removing the majority of the references, very few of which I could find reliable sources. I'm sure that the references are valid, but I think it's fair to say that they are too indiscriminate if reliable sources have not highlighted them. I think there is a stronger case to keep now, so please take a look at the current draft. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, tending delete - I'd be in favour of retaining this if and only if at least two independent reliable sources could be found which mentioned the connection directly. There's plenty to put into such an article, but without at least some sources to back up its main theme, it's essentially a coatrack for Lucasfilm trivia. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, and edging towards original synthesis. Claritas § 16:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have re-examined the newly redone version. Truth be told, I liked the article better before. What I think should happen here is this: 1.) Add a section to the Star Wars article called "Indiana Jones" and add all the references. 2.) Do the same with the Indiana Jones article by adding a Star wars section. then finally 3.) Delete this article. There simply isn't a stand-alone article here. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the new, better version. It appears to be a useful article now. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moon War
- Moon War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find video game sources: "Moon War" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)
I could not find significant coverage of this game in any reliable secondary sources. Delete per WP:GNG. Odie5533 (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I couldn't find any significant sources with thefreelibrary.com, Google News and Books either despite detailed searches but I found this which provides a few details but not enough for this article. Considering the game was released in 1981, I think many significant sources shouldn't be expected. I would suggest redirecting but there doesn't seem to be an appropriate place at the developer's article. SwisterTwister talk 20:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge to some appropriate list. This game existed and is referenced (it isn't something someone made up in school one day). Here is an image link: [55] - jc37 23:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't doubt its existence, only its notability. Not all things that exist or are true warrant mention on Wikipedia. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I also never doubted the game's existence and provided one link (I found others as well) confirming it is existed but nothing to improve the article or establish notability. As for the merge, I mentioned that there wasn't an appropriate place for this game at the Stern article. SwisterTwister talk 00:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you look? While List of shoot 'em ups only currently exists as a redirect, List of first-person shooters does exist. - jc37 00:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I also never doubted the game's existence and provided one link (I found others as well) confirming it is existed but nothing to improve the article or establish notability. As for the merge, I mentioned that there wasn't an appropriate place for this game at the Stern article. SwisterTwister talk 00:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't doubt its existence, only its notability. Not all things that exist or are true warrant mention on Wikipedia. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:EXISTS, but not notable. 1292simon (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete There's a very good chance that this game wouldn't fail the GNG if its contemporary (year 1981) print sources were dug up. Going off what's available, notability is not yet or easily proved. I also don't see this as a candidate for merge/redirection. czar · ·
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 04:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abu Dhabi Group
- Abu Dhabi Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable company. Neither the article nor its reference explain why it is notable. Biker Biker (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a multinational company that has enormous project in various countries such as Warid (in 3-5 countries), Wateen, Al-Razi Health Care, Bank Alfalah (in 3 countries), UBL etc. --SMSLet's talk 05:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:CORP. I've looked for potential sources, and they're all trivial and/or press releases about other related companies. Since notability of companies is neither inherent nor inherited, we need in-depth reliable sources about this company. Woodroar (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:CORP.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this article about "the single largest foreign investor group in Pakistan".[56] Phil Bridger (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks coverage of notable achievements. 1292simon (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 20:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pokémon (manga)
- Pokémon (manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnecessary to have a list article for Pokemon Manga when the category "Manga_based_on_Pok%C3%A9mon" serves the same purpose1292simon (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - but change it from being a list to being a proper article on the Pokemon manga. Note that the presence of a category does not mean that a list on the same thing should go - but this article could be a lot more than just a list. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Way too popular and well known to not have an article. Although it should be about the manga not just a list. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and make it into an article that's about the manga rather than just a list. Lugia2453 (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --• Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Proper parent article for the diffrent manga. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Gotta keep em all! - There has been lots and lots of coverage, especially in Japan, for the different Pokémon manga. As a Pokémon fan myself, I believe that they're so popular and influential that they are notable. I agree that it should be changed from a list to a proper article about the different manga instead. Note that there's plenty of Pokémon manga out there, not just one. There's Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu, Pokémon Adventures, etc. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to withdraw this AfD. Can I request that people improve article as per the suggestions above please? It needs some love, and has been in a poor state for over 5 years. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Grubb
- Michael Grubb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recommended for deletion because this page does not meet standards for notability. No creditable sources are listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unigami (talk • contribs) 22:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC).mm[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran talk to me! 03:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A guy who sells art online. The only sources are websites selling prints. There are many grandiose claims made with no independent sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. freshacconci talktalk 05:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As per Freshacconci, also smells like WP:SPAM. 1292simon (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Big Tuna (film)
- Big Tuna (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's notability guideline for films. Has only one link to an external source and the coverage there is trivial. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I couldn't find any useful sources in English. Also came up empty searching Gnews under film's Hebrew name. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran talk to me! 03:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There appears to be significant coverage from a simple google search. CinephileMatt (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there isn't. Where do you see that? Please provide examples. Thank you. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No mainstream coverage, has only been shown at niche Jewish festivals. 1292simon (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus appears that as a "developmental league" wrestler, they're WP:TOOSOON to have an article. Being on TV does not provide appropriate notability in this venue (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Miroslav Barnyashev
- Miroslav Barnyashev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable wrestler; only source cited is Twitter, and he does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)'s Entertainers section, where wrestlers fall. dci | TALK 01:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Im new at this! im sorry, can you please help make it better? User:JobbersAreCool talk 16:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable; no hits for "Miroslav Barnyashev" on Google Books, News, or News archives. In response to JobbersAreCool, no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. CtP (t • c) 21:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this is a professional wrestler, you're not going to get as many hits with his real name... than his ring name, Alexander Rusev. As Rusev, he's appeared on FCW Television before. 1 and 2 Starship.paint (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Slashed per above. CtP (t • c) 18:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 08:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Found and added multiple independent reliable sources to the article. Also propose move to "Alexander Rusev" which is the most popular name (ring names are almost always more popular than real names for professional wrestlers) Starship.paint (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran talk to me! 03:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Development wrestling category does not pass WP:ENTERTAINER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1292simon (talk • contribs)
- Policy makes no mention of "Development wrestling". Said wrestler has appeared on a television show multiple times, FCW TV under the ring name Alexander Rusev. Starship.paint (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Im sorry its so bad but im unsure how to fix it, and please fix it. JobbersAreCool (JobbersAreCool) 05:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The concern of the nominator is notability, an issue that can't be fixed by editing. If you want to save the article, point out some independent reliable sources discussing this individual (there appear to be a few in the article already, but more is better). CtP (t • c) 19:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm adding more sources. JobbersAreCool, just do what I'm doing... Starship.paint (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 19:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you miss the multiple independent reliable sources? Slam.canoe.ca, wrestleview.com, pwinsider.com? Starship.paint (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr Starship.paint, thanks for all your help, but do you think you could get the page name switched to Alexander Rusev, since he is better known by that ring name? I would, but im unsure how, and would appreciate it if you changed it. Thanks! JobbersAreCool (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing page titles is generally avoided during the course of the AfD because it can make things more complicated for the adminisatrators when closing, but if the page is kept, then I agree that it should be moved to Alexander Rusev. CtP (t • c) 23:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pornovurt
- Pornovurt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This band fails WP:N and likely WP:BAND. Source searches have not provided any coverage in reliable sources. Searches have only provided coverage about the book "Vurt", an unrelated topic. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism hey! 12:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Didn't find useful references. They've amassed 29 listeners ever on last.fm and are similarly obscure on YouTube, suggesting that I haven't missed useful coverage. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran talk to me! 03:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not pass WP:BAND — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1292simon (talk • contribs) 01:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Iona_(band)#History. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Open Sky Records
- Open Sky Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A record label that appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Google News archive and Google Books are providing only passing mentions about a different company than the one this article describes. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 08:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Iona_(band)#History - Obviously there wouldn't be much independent to Iona because Open Sky Records is only used for distributing this group's music. I performed my own search at Google News and Books but only found minor mentions here, here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran talk to me! 03:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per above; not enough material/coverage to support an individual page (per WP:GNG and WP:CORP). Anyone searching for this label is most likely looking for info on the band anyway. Gong show 17:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. As per above. 1292simon (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per WP:SNOW. Can we close this discussion after 5 weeks? Bearian (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 My_Name_Is_Kay#Extended_plays. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Say What You Want (EP)
- Say What You Want (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable musical release. No evidence of awards. No evidence of full length professional reviews. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to My_Name_Is_Kay#Extended_plays - It seems the album was released this month so it's probably too soon and Google News provided nothing relevant. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran talk to me! 03:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Single does not need its own article. 1292simon (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vashi#Business. MBisanz talk 04:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Center One
- Center One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No references, and no indication this particular shopping center is notable. Shadowjams (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or selective merge to Vashi#Business - Google Books found nothing but Google News found a news article here that suggests it opened in 2003, this article briefly describes the mall and another article here that mentions one of the businesses at the mall. I also found this news article that mentions it twice, the second noting the sector it is located in, I also found minor mentions here, here, here, here and two others that aren't worth listing. This article mentions the mall's owner and other somewhat minor details. It seems this is the first and only mall as this article indicates, though the article is from 2006 so things may have changed. Although this is Vashi's first mall and received some attention and success, we can't list every city's first mall. Considering the mall received good although minor attention, I would suggest selective merging to Vashi to a new section, "Business", using the small details known such as the establishment date and owner though I hope it won't encourage others to promote their businesses. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would like to highlight that it is a notable mall in the Vashi region of Navi Mumbai, plus it is listed in the List of Mall in India. I am unable to get citations in the local newspaper. Mall is spread across 1,50,000 square feet. Trafalgar UK have designed the coliseum style, where all the shops can be seen in a single view point. It is owned by the Benzer group. These facts that i write are from their flash based corporate website. Yes, i agree to the fact that it is the first mall, I used to visit the place when there were no other malls in the vicinity. What i would like to recommend is to if we can talk about the stores and their subsequent launch announcements in the newspaper as citations or references would help the article. Plus, if there are any such announcements in the Marathi newspapers of the locality, might also help build the article.
Moksh Juneja 08:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran talk to me! 03:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable enough to warrant its own article. 1292simon (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leandro Luna
- Leandro Luna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete fails notability guidelines claims notability can't find reliable sources covering him Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For sure this article shouldn't be deleted. He's now becoming one of the greatest names of the Brazilian musical theater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacherafael (talk • contribs) 18:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there anything you can show as applies to WP:RS how he passes WP:ARTIST Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSICBIO, is WP:TOOSOON ---MJH (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran talk to me! 03:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Subject does not pass notability, due to lack of media coverage. 1292simon (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G4 repost of material deleted at AfD JohnCD (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
University College London Conservative Society
- University College London Conservative Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
removed PROD per WP:PROD. Rationale for PROD (by User:RiRiFir3 was "Unneeded page for Wikipedia, with various mistakes, falsities and unreferenced or poorly cited claims" Illia Connell (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I feel that there should be reliable sources regarding this entity, but there aren't. dci | TALK 03:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There have been two past AfD decisions on this, both for deletion, the most recent being in April 2011. User talk:Tarzan1986 carries the AfD notice for both that version (and that user participated in the discussion) and this version, created in December 2011, so the article contributor is aware of the community consensus for deletion. Given that this version appears to have the same problems as its predecessor, it appears a waste of time to replay an AfD discussion. Is there any reason not to proceed with a CSD G4 deletion - and WP:SALT? AllyD (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lily Richardson
- Lily Richardson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable person, only claim being a witness to a murder. Not only is there very little talk about the murder itself, the sources I found had only one instance that talked about Richardson. Delete. Buggie111 (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. This person would need multiple mentions in reliable sources to meet notability criteria. If there's an article about the murder case, she might be mentioned in it, but that wouldn't be a reason for there to be an article on her the person. Generally the practice for cases where a person is known for involvement in one event, rather than being famous for multiple things, the article would be about the event, not the person, e.g. Kathryn Johnston shooting. delldot ∇. 04:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are at least 4 Articles from seperate newspapers that cite Richardson as being key to the crowns case. She also appeared as a character of note in the story of her fathers fight with Microsoft in the Australian Story television show.. She has been seen on television by over two million Australians due to the Australian story and is recognized in the street. Please do not play down the role of a key witness in a murder trial.. it is not something to be taken lightly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.166.252 (talk • contribs) — 124.149.166.252 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete. A lot of murder trials have "key witnesses". Nothing special about this one; as for helping her father with stuff, wouldn't all that go on his article? CarniCat (meow) 06:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - NN known for a single event. reddogsix (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. —Ed!(talk) 19:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per all the above. It is also fascinating to note that the page's creator is the fittingly named Ricricho (talk · contribs) who also contributed heavily to Ric Richardson. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The criteria is not known for a single event... she is known on national TV for her story in Australian Story TV show... it amazes me how the editors here seem to sit in judgment of others without realizing the true gravity of the events... if you witnessed a murder you would not write it off so friviously... and being on National TV is not a frivolous matter either... also re comment directly above of course I would activly cover my own page... I like to make sure things are kept factual but I am frequently edited aven though I know the facts better than anyone... for example my last edit was to fix the statment made that my brother and I invented "shadesavers".. that is not correct... we didnt invent them.. we just were successful for making them in rainbow colors and making them very popular in Australia but do you think I could contribute without being ostracized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricricho (talk • contribs) 02:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure you can edit without being ostracized, if you're open about your connection with the article and stick to the recommendations here. As to your specific argument for keeping this article: not every thing that is not frivolous is notable, is it? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 23:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable. I would call being on national television as part of an internationally recognized news event as notable. I would also call being the key witness in a murder trial that is of national reporting importance [57] notable. What does concern me is the subjectivity of the opinions being expressed here. It's a bit disappointing.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus to delete the pre-spammy version. I'll allow someone else to remove the offensive portions, and return this to an article about the concept (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Creative problem solving
- Creative problem solving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In its present form, this is basically an ad for a book by User:VoteFair, who feels he is the World's Greatest Authority on the topic, and edits the article persistently and diligently. Orange Mike | Talk 01:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Whatever the problems may be with User:VoteFair, the topic is valid. Perhaps adding more material regarding lateral thinking from Edward de Bono would balance the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The nomination is attacking a particular editor rather than the topic, which has great notability. For example, see this paper. That too pushes a particular proprietary approach to the topic but notice that it has a large bibliography and this is a good measure of the topic's notability. If there's a problem with CoI then this would be best dealt with elsewhere. We're not going to destroy the article to save it. Warden (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. The article is unbalanced and the Lateral Thinking article shows a rather similar problem. I dare say "lateral thinking" is immediately associated with de Bono whereas "creative problem solving" has (for me) no such personal association. I wonder if some merging of the various techniques would be useful. Anyway that is an editorial matter and deletion is not the best way to start. Thincat (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC) See comment below Thincat (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ok, I went through some of the older versions of the article and picked out bits and pieces that seemed to be of value. I have removed everything that looked like promotional material to me, and replaced content that seemed to have been removed without good reason. I still don't know if the article is salvageable, but I have done my best to repair the damage. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would strongly encourage VoteFair to create a separate article about his self published book, as I am certain that the excessive self promotion is what caught the eye of the nominator in the first place. I think that this article is fixable, and will probably be kept. My fear is that lessons will not be learned, and this will happen again, and we will all be right back here. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot create a separate article for my book. Such an article would, deservedly, be deleted (for multiple reasons). Getting back to this deletion issue, there are other publications about the subject of creative problem solving (and there is an annual gathering at a Creative Problem Solving Institute in New York state and they publish materials), but if I had liked those resources then I would not have bothered to write my book. And I've moved on to solving specific problems so I don't have time to research adding those reference. I keep hoping that other subject-matter experts will contribute to this article, but so far most "contributions" have been clearly self-promotional. And no, I did not add my book for the purpose of self-promotion. I added it because Wikipedia requires references, and deletes articles without them. This brings me to my request on the talk page: Please un-do the special revert that you did. You have restored a self-promotional addition that doesn't belong, and you have removed the references I added. Also you have un-done clarifications that any subject-matter expert can tell you is not specific to my book. Other comments here indicate that other resources about creative problem solving exist. The fact that I happen to be the first or only subject-matter expert to contribute to refining this article should not be misinterpreted to mean that my contributions deserve to be undone. Thanks! (For anyone who wonders why subject-matter experts have been abandoning Wikipedia, look no farther; this deletion request combined with a revert of all my contributions to this article have motivated me to spend my time elsewhere.) VoteFair (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would strongly encourage VoteFair to create a separate article about his self published book, as I am certain that the excessive self promotion is what caught the eye of the nominator in the first place. I think that this article is fixable, and will probably be kept. My fear is that lessons will not be learned, and this will happen again, and we will all be right back here. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep I have heavily edited this article simply because I am the main subject-matter expert on this topic who is also a Wikipedia contributor. Regarding this deletion issue, I have written comments on the article's talk page. Please read them. Also I plan to post a clarification as to why I have already reduced my involvement in Wikipedia and why I would reduce my involvement even more if this article is deleted. This topic -- creative problem solving -- is very real, relevant, significant, etc. It so happens that I am an internationally recognized subject-matter expert as a result of my book "The Creative Problem Solver's Toolbox" having been published around the world in 9 languages and I forget how many editions. The recent (today's) edits made -- without discussion -- have reverted the article backward closer to the sorry state (and self-promotional state of someone who really was trying to advertise their brand of "Creative Problem Solving") that it was in when I dramatically improved it. If all that work was in vain, I will give up on this article, although I will not give up on Wikipedia because I am involved in another effort to restore sanity to this wonderful resource. VoteFair (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Any problems can be solved through normal editing. Hordes of news, book, and scholarly sources covering this could easily be found. Perhaps a college level textbook could be quoted on the subject. Dream Focus 04:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Creative problem-solving is a notable topic in cognitive psychology. I agree with the last comment that the problems are ones that can be solved by normal editing. If, in its current form, the article reads as if it were an advertisement for a book by a certain author, that does not alter the fact that it may no longer read like this if it has received sensible edits. Nor does it alter the fact that the topic would still retain its importance as a topic in psychology; in cognitive psychology, it is good to know that people are paying attention to the higher mental processes as well as basic processes such as attention, perception or memory. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - I'm torn on this one. The topic is notable (see this journal article for example), but the current article is awful, and the reader would be better served by a redirect to problem solving. Suggest stubify if kept. Claritas § 18:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up. Neutral Well-known business concept with plenty of reliable sources. Per DGG, if the clean-upissues can be addressed quickly then fine, otherwise wipe the slate if that's a smarter option. Insomesia (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Comment I'm not clear how Creative problem solving is different from Creativity, nor does either article make the distinction that I see. Maybe a redirect is in order until we can demonstrate the need for a separate article? --Ronz (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference between creativity and creative problem solving was explained in the cps article, although the recent edits are trashing the article, so the difference might not be as clear. I've stopped editing the article because too many people seem to think that just one subject-matter expert (on a topic that has many subject-matter experts) should not edit a Wikipedia article. VoteFair (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keepbut revise by someone without COI.If people here are confused about the distinction from other subjects, clarification is clearly in order, In order to decrease the effect of the COI, I'd would suggest that only books by recognized publishers be included. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Delete and rewrite from scratch. I have just noticed this is part of a closed group of promotional articles, including Creative Education Foundation, Productive Thinking Model, Creativity European Association. Creative Problem Solving Process, and possibly others, all of which are so overtly promotional & incapable of normal editing that I have nominated them for speedy deletion as G11, and International Center for Studies in Creativity, which I am about to nominate for AfD. (If any of the speedies are declined, I'll nominate them for AfD also.) Depending on results, I'll probably also send Tim Hurson to AfD. One of the classic signs of promotional writing is the attempt to get multiple articles out of a single topic -- we have a number of such closed circles here from earlier years, and they need to be condensed or demolished. I agree that this article has to some degree been rewritten at least enough to avoid speedy, but I am not convinced it offers much of a distinction from Creativity, except by being one group's non-notable program for developing it. And as the lede admits, it's a special case of Problem solving. The lede tries to distinguish it as " a special form of problem solving in which the solution is independently created rather than learned with assistance", The article in the respectable journal Gifted Child Quarterly that Claritas refers to above does have references to specific literature, but shows it instead as a special method of a group, not something general. The present article is a hodge-podge of the two, in which general matters are supported by some self-published books, not by the actual literature referred to in GCQ. I suppose an article could be created, but unlike my friend Warden, I think we must delete this to save the possibility of a NPOV article on the topic. Even though he's not at all an SPA, I also would, frankly, urge VoteFair to refrain from contributing to it except on the talk pagee DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not aware that the "Creative Problem Solving Process" folks had created a separate article. Previously they had created an article named "Creative Problem Solving" and that was the article I cleaned up (and with someone else's help converted to the present non-capitalized version) to make it method-neutral. As for the overlap with the "creativity" article, that article already covers so much subject matter that it has become rather bloated; and creative problem solving is distinct from that subject. I had hoped that people such as at the "Creative Education Foundation" would help to maintain the creative problem solving article, but they have not done so. I can see why they focus on their own article. Another point: I just received a message from User: Ronz that it would be appropriate (as suggested above) for me to create an article about my (notable) book, but I fail to see the logic in that because if this cps article continues to repeatedly be considered for deletion, then an article about my book would certainly not last. Another factor to consider is that this existing article is linked to the Korean, "AR" (Arabic?), and "FI" (Finnish) versions of Wikipedia, which should be meaningful. (South Korea understands the importance of creative problem solving skills as important in the business world; that edition of my book was quite well received.) So I'll repeat: Keep this article, but invite people who are subject-matter experts to clean it up (although it was clean, and non-promotional, prior to the recent dramatic "undo" action). I won't be editing the article anymore because, as I've said, I now realize that my time would be better spent where my contributions are not misunderstood and dismissed. VoteFair (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - In the end this article cannot be saved. I am completely convinced at this point, after reading the responses to my comments, and after reading DGG's comments above, that this article will only devolve into it's state of being a puff piece for the self-published book. If it is not deleted, along with DGG's other suggestions, many hours of time will be wasted. Whatever useful material that may be in the article can easily be added to other relevant articles, assuming that the info isn't already there. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 07:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The title may be good but the article is poorly written original research and a blatant attempt to sell a book. Deletion this time, without prejudice for future attempts with the same title. --Phazakerley (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do not have sufficient knowledge to independently judge whether an article with this title would need to be started all over again. So, I shall strike my !vote above and not venture an opinion. Thincat (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was created in 2003, and it wasn't until 2007 when user:VoteFair started spamming his stuff in there. Many others have worked on the article at times, often removing his spam and he editing it back in again later. I said a topic ban is in order for him. The article is fine if we just remove all spam from his book. Dream Focus 20:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing in the article that suggests support for my book. The references to my book simply support well-known principles of creative problem solving. If someone had wanted to switch them to some other book, that would have been fine by me. I added them because earlier threats to delete the article were based on the article having no references. There is no need to ban me from this article because, as I said above, I have stopped editing this article. I had cleaned it up from earlier spam attempts, and it was finally in good shape. Now it is a mess. Sigh. The editing of Wikipedia articles by people who just follow editing rules and don't understand the subject matter is undermining the quality of Wikipedia content. Sigh. VoteFair (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 01:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I note the article after various editor's removal of promotionalism for various individual's ideas consists of two sections: a lede paragraph, which has no sources, because it's supposed to be a summary of the material below, and the material below, which first, is all of it sourced to a single unreliable book [58] ( a further reading section that seems to contain material of questionable reliability & non-representative, ) and second, essentially consists of multiple cross references to creativity techniques, a rather problematic page the center for another nest of pages promoting individual ideas, some but not all of which are notable, but are in any case non-representative.. This page is not worth saving; it amounts to a statement of common sense, and needs a proper review of the literature to determine what material should be included. It illustrates what I meant when I said is is unrewritable without essentially starting over. Of course, this could be replacing the text, and if a decent article is written it will need to be almost entirely replaced but the reason for deleting instead is to remove the promotionalism in the history from WP. I wonder if the sourcing principles we use for medical articles should be extended to the social sciences. DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. "Creative problem solving" is not recognised as a specific term, hence the original research WP:ESSAY before us. Anything useful could easily be incorporated into problem solving. 1292simon (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Creative problem solving" is clearly recognised as a specific term because it is used in the title of thousands of scholarly works. It seems odd that 1292simon's position should be so counter-factual and so they should please clarify or explain this. Warden (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To reiterate my comments above, I attempted to cherry-pick through the earlier versions of the article, but it is a mess. I do not think that what would remain after a rewrite would be any more than a sentence or two, and those two sentences would likely benefit other similar articles elsewhere. I also support a subject-ban on User:VoteFair because of this, and because of my belief that the deletion of this article will only serve to push him to other articles to promote his book. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ironically User: Sue Rangell suggested that I write a separate article on my book, and I pointed out that this does not fit in Wikipedia, and would be deleted if I did do as she suggests. To re-repeat, the references to my book were to comply with earlier requests to add references because the original article did not have any references. I have never tried to promote my books on Wikipedia, and that will not change. (Also I'm too busy with other projects to have time to do much on Wikipedia.) The one significant change is that yet another subject-matter expert has abandoned yet another Wikipedia article. VoteFair (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion Is there consensus for the following change? I suggest reverting to the stable version prior to adding the deletion request -- [[59]] -- but removing all the references to my book, and adding a request that references be added. As I've said before, I will not edit the article because of the perceived conflict of interest. Then the controversial portions of the article for which no one supplies a reference can be removed if no one provides the needed references. As for the deletion issue, a recent contributor here has supplied a link that proves that "creative problem solving" is in the title of thousands of academic publications, whereas the comments saying the subject is not worth an article have not supplied any proof to support that claim. VoteFair (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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_minor_planets:_20001–21000. MBisanz talk 02:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(20694) 1999 VT82
- (20694) 1999 VT82 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable asteroid, one of literally thousands being detected by modern telescopes. No references outside JPL database. Needs to be first detected by new equipment, huge or near earth etc to be notable. -MJH (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This asteroid is one of 300,000 minor planets listed here: [60]. Per WP:GNG - I could find no independent coverage from secondary sources, just database rows. 300,000 minor planets cannot each be notable. ---MJH (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) Secret account 05:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. By standard practice, if a catalogued asteroid lacks sufficient notability for an individual article, the page is converted into a redirect to the appropriate "minor planets" list, but never deleted. And the nom's notability criteria for astronomical objects appear to be their own invention. Despite the contrary !vote above, Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects)#Dealing with minor planets rather explicitly calls for redirection rather than deletion if suitable references are insufficient to support n standalone article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy continue discussion with whatever outcome. Why should some opinion be so much valued so to shut up the possibility for any one else to comment? We are not all here all the time. Let it run. Oh! the asterioid seems quite non-notable, deleting is probably best, i see no use for 300,000 redirects either. WP is not the only source of information on the web, I presume the info is reasonably safe and accessible at JPL's databases - Nabla (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of minor planets: 20001–21000 per WP:NASTRO and per the lack of sources that are both specific to this subject and in-depth about it. And I think the call for a speedy close is appropriate; we don't need to keep repeating the same discussion for the many articles of this type. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure it is ok to ask for a speedy close, but I disagree with it. Note that for me this is the first such discussion I can recall participating ever. If you speedy close, you close the doors to participation, WP should be open to more opinions, not closing them out. - Nabla (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 01:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect As much as I love astronomy, there is absolutely no reason to have up to 300,000 ten-word articles about space rocks with no notability of their own. Reywas92Talk 01:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above. A separate article isn't justified here. --Michig (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect is warranted after considering the alternatives.--Nixie9 (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or delete as above. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A merge to List_of_minor_planets:_20001–21000 is the best option, as all the information in the current article is preserved in a useful table. Alternatively, we can and should make a bot to create 310,376 redirects or articles from List_of_minor_planets rather than dealing with this discussion each time ad infinitum. --Nixie9 (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or redirect per Hullaballoo and DGG comment on analogous debate. Nothing else to add, really, apart perhaps a read of WP:PILLARS: look at pillar number one, click on the link for almanac, read the article, and take your own conclusions. --Cyclopiatalk 23:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bass Lake (Holly Springs, North Carolina)
- Bass Lake (Holly Springs, North Carolina) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable artificial lake. Notability (geographic features) says 'Named natural features are often notable...' but this is not a named natural feature and I can find no in depth coverage in independent sources. PROD was removed with the comment deproding, geographic features are notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The lake was destroyed by Hurricane Fran and later rebuilt, which generated news coverage (see here, here, here, here, and the second half of this article, though the last three are unfortunately paywalled). Some of the paywalled articles go into detail about the lake's history as well. Besides, geographic features such as lakes (including the more significant artificial ones) generally fall under Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer, as stated in the five pillars. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 13:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia is also a gazeteer-thank you-RFD (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete small, local recreational facility, lacks notability. References above are more about the very notable Hurricane Fran. Any other coverage I could find was travel-guideish or was about another topic with the lake mentioned only in passing. The nomination is dead one. This does not meet notability guidelines defined for geographic features. Wikipedia is not a travel guide or local recreation guide. RadioFan (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 01:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As per RadioFan. Anything useful could go in a section in Holly Springs. 1292simon (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The lake itself has received significant coverage in reliable sources, thus it passes WP:N. While Hurricane Fran is part of the stories, these articles are primarily about the lake itself:
- A possible merge to Holly Springs, North Carolina could also be functional, per WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --MuZemike 13:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Naoki Yoshida
- Naoki Yoshida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ANYBIO two short blog refs, mainly asking him about a game he worked on. WP:NN WP:TOOSOON MJH (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note for an admin - WP:WITHDRAWN per improvements and comments below, without delete !vote. I am nominator fka MJH--Nixie9 (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the policy states "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards" and this article passes WP:ARTIST. WP:TOOSOON is completely subjective and is also not a policy. Alhanalem (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - He is an important person in game development and this article should not be deleted. I have updated the page with more information and references. This includes citation that states he worked on the Bomberman video game series and various Hudsonsoft games.
--Sirdayne (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Added credits for Dragon Quest X and included citation. --Sirdayne (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - He is the Producer, and Director of Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn. Final Fantasy is a popular video game franchise known around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rouxred (talk • contribs) 01:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Producer and director of popular franchise. Currently an important figure, fits just as much as others. Crevox (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The unformatted keep votes drew my attention to single purpose editors who's only edit was a 'keep' comment on this page, editors who have been inactive for significant periods of time to come out of retirement to vote here, as well as the article's creator voting multiple times. Mkdwtalk 00:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ignoring !vote issues considered above, several decent references have been added since nomination. I am fka MJH.--Nixie9 (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Regarding the comment 2 posts above, I don't see any problem with any of this. So what if an editor was previously inactive, or "coming out of retirment"- I don't see the relevance there.. Obviously attention was called to something of interest to them and they came down to try to not just protect, but improve the content. Several references and some additional information have been added since nomination. I don't really think this is a problem article, nor an inappropriate one at this time. Every article should be so glad that people care about it. Does someone coming back because of a particular article take away from the validity of their contributions? 21:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanalem (talk • contribs)
- As far as I know, I created the article on November 13th, and I haven't voted at all yet, let alone multiple times! However, I'd vote to...
- Keep - The article just hadn't had enough time to get off the ground. FFXIV is an important game (as seen by its amount of media attention in the MMO scene), and being viewed 1543 times in the last 30 days shows there is some interest in Yoshia and the article, which will surely only grow as we near the release date. It would be premature to delete it. Patternofknives (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 06:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Avaya Secure Network Access
- Avaya Secure Network Access (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disputed prod, not finding significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources to satisfy stand-alone notability Nouniquenames 02:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG Delete - More Avaya WP:SPAM. There are scores of articles like this. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The articles creator was blocked in 2007 for sock puppetry - PROD was contested by an IP unconnected to the article. --wintonian talk 03:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran talk to me! 09:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Corporate spam without encyclopedic value. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was WP:WITHDRAWN (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 09:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of songs recorded by Led Zeppelin
- List of songs recorded by Led Zeppelin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a trivial list. All the songs can already be found on the Led Zeppelin discography page and are also listed in the Category:Led Zeppelin songs page. The sole purpose of this list also appears to be a smear/attack page again Led Zeppelin by implication. Note: in a previous AfD on these songs lists (eg. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs by Taylor Swift) the result was a redirect to the discography page. RichardLesses (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This meets WP:SALAT - all the entries are notable in their own right by one of the most notable bands on the planet. How does this "appear to be a smear/attack page"? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a laundry list. Look at the article history. This article was created with malice. It is not needed, we already have a discography page. RichardLesses (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying that the article was "created with malice" and "appears to be a smear/attack page" are personal attacks unless they are backed up with evidence. Let's see that evidence, it's not clear to me either from the article or its history. 137.43.182.141 (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. I've looked at the article history and I don't see any malice. I'm more concerned that the nominator has needed to create an alternative account to log this AfD in the first place. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm simply using my real name not an anonymous account. You should be encouraging it not being concerned about it. RichardLesses (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I should be, but I'm not. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm simply using my real name not an anonymous account. You should be encouraging it not being concerned about it. RichardLesses (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. I've looked at the article history and I don't see any malice. I'm more concerned that the nominator has needed to create an alternative account to log this AfD in the first place. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying that the article was "created with malice" and "appears to be a smear/attack page" are personal attacks unless they are backed up with evidence. Let's see that evidence, it's not clear to me either from the article or its history. 137.43.182.141 (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article is very useful if you want to see all songs by Led Zeppelin without going to their discography. I worked a lot in the article (the creator worked even more than me) and I don't want to delete it. The songs are in alphabetical order, that makes it easier. Amb1997 (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Don't understand the nomination either. The Taylor Swift list was a little premature, only two albums released when last deleted, so I am not sure it acts as precedent. A "List of songs recorded" is NOT a discography, but works well in conjunction with a discography. There are over 200+ "List of songs recorded by" articles. Note to those working on improving the article. Check the references and expand... --Richhoncho (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This seems a suitable topic for a list. The majority of these songs do not appear on the band's discography page, and there's no reason this information can't be expanded/improved like other, similar lists [e.g., Rihanna's, Foo Fighters', The Jackson 5's, etc). I agree that references should be incorporated. Gong show 18:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Coherent list; useful source of in-links. Status of band in rock history is immense, with multiple biographies dealing with many, most, or all of these recordings. Carrite (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -for the same reasons as Richoncho. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Even if the nominating rationale was correct, it would only support redirecting, not deleting. But the only songs that appear on the discography list are the singles, so this is not redundant to that list and should be kept. Rlendog (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is not a discography, this is a list of songs deserving of inclusion in our encyclopedia. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per above. Mlpearc (powwow) 01:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As nominator of this AfD, I wish to cancel and withdraw this nomination. RichardLesses (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pope John Paul II. MBisanz talk 04:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Solidarity (Catholic theology)
- Solidarity (Catholic theology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Long-standing unreferenced mini-article. Reads like an essay on Solicitudo Rei Socialis, from which is quotes on a seemingly arbitrary basis. Unclear how this is in any way distinct as a topic from subsidiarity (Catholicism) (which itself read seems like a prematurely forked subpage of subsidiarity, but at least that one has sources). Delete, and move any meaningfully distinct content to those various other articles, as required. Smartiger (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (I will do no more since I am not a Catholic) Sollicitudo Rei Socialis is a mere stub article. if the subject of this article derives from that encyclical, I wonder whehter the answer may be to merge this article into that one. The external link from that article is itself a long article setting out the backgound to the encyclical. It ought to be possible to make a decend article from that, without COPY-VIO. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I daresay that this topic has enough merits to make it a topic of interest in theology. Maybe it will be a better article - longer and more in-depth - if it received edits from people with expertise in this area. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there is no evidence that this concept has been covered by secondary or tertiary sources. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Use of term lacks coverage. Could be included as a section in Pope John Paul II but not as a standalone article. 1292simon (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spring Lake, North Carolina. MBisanz talk 04:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chris V. Rey
- Chris V. Rey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Just appears to be vanity article created by the article subject. Do not feel he meets WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Just being first term mayor of a small town isn't really more than locally notable. No other claim to notability really. While some of the military info purported might possibly be notable (?), that info is completely uncited. JoannaSerah (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. JoannaSerah (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. JoannaSerah (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ANYBIO ---MJH (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Spring Lake, North Carolina. In my ideal Wikipedia, every town or city article would have a history section that either listed or briefly touched upon its mayors. Location (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that seems fair. Could possibly be merged into the town article. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Anything more than "Chris V. Rey is the current mayor" in the Spring Lake article is WP:SPAM. 1292simon (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kan Ek'. MBisanz talk 04:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Canek II
- Canek II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Canek was a hereditary title, not a named individual. The creation of this article came about from a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject matter. I'm currently working on Kan Ek' (the modern spelling of the name), which will cover this subject better. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do. It is a mystery to me how I came up with a name like Canek II. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this article is wrongly included in Mexico - the Itza of Petén fall within Guatemala. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename or merge -- This is a short factual article, dealing with an individual, apparently one whose given name is unknown. It is taken from an encyclopedia presumably one out of copyright. It is possible that "II" was to indicate that it was the secoind article on the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything within this article is included in the Kan Ek' article and Canek redirects there. There real problem I have with this page is the "II" - all the kings of the Itza were called Kan Ek', and we don't know who was the first, the Spanish had contact, probably, with three, with others falling in between due to extended periods during which there was no contact with the Itza. If we don't know who is the first, how can we know who is the second? At any rate, it certainly wasn't the king described in this stub. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename or merge I could have gotten the title from an existing redlink in another article which referred to the same individual, or perhaps I just made it up. The Wikipedia article itself makes no reference to a Canek II. Perhaps another way of identifying this individual can be identified. This individual seems to be under discussion in the Early 16th century section of the Kan Ek' article. Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography has a problem with imaginary subjects of biographies, but I see no indication of a problem here, as the individual seems to be reliably confirmed. I think the additional information that ACAB provides (date of death; attempted suppression of idolatry among people; further details on the worship of the horse) can be added to the above referenced section of the Kan Ek' article, or the Canek II article can be renamed and the relevant additional information from the Kan Ek' article put into it. Either solution would be satisfactory to me. Retaining the Canek II as a redirect would seem to be advisable if only to help anyone who my title has led astray. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran talk to me! 09:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The title "Canek II" is a result of a previous error. Since Canek redirects to Kan Ek', this article should be deleted to avoid duplication and confusion. 1292simon (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Le Mans 24 Hours video games. MBisanz talk 04:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LeMans (arcade game)
- LeMans (arcade game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The sources in the article are either unreliable (arcade history, aurcade) or are merely entries in a database (arcade museum). I was unable to find any other reliable sources offering significant coverage of this game. Delete per WP:GNG. I am also nominating the following article for deletion for the same reason:
- Land Sea Air Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
--Odie5533 (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete i was a huge Atari fan (and still have active console/system) and never heard of this game. Couldn't find anything real substantial in quick research. Causeandedit (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Le Mans 24 Hours video games. As a largely forgotten 1976 arcade game released before any video gaming magazines were published, finding sufficient WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG may be a real challenge and thus it seems difficult to justify its existence as a standalone article. I did discover a couple passing mentions which note that it was one of Atari's earliest releases (see here and here). More importantly, it may have received a mention in the Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition. Unfortunately it is only available on snippet view on Google Books, but I was able to retrieve the fragmentary sentence from Google's scan of the 2009 edition, "and 1976's Le Mans, the first game to offer multiple ..." It could be a useful source if someone can access the work. (P.S. For anyone using Google to hunt for additional sources, the game was more commonly known as "Le Mans" than the article title's "LeMans".) --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Three Loco. EP isn't notable (non-admin closure) ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 15:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Three Loco (EP)
- Three Loco (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NALBUM in all regards -MJH (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism hey! 12:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the band's page. The EP itself isn't notable. 1292simon (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Three Loco, the page for the band. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per the above. As the band's only release, and with so little to write about it, a merge is the obvious course. --Michig (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ali Alborzi
- Ali Alborzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original AfD resulted in a resounding "keep" verdict, but the overall argument was flawed IMO. Contrary to those editors' opinions, there is little to expand the article with - even four years after the AfD. The subject, defined in the lead as a director and photographer, has a virtually barren IMDb profile and I find no evidence that as a photog he's ever published a book or had a major gallery showing. On both counts, he clearly fails WP:CREATIVE. In fact, he's likely more notable as a fashion designer, but barely so, and still not to WP:CREATIVE's standards. His clothing line was shown in a fashion week some years ago, but the coverage is limited to routine PR blurbs. Two of the AfD's editors pointed to Google News archives but all that's left beyond the blurbs are numerous passing mentions due to his marriage to a notable model and a few mentions due to him creating some sort of behind-the-scenes photo collage for a Val Kilmer film (plus an article on a nuclear scientist of the same name). I see nothing notable that he's done and no significant coverage to suggest otherwise. Mbinebri talk ← 03:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yes, he appears eminently notable if you type his name into Google and search, but look just a bit closer and you'll see that there really are no mentions of him in reliable sources. I agree entirely with the nom. dci | TALK 03:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As per nom. 1292simon (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG, awaiting citations since 2007--Nixie9 (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Any man married to Josie Maran is noteworthy in some sense of the word, but there's insufficient evidence of his separate notability in Wikipedia terms. He gets lots of RS mentions in connection with his relationship with her, but otherwise not much at all. He's already mentioned (with sources) in her article and it's not apparent that there's anything else here that would be appropriate to add there.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The_Hamsters#Videos. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Verminator!
- Verminator! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A non-notable music album. Stowonthewolder (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't think this is notable. --Elongated shorty (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism hey! 09:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesn't meet the album notability guidelines. Rotten regard 21:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The_Hamsters#Videos - Google News provided nothing relevant and Google Books provided two minor mentions. Like other The Hamsters nominations I commented recently, there isn't anything to establish notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per SwisterTwister, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources and no assertion of notability per WP:NALBUMS. Altered Walter (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The_Hamsters#Videos. No significant coverage found. --Michig (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Album is not notable enough to warrant coverage outside the band's page. 1292simon (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect; does not warrant its own article. —Theopolisme 22:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jamie Elle
- Jamie Elle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:PORNBIO and the general notability guidelines. One performer nomination; the rest are scene nominations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom's on-target analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If she had a major role in the scenes nominated, then that counts as nominations. 1292simon (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Most of the references don't even mention her, and the one that does is neither substantial coverage nor a reliable source. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Nominations are not awards, and there is no editorial coverage to fulfill WP:GNG--Nixie9 (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 04:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peer Hafiz Qazi Abdul Haleem R.A
- Peer Hafiz Qazi Abdul Haleem R.A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Claims that this person was a renowned Sufi saint are not backed up by any source, nor can any source be found to support such a claim. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding the following pages: Haleem's descendants and equally non-notable. All three articles were created by the same user, the latest in this line of descendancy. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Qazi Fazal Noor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Qazi Noor-ul-Haq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Peer Hafiz Qazi Fatah Noor R.A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources provide evidence of notability. 1292simon (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Needs sources. — JJJ (say hello) 16:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 04:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ignition (Freak Seed album)
- Ignition (Freak Seed album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable music album and Google News and Books searches provided nothing. I should that the artist's article, Freak Seed, has also been nominated for deletion. A different search for this album provided unreliable and somewhat useless sources including a blog here, forum post here, an album profile here and CD reviews listed at the Freak Seed website here. I initially planned to PROD this but my message would've exceeded the space. SwisterTwister talk 23:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism hey! 12:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The album isn't notable enough for a standalone page. 1292simon (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 05:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The band fails WP:BAND and this fails WP:NALBUMS. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Countin' Carl
- Countin' Carl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
removed PROD per WP:PROD. Reason for PROD by User:Astros4477 was: "Stub article which is an orphan and has no references." Illia Connell (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Nick_Jr._(block)#Former - I'm sure this was an excellent and entertaining show for children but I haven't found any relevant sources despite detailed searches at Google News and Books and a main Google search provided nothing useful or reliable. As mentioned at the first nomination, it is interesting that there isn't an IMDb page but this show was probably so independent and low-budget that it never received much attention. Honestly, several kids shows never receive much attention. Rather than deleting, redirecting may be the better option. SwisterTwister talk 00:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If its existence can't be verified then a redirect would be misleading. Rotten regard 00:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources really attest to the fact that it existed; indeed, there appear to be no reliable sources regarding the topic. dci | TALK 03:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nothing appears to have changed since the previous AfD in 2010... which also voted Delete. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because of the lack of reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't know why I say keep, but SwisterTwister has a point. Six Sided Pun Vows (talk | contribs | former account) 18:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, same reason as last time: apparently doesn't actually exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It existed, there are some archived videos online, but that doesn't make it notable. I vaguely remember these shorts and they were just that shorts. Not notable. Not even worth a redirect. RadioFan (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable interstitial program, too obscure to redirect. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 09:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.