- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Major Matt Mason. Consensus is that it's too soon to have this article - filming has not even begun. As such, this is a selective merge and redirect (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Major Matt Mason (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)
A film that has yet to begin shooting. It currently doesn't have a confirmed director. It currently doesn't have a finished script. Movie has been in various states of production since 2009. Prod was contested because, "while it hasn't been released yet, it does appear to have enough coverage in general notability guidelines." Irregardless of GNG, it fails WP:NFF Bgwhite (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge this content (but not the infobox) to a "Planned film" section of Major Matt Mason. Given the quote from Graham Yost in one of the most recent sources ("Yeah. Who knows what's going to happen with that, because Tom is very busy now acting in a bunch of things. . . . So we'll see if it happens."[1] it would be very difficult to contend that this project is a "sure thing" to become an actual film. I note that the film was mentioned in earlier versions of the toy article, and am not sure why the creator of this article thought it was appropriate to delete that mention[2] rather than linking it to xis new article, but be that as it may, the additional content and sources created for this film article are worthy of inclusion in the article about the toy.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and partial merge to Major Matt Mason as suggested above. The topic of this planned 3D film has enough sourcability to, per policy, at least be mentioned in that article... even though, per the guideline for unmade films, it's far Too Soon for a separate article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and/or partial redirect to parent article. Too much of a WP:CRYSTAL event to have a standalone article. Shearonink (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe tis article meets the guidelines for general notability. The sources look like enough to me to support an independent article. But if others think not this is surely worth a brief mention in the toys article and a redirect or merge makes sense. Could this be one of the allowable exceptions to WP:NFF, you know, I think maybe this could be a close call. --116.87.23.71 (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't really know, but isn't there like enough coverage on this movie for it to deserve it's own article? It seems quite for certain that this movie is going to come to fruition, based on some of the sources I can find[3]. I can find lots of citations. It passes WP:NFF, right? I would say yes, according to policy on future events. It also meets WP:GNG too, don't you agree? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge based on the guidance from WP:NFF which identifies that films that have not commenced principal photography should not have their own article. No prejudice to recreation when it meets the guidelines for inclusion as a standalone article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment a redirect and merge can be easily undone Rich Farmbrough, 01:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep though is my mild preference here, as the material could be swamped in the target article, and GNG seems to have been met. Rich Farmbrough, 01:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge and/or Redirect as above and WP:TOOSOON Stuartyeates (talk) 05:16, 2 June 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 (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Body Electric (book) (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)
Essentially just a recreation of the article here [4]. This recreation has the same issues as the first one. It does not demonstrate notability, contains large amounts of undue material and original research etc. We have the same issues as the previous article. To avoid confusion I will note that there are numerous similarly titled books. Steps I went to check notability:
- Google scholar, I checked "The body electric". All of the hits (except a citation to the book) in the first few pages were unrelated to the book so I stopped looking.
- Google scholar again, I checked "The body electric" Becker in the hopes of getting relevant hits, I found some citations but mostly in articles of dubious quality.
- Google Books: The first few pages were books of the same or similar name by different authors, to narrow the search down I added Becker to the start: All I found were numerous unreliable fringe publications.
- Google search: nothing relevant
- I checked the sources in the article itself, there is only one inline citation,
All in all the book fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG
The article pre-AfD: [5] for reference. As a side arguement: the article in itself would need a complete re-write to be encyclopedic, most of the article is a non-critical paraphrasing of the book and includes numerous fringe claims such as warning of the dangers of EMF fields without putting the mainstream perspective even slightly in view: His contention (supported by much evidence he presents) is that the experts choosing the pollution limits are strongly influenced by the polluting industry, the article also contains OR unrelated to the book about the dangers of EMF; This notion is supported by a comparison with Eastern Europe, where the research done by more independent scientists led to far stricter emission limits, The article also openly admits to being a synthesis of primary sources that aren't directly connected with the article when it states that: Other primary sources: The papers listed in the article Robert O. Becker. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The AMSA listing as a classic along with the NYT review is sufficient to show the notability of the book. The article needs some considerable cutting, to maybe 1/3 the length, but that's easy enough; I've done about half of it already. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AMSA's helps to expose medical students to information on subjects not generally covered in traditional curricula, aka it represents non-mainstream teaching. Your reference to AMSA listing it as a classic is on this website [6], note that the website isn't AMSA but a website for Advanced Biofeedback & Energetic Medicine, AMSA appear to have discontinued the course. The course was also on Bioenergic Medicines which aimed to help students, amongst other things, understand the concept of subtle energy, the vital force, qi, and prana. Basically I don't think being in an alternative medicine course book list helps towards notability. Specifically I don't think point 4 of NBOOK: The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country is met for the follow reasons:
- 1. The course appears to have been cancelled (it's from 10 years ago).
- 2. The course is not mainstream and so would feature more non-notable fringe works
- 3. It's a single course, NBOOK mentions requiring courses
- 4. The book isn't the main book for the class but appears to be extra reading.
- IRWolfie- (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the claim about AMSA from the article because I believe it is misleading, though I did find a copy of the cited document on amsa.org. See the talk page for more details. Dricherby (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers for the extra clarification (which can be found here: [7]). IRWolfie- (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not easy to search in Google Scholar, as the 1855 poetry book "I sing the body electric" is difficult to avoid. How to search: Search for the combination The body electric and Becker and Selden. The first result is the correct book. Now click at this entry to get the 454 papers quoting this book. This is not OR - just standard literature search.
The article had to be recreated as it had been totally annihilated, but it is completely rewritten. It has two parts: First the lead for a necessary demonstration of notability, and then a book synopsis. This was quite short for a 350 page text. No OR. It should be explained what is undue about this synopsis. Becker's opinion about electromagnetic pollution is supported by an EU report. I am open to suggestions from unbiased, rationally thinking editors if they think Becker's findings require corroboration. I should have described the other sources as peer-reviewed publications - accepted by expert editors. OlavN (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Google scholar citatations are irrelevant as they are from unreliable sources. Also note WP:GOOGLEHITS. This EU report [8] does not mention Becker and it is OR to link it to the topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Apparent WP:FRINGE, but several of those GS citations are reliable. -- 202.124.73.7 (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a few citations doesn't help meet WP:NBOOK. Also note that the vast vast majority of citations of the book are not reliable [9], (the ones you may be considering reliable appear to be alternative medicine publications). edit: but anyway, we don't declare book to be notable based on citation counts. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Electrotherapy. The book does seem to be significant in that field but I've not managed to find very much notability in the book itself (as distinct from the ideas it advances). There are plenty of citations to this book in reputable scientific journals (e.g., [10], [11], [12]). Of these, I was only able to read the second for free and it's pretty typical of scientific citations: "Static and fluctuating electromagnetic fields have been applied with apparent success for the management of pain in a variety of orthopedic conditions, most commonly traumatic bone fractures or surgical osteotomies.9-11" where the three cited works are this book, another book by Becker and a paper by other authors; I think that's the only mention of the book in that article. This is fairly typical of scientific citations: they're unlikely to discuss the book in the sort of detail required by criterion 1 of WP:NBOOK; they tend to give a summary of at most one or two sentences. However, the book did seem to attract some media attention when it was published, though all of this is paywalled so I've not been able to judge how substantial it is: LA Times and a "brief review" in the New York Times is mentioned in this letter to the editor. Since availability of 1980s newspapers on the web isn't great, it's possible that it received more attention than that. There are also a couple of articles in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel [13] [14] from 1987 which include comments from Becker and might also include some discussion of the book. If somebody who has access to these various newspaper articles can evaluate them, I might change to a week keep. Dricherby (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The review is in the article currently in the sources section, it appears to be behind a paywall [15], from the bit that is shown I don't see any critical commentary required per WP:NBOOK, note that thhe sun-sentinel sources are both by the same person and I would harazard a guess that there is not sufficient mention. On a side note, it seems strange to me that though to say it is an academic book but then we have newspaper reviews, this would suggest it is pop-sci. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems a little unusual for a scientific book to be cited by papers and reviewed by the media but I'm not sure it means much. It's described as a summary of the authors' research and I imagine it's possible to write such a summary in language that would be mostly accessible to the lay-person without too much compromise of rigour. Dricherby (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The review is in the article currently in the sources section, it appears to be behind a paywall [15], from the bit that is shown I don't see any critical commentary required per WP:NBOOK, note that thhe sun-sentinel sources are both by the same person and I would harazard a guess that there is not sufficient mention. On a side note, it seems strange to me that though to say it is an academic book but then we have newspaper reviews, this would suggest it is pop-sci. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The cover of the book quotes from a review in San Francisco Chronicle: "An astounding, thought-provoking book." Could the publisher be lying about this contemporary review? The eighties is a long time ago, so we can't expect much to be available on Internet. Shall history (eventually making e.g. AMSA study lists outdated) be purged? OlavN (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Without seeing the actual review, there's no way to know if it's a substantial review (as would be required by WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK) or just a passing remark. Please see the comments above about AMSA. The book was never on an "AMSA study list": it appeared in the bibliography of a document giving recommendations for designers of curricula in "bioelectric medicine". Did anyone ever designed such a curriculum, let alone teach it and recommend that their students read the book? Dricherby (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Also reviewed in Kirkus[16], Library Journal (Reiser F, Fletcher J, Fialkoff F, Schwarzer A, Sutton J, Cameron J. The Body Electric (Book). Library Journal [serial online]. February 15, 1985;110(3):174.) and Sciences (Adey W. THE ENERGY AROUND US. Sciences [serial online]. January 1986;26(1):52.) Google Search and Google Books indicate it was widely discussed in the 80s and since. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What search terms were you searching with? All I saw was self published and fringe rubbish in google search and google books. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If we can get a few more decent reviews notability will be satisfied. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notable book, meets WP:GNG. Many book search sources on google refer to it as a "pioneering" work.[17][18] I see many sources refers to it as a "bestseller" though I cannot confirm how accurate that is in a quick search.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These are not reliable sources, the first book aims to integrate the diverse concerns of ecofeminism, holistic health, alternative education, the New Physics, spirtual pathways and extraterrestrial contact into a coherent worldview whilst the second is another fringe book, Zapped: Why Your Cell Phone Shouldn't Be Your Alarm Clock and 1,268 Ways to Outsmart the Hazards of Electronic Pollution which claims that Invisible pollution surrounds us twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, interrupting our bodies’ natural flow of energy. For reference, here is the notability criteria for books: WP:BKCRIT. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because these books are fringe doesn't mean they are making it up that the book was popular. Pop-culture science is full of popular books about baloney.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These are not reliable sources, the first book aims to integrate the diverse concerns of ecofeminism, holistic health, alternative education, the New Physics, spirtual pathways and extraterrestrial contact into a coherent worldview whilst the second is another fringe book, Zapped: Why Your Cell Phone Shouldn't Be Your Alarm Clock and 1,268 Ways to Outsmart the Hazards of Electronic Pollution which claims that Invisible pollution surrounds us twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, interrupting our bodies’ natural flow of energy. For reference, here is the notability criteria for books: WP:BKCRIT. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is irrelevant, what is important is if it's notable, and this needs to be indicated by either A. significant coverage in reliable sources, or B. meeting the WP:NBOOK criteria, being featured in some fringe books (which aren't reliable sources) doesn't help with that. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Numerous references in books is something to consider for notability. Its not clear to me you have perspective on 1980s pop-science fads, of which this was part? Some of sources of the time, already found by other editors, confirm its notability. This may not be as notable as baloney like the Jupiter Effect, but its still notable.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is irrelevant, what is important is if it's notable, and this needs to be indicated by either A. significant coverage in reliable sources, or B. meeting the WP:NBOOK criteria, being featured in some fringe books (which aren't reliable sources) doesn't help with that. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Numerous non-trivial mentions in reliable sources sure (per GNG), but I don't think in unreliable fringe publications which by their very nature tend to discuss obscure topics. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm worried that your argument seems to be The Body Electric is fringe, therefore anything that discusses it is fringe, therefore anything that discusses it is not a reliable source, therefore it is not notable. By the same argument, no fringe theory is notable. The second of the books that Milowent linked was published by HarperCollins and I don't think it's so easily dismissed. Dricherby (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you actually checked the book out? Here is a review of the second of the books, Zapped which was mentioned by Dricherby above : [19], the zinger at the end: If you're worried about the dangers of EMFs, wait for a more credible source than this one.. Also another paragraph: she brings up nonscientific concepts like chi and prana and claims, on page 9, that medicines heal us of illness because of the frequencies they emit, not due to their physical or chemical properties. Her adherence to the unproven concepts of traditional Chinese medicine puts the science she presents later in the book on uncertain footing. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC) I've added text in italics to avoid confusion as to what book I was talking aboutIRWolfie- (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]
- The quality of the book is irrelevant to its notability. WP is not a book review site, where we evaluate the quality of books. If RSs review the book, then it's notable--no matter whether notable good or notably awful. (What we can do, though, is quote a fair representative summary sentence from a review) DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't talking about the Body Electric itself here, I was talking about the Book called Zapped which was referred to above as being a reliable source. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Zapped! did have some fringe science, but OH what a fringe.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is not whether Zapped is scientifically accurate; the question is whether the cite in it that the b.e. is a " time-honored classic" shows notability; reliable in this sense means editorially discriminating in some sensible manner between different books, and it does discriminate: it is one of the 2 listed. The book is independent, published by a division of Harpers and is in 300 libraries. I agree b.e. is fringe science, but it's notable fringe science. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Zapped! did have some fringe science, but OH what a fringe.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't talking about the Body Electric itself here, I was talking about the Book called Zapped which was referred to above as being a reliable source. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The quality of the book is irrelevant to its notability. WP is not a book review site, where we evaluate the quality of books. If RSs review the book, then it's notable--no matter whether notable good or notably awful. (What we can do, though, is quote a fair representative summary sentence from a review) DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Reliable" is not a binary determination. Just because a source is not a reliable source for scientific fact, it may be a reliable source for describing the beliefs of certain (fringe) people.
- I don't understand why a fringe publication wouldn't be acceptable for establishing the notability of a fringe subject. APL (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not being covered in significant depth by independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:15, 2 June 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. Overwhelming consensus to delete as non-notable neologism (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- V-bomb (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 neologism with absolutely no sign of any sort of notability or widespread use. Claims to be "Widely used" in the vegan community. However, not only can I find no evidence of this actually being true, the name of the non-notable blog that it claims coined the term, and links to in the article, is the same name as the editor that created the page, making this also a case of COI and spam. PROD was declined by page creator, so I brought it here. Rorshacma (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Found no evidence that this is widespread. Looks like another blogger trying to propagate his neologism via Wikipedia. Besides, the Urban Dictionary has another definition entirely! •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Even if other sources were found, this is barely a definition, and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. LadyofShalott 01:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Lady of Shalott, WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 08:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the urban words is quite famous but obviously not notable. There are no sources to support it and even if were, it would be too though to make it a start-class as nothing can be added. →TSU tp* 16:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unreferenced and with no obvious notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:17, 2 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alert Party (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 one of several articles on non-notable former political parties. This one only contested one election, in 1959, when they recieved 1.9% of the votes. I can't find any significant coverage of them in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep but only if someone can dig up more information: The Alert Party also contested the London County Council elections of 1961 and Forrester also stood at the the 1958 LCC elections as a 'Predestination' candidate. Lozleader (talk) 16:55, 12 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I tried searching newspaper archives, but nothing came up. If they didn't get significant coverage at the time, they're not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:58, 23 May 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, →TSU tp* 21:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Actually, I base this on Lozleader's comments. It was a one-time party. Therefore not notable. Lord Roem (talk) 02:57, 29 May 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. Some say "third time's a charm", but there is no consensus to delete at this time. Article needs more cleanup/verification (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Americans in the Venona papers (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)
Prod nominated by User:Washingtonian1976 on a previously AfD'd article. Reason given by Washingtonian1976 for prod is "unreliabe sources and original research by some additions, also seems not notable or needs significant alteration to not sully names of senior officials many who made great sacrifices". KTC (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. List is sourced to a single author who has associated Soviet codenames with real people. Any verifiable information can be added to the Venona project article. The rest are non-notable specualtion. Some of these people may still be alive so the page also has potential BLP issues, the page title implies they were named in the Venona decrypts whereas the codenames are associated with real life names by synthesis and accusation. SpinningSpark 22:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete significant slander and BLP issues as it stands. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- [Keep] - retain but modify by verifications — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayak0310 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC) — Kayak0310 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - I'm actually currently reading Haynes & Klehr's "Venona" book at the moment, which is a fortuitous bit of timing. First let me say that this Wikipedia list started way back in August 2005 as a spin-off from Venona project — that being a major American NSA counterintelligence operation involving the decryption of secret Soviet messages, mostly from the years during World War II. Only a small fraction of the communications were "cracked," based on the Soviets reusing "one-time pads" that were part of the encryption-decription process. Soviet intelligence operatives were identified through the decrypted messages. The problem we have here isn't really whether this is an encyclopedia-worthy topic — it absolutely is, the subject of several books and many scholarly articles as well as coverage in the popular press. The potential issue relates to the identification or misidentification of Soviet code names by Messrs. Haynes and Klehr — both of whom are honest, albeit quite conservative, scholars. Many IDs are necessarily "best guesses," based upon circumstantial evidence. Even assuming an accuracy rate of 97% or 99% (which would be the range that I would personally be gambling money on) — is this good enough? What about the 1 to 3% who are misidentified, even if now dead? Is that acceptible?
- Here we run into my all time least favorite part of Wikipedia doctrine, the Orwellian absurdity that the threshold for inclusion at WP is "Verifiability, not Truth." I think that's bullshit. We MUST strive for Verifiability and Veracity — we should not play the game of repeating inaccuracies and falsehoods just because they have been published. But I'm not necessarily sure how to proceed here, since this IS an encyclopedic topic and the big majority of names on this list ARE no doubt accurate. It's a bit of a puzzle, actually. I tend to think this is a Keep situation, in some serious need of editorial discussion and whittling down of the list.
- Another potential issue — the naming of this list implies culpability in Soviet espionage action. But being an American MENTIONED IN the Venona-decripted communication is no proof. For instance, I am positive that Franklin D. Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt are MENTIONED IN Venona communications. Yet they are not included here. Why is that? Again, is this an editing problem? Yeah, probably. This is actually a very, very tricky little piece. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - But place editorial scrutiny on the list, either removing names in which there is any inkling of doubt or placing them in a second "tentative identifications" section. I think there are very real possible content concerns here, perhaps but not necessarily touching upon BLP (most everyone on the list is now dead), but I think the list itself is clearly encyclopedia-worthy. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This would require so much work, I do not think anybody would do it. Plus, Haynes has changed his opinion on some of the names based on new data released from Soviet files.
- http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page102.html#appendix1 Washingtonian1976 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC) — Washingtonian1976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This would require so much work, I do not think anybody would do it. Plus, Haynes has changed his opinion on some of the names based on new data released from Soviet files.
- I've done a considerable number of pseudonym IDs of early Communists based on archival documents (1920-23 period) and it's an inexact science. There is a TON of circumstantial evidence that comes into play and mistaken IDs absolutely DO happen... I think the list here is pretty clean, but I also feel it is very likely imperfect. It really is a tough call as to whether the possibility of small error offsets the utility of a largely correct list. If the title was something like List of Americans in the Venona Decrypts According to Haynes and Klehr, I'd feel a lot better about the list... But that also wouldn't be the encyclopedic subject. An orthodox Walesian view would be "we don't care if it's right or wrong, as long as Yale University Press has published the list" — but that logic galls me. It DOES matter to impugn someone wrongly, living or dead. If it's right, it should be in; if it's not right, it should not be in. But who's to decide what's a correct ID and what's erroneous? It's not a simple matter. Carrite (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to send an email to John Haynes and get his take on this. Carrite (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Haynes offered no guidance on this list other than to say he believed the covername identifications in Venona to be "highly accurate." I still think the way to proceed is to find some sort of official NSA list and then to append H&K's additional identifications to that, appropriately footnoted. This is an editorial matter, not a notability matter. Carrite (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Carrite: Are you reading other people's responses? There is NO official NSA list out there. Ask Haynes if there is anything close...Maybe an FBI introduction to the papers lists certainties. But why use that instead of just referring people to the source in the main Venona wiki page? Many of the names the government wrote on the Venona messages as decodes of coded names were best guesses and some were later shown to be wrong. So...the gov't likely doesn't stand by its own lists on this very strongly even. Unless the list is very short...which means a recasting of this page entirely. Again, people can point folks to the several books and updated websites about this topic in the main Venona page. This page includes too much not related to the book, thus original research and partial listings. And it's not being kept up to date, which for a project that hints heavily that people were spies is rather lame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.3.63 (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As to so-called "Original Research" (another of my pet peeves, since everything on WP that isn't a copyvio is technically original research)... Appendix A of Haynes & Klehr's Venona is entitled "Source Venona: Americans and U.S. Residents Who Had Covert Relationships with Soviet Intelligence Agencies" and indicates that it is "an annotated list of 349 names" who "had a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence that is confirmed in the Venona traffic." (Appendix A is pp. 339-370.) A case might be made that this draws upon a single source, whether that's a terminal party foul I can't say, but this wasn't a list pulled from the sky. Carrite (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) The problem here is the identifications are not verified by any other source in the article. Those that are beyond question or identified in other sources are already discussed in Venona project, and if not, they easily could be. This article entirely represents the views of Haynes & Klehr. The article is at the very least misnamed, these names do not appear in the Venona decrypts, only agent codenames do. If it stays at all, it should be in an article about the work of Haynes & Klehr, not masquerading as encyclopedic fact. SpinningSpark 16:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with spinningspark. Plus, as I note below Haynes has changed his opinion on some names it seems. More importanly, regarding original research, there's signs that people have added their own thoughts on names. For instance, Hoynes, as far as I can tell, never thought Hopkins was on the list. Does somebody want to go thhrough all the list to check all of them for errors? If people are interested they can do research, not hope to find accuracy here. It's too much detail and requires too much work. It will almost certainly be wrong to try to catalog it all here. Washingtonian1976 (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC) — Washingtonian1976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- (ec) The problem here is the identifications are not verified by any other source in the article. Those that are beyond question or identified in other sources are already discussed in Venona project, and if not, they easily could be. This article entirely represents the views of Haynes & Klehr. The article is at the very least misnamed, these names do not appear in the Venona decrypts, only agent codenames do. If it stays at all, it should be in an article about the work of Haynes & Klehr, not masquerading as encyclopedic fact. SpinningSpark 16:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would require much work to clean up the list by consulting other sources. I do not think anybody would do it. Plus, Haynes has changed his opinion on some of the names based on new data released from Soviet files. See link below. Finally, the list was started, I suspect, by people who felt they were certain of who was who in these codes. Or they relied on others like Haynes who also has more faith in his "intelligence" work than I think is warranted to sully people's names like this. Again...who would clean it up and how on earth would they do so. This list is not wiki material. http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page102.html#appendix1 - Washingtonian1976 (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC) — Washingtonian1976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - I've figured out a way to do this. If there is an official NSA list, THAT should be the main list. Then, if there are names here beyond that, those can be added as a supplemental listing, with each one clearly footnoted to a page number in H&K Venona — or, if that has been updated, with the current "best guess ID." The main list needs to be from an official government source, even if it's short. By the way, FDR was "KAPITAN," I see on the NSA's site... Which makes him an "American mentioned in the Venova papers." Carrite (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So you think that the content should be different and the article title should be different? That sounds to me like you are proposing a completely new article and should be in favour of a delete for this one. SpinningSpark 14:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That would be a good idea if there was a list that many scholars and analysts (gov't or not) agreed on. However, there is not. Opinions about the guesswork of who is this or that codename keeps changing on many important names. Even the same scholars, analysts, or hobbyists change their opinions. Thus, the list is not an accurate depiction. There can be, at best, a "list of controversial allegations" of who are mentioned in the papers and a list of those that are mentioned by name, but that seems somewhat silly. And it makes it too easy for people to debate who is who on the list and begin adding other names that are original research, etc., etc. Or the list should be limited to what is in one book and then a section for criticisms or updates of the book could exist. Your point about FDR is a good one, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.3.63 (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. :Verifiability, not truth. These people have been identified in a published source. How reliable it is, IDK. Don't like the claims, refute with better sources. Don't try to delete. It won't work. (If bogus & indefensible claims were deleted, this would've been gone long ago.) I don't always like the lack of veracity, either, Carrite (I agree entirely there), but WP is what it is, & changing the policy is another debate. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Can somebody define verifiability? Given the title of the page, the accuracy cannot be verified as there is little agreement. Plus, as others mention, the list is missing some of the most well known names mentioned in the communications. Clearly, people are just putting here the people they think are agents, not those mentioned. Which brings up the fact that people do a lot of surmising with these lists. Also, why is it just a list of Americans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.3.63 (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and per SpinningSpark. The actual topic of the article appears to be List of Americans who John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr state they have identified from the Venona papers, which is a rather dubious thing to have an article on. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Many topics have some uncertainty associated with them but this is no bar to our coverage of them - see Jack the Ripper suspects, for example. Perfect is the enemy of good. Warden (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Highly significant topic, well sourced list. Not OR or SYN, just fair and straightforward assemblage of information. Exactly what an encyclopedia ought to be doing. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- People are failing to address others' concerns. For instance, it is OR if people are adding names in or keeping some out instead of giving the list. Plus, what aobut renaming it? Simply keeping doesnot respect the points being made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.161.136.174 (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep These are historic facts, regardless of current personal opinion about them. And being on the list does not necessarily imply anything else other than that they are on the list. Hmains (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Nick-D. This is based on a list and all references are to works by the author(s) of the list. There is no evidence of independent coverage here. Note also that John Earl Haynes suffers from a similar lack of independent references. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:25, 2 June 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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 00:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicolas Hamilton (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)
Per WP:NOTINHERITED. His own racing career is not notable. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 20:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is an unsourced BLP about a non-notable race car driver. Notability is not inherited. Jakejr (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I didn't find any sources that would indicate notability at this time. At best; this is someone who may be justified for an article in the future. Stormbay (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is the same basic article under prod action at Nicholas Hamilton. Include it here perhaps? Stormbay (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've dealt with that issue by redirecting Nicholas to Nicolas. If this Afd results in deletion then any redirects will be deleted too. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the readily-available sources, including those that I've just added to the article, concentrate more on Hamilton's position as a competitor with cerebral palsy breaking into a mainstream sport than his family background, so I don't think WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've added one source which concentrates solely on the subject. I'm pretty sure the GNG stipulates there should be many such sources for the subject to be considered notable? Keep looking, let us know what you turn up. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 23:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of the sources that I added are about the subject - please read beyond the headlines and the first few words to confirm this. Many more such sources can be found by clicking on the word "news" in the search links spoon-fed by the nomination process. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You know what, Phil? You've convinced me. I'm withdrawing the nomination. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 00:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of the sources that I added are about the subject - please read beyond the headlines and the first few words to confirm this. Many more such sources can be found by clicking on the word "news" in the search links spoon-fed by the nomination process. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've added one source which concentrates solely on the subject. I'm pretty sure the GNG stipulates there should be many such sources for the subject to be considered notable? Keep looking, let us know what you turn up. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 23:58, 27 May 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. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kc Toros (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)
Unreferenced non-notable soccer team from Kansas City, playing on some sort of regional league (also unreferenced). Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 20:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Best I can determine from a Facebook page found via Google, this is a little kids' soccer team. Found nothing in any reliable source. This comes close to qualifying for speedy delete under WP:CSD A7. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - WP:CSD#A7 applies in my opinion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:07, 27 May 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) 15:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of video game remakes (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 list with 90% wrong. Games don't "remake", and similar at the categorie:video game remakes who contains full error LatinoSeuropa (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 26. Snotbot t • c » 20:07, 26 May 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) 01:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - Factual inaccuracy, as the nominator claims this article has, is not grounds for deletion. Just fix it! :) Salvidrim! 01:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - AFD is not cleanup. Either fix the list or the inclusion criteria. Sergecross73 msg me 02:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Close/Keep - WP:SOFIXIT applies here. We don't send articles that need cleanup to AfD. Recommending speedy close based on no real deletion rationale. --Teancum (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic itself is notable and AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep As argued by others above, the topic is sufficiently notable (but the lead should be expanded to describe this more), and if there's wording issues, that can be fixed. But there's nothing here not to delete. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 27 May 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 Monsuno#Characters. (non-admin closure) →TSU tp* 02:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeredy Suno (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 character from Anime series. Also, no sources provided. Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 19:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Monsuno. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Monsuno, possible redirect for those who follow or are ever intrested in the show. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Monsuno#Characters. A fictional character whose real-world notability is not established. This character is no Naruto Uzumaki, although may be a possible search term. Whatever content there is should be in the characters section of the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:06, 27 May 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. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 09:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
- Index of fashion articles (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)
Unmaintained list swamped with redlinks. This is not linked from anywhere of note, nor is it acknowledged in the list of indexes. I fail to see what purpose it serves — obviously none, if no one can be bothered to take care of it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, improve and maintain. It's an old list-of-topics article, created by merging lists of topics from numerous glossaries, indices and other sources, intended to encourage article creation. Its subject is highly notable, but very poorly covered here. This reasons given by the nominator should be reasons to improve this article, not to delete it.
The global fashion/apparel/textile industry is a trillion-dollar industry that directly affects almost everyone on earth, and fashion, of all sorts, is a major driver of that industry. The fact that so many links are still red is an indication of the woeful state of fashion coverage in Wikipedia, a topic which I suspect does not get the attention it deserves because of the current demographic balance of Wikipedia's contributors. Compare and contrast the List of sexology topics, created in the same way, and for the same reason, and which was also once a sea of redlinks, which seems to have engaged the interest of Wikipedia's current editor demographic rather more effectively.
If it's not acknowledged in the list of indexes, it should be put there. If it's full of redlinks, the articles should be created. At the very least, the content of useful article topics which need attention should not be lost.
At the time it was created, neither Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion or Wikipedia:WikiProject Indexes existed -- perhaps these projects could take this list under their wing? -- The Anome (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- :Keep' per
Gene93kAnome. I did tackle some of this a while ago, creating redirects for some links and tidying other redlinks but there is so much here that it overwhelms one... Mabalu (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- please explain how it can be keep per Gene93k who merely deletion sorted this? LibStar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am a sumph. Was trying to read the code to see who voted Keep before, and read Gene93k instead of Anome. Egg on face. Note to self: Tiredness and Wikipedia do not mix. Mabalu (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This may also be of interest to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Requested articles. -- The Anome (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Unmaintained lists are fixed by maintaining them, not by deleting them. Well established type of article on Wikipedia, of an essentially navigational nature. Half the effort spent in trying to delete material that needs fixing would do a substantial amount of the fixing--nominating for deletion instead wastes everybody's efforts. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:27, 2 June 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 Football tennis. Consensus is to redirect to Football tennis (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Futnet (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)
Nominating in lieu of PROD. User:Mattythewhite nominated for PROD. I removed the PROD notice because I think this has the possibility of being notable and should be discussed by the community. I am neutral on this nomination. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 18:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched for notability for this related AfD and found none. Dricherby (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Do you mean that you searched for notability of Paul Whelan (football) or of futnet? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity. I searched for both Paul Whelan and Futnet and could not find notability for either. Dricherby (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean that you searched for notability of Paul Whelan (football) or of futnet? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRedirect per Dricherby – Appears to be a neologism not covered by independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. – Kosm1fent 08:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect – Futnet is the new name for Football tennis per this.[20] Edinburgh Wanderer 11:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Edinburgh Wanderer (replacing my earlier !vote). We then have the related question of whether football tennis is notable. I found one source on the BBC and added it to Football tennis but boy, oh boy, is it hard to find sources for that sport as every sports page of every newspaper in the universe covers "Football, Tennis, Cricket, ..." and pollutes every Google search I can think of. Dricherby (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am wondering if the redirect should go the other way: football tennis → futnet; i.e., move football tennis. The reference found by Edinburgh Wanderer above states that futnet is the new name for football tennis. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 16:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That does make sense but, as yet, the new name has zero notability, whereas the old name does have a little. Until the new name catches on, I'd say it's just a neologism. Dricherby (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect for now, and then we can have a WP:RM if anybody wants. GiantSnowman 10:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Football tennis. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Football tennis as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:28, 2 June 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 - fails WP:FOOTY at this time (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Todd Kane (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. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, as he has never played a senior game for anyone. Also fails WP:GNG, as far as I can tell - the most prominent thing he's done is travel to the Champions League final with the Chelsea squad, but he wasn't selected nor even put on the bench. Clicriffhard (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with the usual caveats that it's too soon as he has yet played a senior game in a fully professional league. Does not otherwise meet WP:GNG. -- KTC (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He was announced in the Champions League squad of the Champions League Winner as a list B player. He is one of just two players of the reserve team who traveled to the Champions League Final and celebrated the title with the first team players at the parade. So he can be regarded as Champions League Winner. This is more notable than having an appearance in the fourth English division. --79.216.53.118 (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Editor has only one contribution, and that is posting the above comment. May or may not be sockpuppet of the author. 76.251.28.21 (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC), modified 20:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC), restored 20:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC) after removal[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. There is no indication of significant coverage in reliable sources and he has not played in a fully pro league. Therefore, this article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - never played a professional game, doesn't meet the general notability criteria. Kafuffle (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per above. --Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 01:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - he would have been notable if played in any match but as not yet played, he can be even dropped. Not notable now but can be in future. For now, delete. →TSU tp* 16:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. →Bmusician 05:10, 2 June 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 Monsuno#Characters. (non-admin closure) →TSU tp* 02:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Evo (monster) (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 and lack of context. This article talks about a creature that doesn't exist and is part of the anime Monsuno. Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 17:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The charcter can be added to the disamb page Evo, it is not notable enough for an article and not a good redirect with a disamb page already present. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Monsuno#Characters, which already says all that needs be said about this character. It is a valid search term though. LadyofShalott 01:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Monsuno#Characters. A fictional character whose real-world notability is not established. This character is no Naruto Uzumaki, although may be a possible search term. Whatever content there is should be in the characters section of the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Result as recommended by an administrator, and per the consensus stated above, i'll redirect the article to Monsuno#Characters.
- No - as there has been a delete vote by someone other than the nominator, you can not simply withdraw the nomination. This needs to run until it is closed by an independent reviewer who will then implement whatever decision has been made. LadyofShalott 11:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Monsuno#Characters per LadyofShalott and Narutolovehinata5. A redirect could be useful for the disambiguation page as well as being a valid search term. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:35, 27 May 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 the article named Uranium mining in Namibia, where the originally nominated article was moved, and delete this implausible redirect, early closure since the nom has been withdrawn and the initial article has essentially been deleted and replaced by another article, good work. - filelakeshoe 15:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF URANIUM MINING IN NAMIBIA (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 essay, not an encyclopedia article. Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of the massive changes to the article since this AfD began, I think this nomination can be withdrawn. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 17:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the comments above, after the significant rewrite. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 14:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have put it up for speedy deletion. There is a section about uranium in the Mining in Namibia but before we have an article on Environmental impact of uranium mining in Namibia lets get started on Environmental impact of uranium mining and Uranium mining in Namibia. Testing the waters, quality not quantity, cart before horse and all that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - An essay, not an article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because it's an essay, also because many sentences in the article are copied from the sources which may be a copyright problem. Peter E. James (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Keep as the article has now been improved. The redirect can be deleted. Peter E. James (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]Delete as an essay and per Alan Liefting.Beagel (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it was significantly improved. Beagel (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I renamed it Uranium mining in Namibia and gave it a lead paragraph with appropriate inline refs. There's plenty of info on "Uranium mining in Namibia" and I'll expand the article in the next couple of days; it's just too late here to work on it anymore. The Rossing section needs to be reworded and sourced. Agree that the "essay" paragraphs should be deleted as I have the same concerns about possible copyvios. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I removed the copyvio sentences / paragraphs from one source, and since then Dr Blofeld has built upon Rosiestep's work to create a decent article on the topic. The original deletion concerns are no longer valid. BencherliteTalk 11:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah this capital title can simply be nuked now and the AFD closed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per The Heymann Standard (and delete the redirect). Nice work. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:23, 30 May 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. Although this article needs clarity, referencing, and proper scope, consensus is to keep and improve (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fictional portrayals of psychopaths (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)
Yet another example of a "_____ in popular culture" or "fictional portrayals of _____" article that cites no sources and instead relies entirely upon each individual editor's own judgement as to both the definition of the central concept and which fictional portrayals meet said definition. An earlier version was split into two articles, which were then deleted after a deletion discussion back in 2007, but was almost immediately recreated. That recreation was tagged as unreferenced and in need of improvement, but no improvement has been made in the 4 years that have passed. If one were to simply go through and delete every unreferenced and speculative example, there would be no article left. As with many other similar articles that have come to AfD, this article could, potentially, be improved, but I do not believe it will be. By its nature, this article, and others like it, is a magnet for opinions, speculation, and in-universe assertions (e.g., on The Sopranos, Dr. Melfi diagnosed Tony Soprano as a sociopath, therefore he should be included on the list) that has no encyclopedic value. Four years is enough time for this to have been dealt with, instead, it has metastasised. RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It would be quite easy to improve the article by reference to sources. Consider the example given in the nomination of Tony Soprano. This is discussed in detail in sources such as Psychiatric News, Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association and Scientific American. The nominator seems to have made no effort to improve the article and so is unconvincing in suggesting that this is not possible. Warden (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You should read more closely, Colonel. I quite clearly said the article "could... be improved," but that "I do not believe it will be." I have arrived at this conclusion through experience. I have seen articles brought to AfD, and the responses of various editors, like yourself, who say that improvements can be made, but they rarely are. This article has been to AfD before, and no effort has been made, in more than 4 years, to improve it. This is nearly identical to the situation with the Gnosticism in popular culture article, which you also defended. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 18:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is quite easy to find poor articles in need of improvement on Wikipedia as less than 1% of our articles have reached GA status. What you fail to do in this case is give a particular reason why this topic should be singled out for the trash can when entire books have been written about the topic. Your user page indicates that you yourself are working upon W. S. Burroughs in popular culture and it does not seem that there is any structural or fundamental reason why one topic is more or less promising or feasible than the other. It is quite clear policy that Wikipedia is a work-in-progress; that imperfect articles are tolerated and that we have no deadline. You assert that there is no encyclopedic value in this work without giving any evidence. This seems incorrect when, for example, we find the Encyclopedia of Social Problems explaining that "Hollywood fueled popular perceptions of psychopathy with film representations of deranged serial killers such as Dr. Hannibal Lecter, played by Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs and ...". My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, you indicate that you have not read my statement carefully. I did not say "that there is no encyclopedic value in this work." What I said was that "opinions, speculation, and in-universe assertions" have no encyclopedic value, and I stand by that statement. The example I gave of Dr. Melfi concluding that Tony Soprano was a sociopath is not encyclopedic, because the assertion of a fictional character has no real-world value. Likewise, your quote "Hollywood fueled popular perceptions of psychopathy..." is of no particular value, because one cannot come to an understanding of sociopathy or psychopathy by watching a film or a tv show. Nor, for that matter, can one come to such an understanding by reading an article like this one on Wikipedia. The assertions in this article have no encyclopedic value because they are simply the opinions of editors, who have watched a bunch of movies and arrived at the erroneous conclusion that they understand psychopathy. The article is made up, in its entirety, of original research and opinion. If you remove everything that is unsourced, there would be nothing left. Now, if someone wanted to start over, with real sources, that would be another matter altogether. "_____ in popular culture" or "fictional portrayals of _____" articles are not inherently worthless, and there are even some that are quite good. The one we are discussing, like the previous Gnosticism in popular culture, is not good, and I feel it is not salvageable, hence this nomination. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 22:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your contempt for fiction is not shared by the real world in which professional psychologists and others find the matter of interest and worth writing about. The topic is therefore notable and it is your contrary opinion which is purely personal and so should be discounted. Warden (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have nothing more to say to you, other than to remind you to comment on the matter at hand, and not on other editors. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 02:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, you indicate that you have not read my statement carefully. I did not say "that there is no encyclopedic value in this work." What I said was that "opinions, speculation, and in-universe assertions" have no encyclopedic value, and I stand by that statement. The example I gave of Dr. Melfi concluding that Tony Soprano was a sociopath is not encyclopedic, because the assertion of a fictional character has no real-world value. Likewise, your quote "Hollywood fueled popular perceptions of psychopathy..." is of no particular value, because one cannot come to an understanding of sociopathy or psychopathy by watching a film or a tv show. Nor, for that matter, can one come to such an understanding by reading an article like this one on Wikipedia. The assertions in this article have no encyclopedic value because they are simply the opinions of editors, who have watched a bunch of movies and arrived at the erroneous conclusion that they understand psychopathy. The article is made up, in its entirety, of original research and opinion. If you remove everything that is unsourced, there would be nothing left. Now, if someone wanted to start over, with real sources, that would be another matter altogether. "_____ in popular culture" or "fictional portrayals of _____" articles are not inherently worthless, and there are even some that are quite good. The one we are discussing, like the previous Gnosticism in popular culture, is not good, and I feel it is not salvageable, hence this nomination. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 22:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You should read more closely, Colonel. I quite clearly said the article "could... be improved," but that "I do not believe it will be." I have arrived at this conclusion through experience. I have seen articles brought to AfD, and the responses of various editors, like yourself, who say that improvements can be made, but they rarely are. This article has been to AfD before, and no effort has been made, in more than 4 years, to improve it. This is nearly identical to the situation with the Gnosticism in popular culture article, which you also defended. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 18:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As already mentioned, there are academic papers about the portrayal of psychopaths. This has potential for improvement. Although it needs references and a more rigorous treatment, it's not obviously garbage and therefore there's no pressing need to delete it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep needs improvement, where possible improvement exists, is not reason for deletion. contains notable content that just needs improvement. --Buridan (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but needs major improvement. As it stands now, the article is a mess. It has an OR and an unreferenced tag at the top. However, just because the article needs cleanup doesn't mean it should be deleted. Instead of deletion, why not improve the article? With the academic journals, several of them, mentioned above, the article can not only be improved, with a little dedication, it can even potentially become a GA. But of course, the article first needs a massive overhaul. Still, with the reliable sources above, I don't see why this article should be deleted. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As the nom says, another one of our many articles about the portrays of different sorts of characters in fiction. These articles are one of our highlights. None of the reasons for deletion makes any sense,and we've been here many times previously. Of course it takes judgment what to include. It takes judgement to know what to include on essentially every Wikipedia article. All selection of content, all selection of references, all selection of illustrations takes human judgment. If we limit ourselves to the few articles that could be compiled by bots, we'd just be an index to the internet. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree with everyone that this should be kept, but some effort needs to be made to source it. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or repurpose A 41kb page, chock full of original research and trivia, and not a single source? How could this be let to fester so long? The "portrayals in film" section has potential and could be expanded into its own article, with sourcing. The rest of the article is a triviafarm. The trivafarm doesn't belong on any article and should be removed. Perhaps the film section could be reworked as Psychopathy in film. ThemFromSpace 03:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate until it has references. There is serious doubt that as to whether some of these are fictional or fictionalisations (i.e. [Fargo (film)]]). This puts in serious BLP danger of calling living people psychopaths. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:32, 2 June 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: nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- PVC decking (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 relies on a single source, which seems to be primary, and also the general context of the article might not be notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 16:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The source in the article is not a primary source, it's from Remodeling Magazine, a publication of Hanley Wood, which is a media company covering construction-related topics. The name "wood" and the triangular graphic in the company's logo (similar to a tree) may have misled the nominator to deduce this as a primary source, when in fact, it's a secondary source. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand - The topic passes WP:GNG, and has received significant coverage in reliable third-party sources:
- Zuckerman, David (May 28, 2009). "PVC Decking Still Popular". Remodeling Magazine. Retrieved May 26, 2012.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help)|publisher=
- Verespej, Mike (March 21, 2012). "Decking makers hopeful in '12". Plastics News. Retrieved May 26, 2012.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
|publisher=
(help) - "Get a Stake in PVC Fencing". Plastics Technology Magazine. July 2000. Retrieved May 26, 2012.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help)|publisher=
- I've added these sources to the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Zuckerman, David (May 28, 2009). "PVC Decking Still Popular". Remodeling Magazine. Retrieved May 26, 2012.
- Keep and expand Ok, realiable sources appeared so i support the article. Still, it needs to be expanded to properly cover the topic. Remember that, when recerencing, if the publisher doesn't have page on WP, it doesn't need to be linked to an external page. Regards. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 17:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for revisiting the discussion. Feel free to withdraw the nomination, if you'd like. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As improvements have been made to the article to meet the reliability guideline, among other, i withdraw the nomination. I'd like to thank user Northamerica1000 for all the contributions made on the article. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 19:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This nomination has been withdrawn (see comment directly above). Northamerica1000(talk) 19:10, 26 May 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: nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Vampire (novella) (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 relies mainly on the book itself and no reliable sources are given on the article. While the book seems to have somr sort of notability. It's not shown on the article. Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 16:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel the book is notable, then the article needs cleanup, not deletion. Dricherby (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, i said in could have some notability watching the author's page. But the article itself doesn't prove to be any notable. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 18:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is about whether or not the article's subject is notable, not whether or not the article demonstrates notability. If the subject is not notable, the article should normally be deleted; if the subject is notable, the article should be improved to demonstrate that. Please ensure you understand the AfD process before nominating large numbers of articles. Dricherby (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. The nomination does not state a proper basis for deletion, and the article does in fact have sources. The subject is a novel by a major 19th century Russian author, and a very quick GBooks search[21] establishes that multiple potential sources exist in English as well as in Russian, such as [22] and [23]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per sources that can be added to the article. I counsel the nominator to read and heed WP:BEFORE when making future nominations. LadyofShalott 00:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've added 2 reliable linked sources, expanded and copy-edited the article, and added a note on the available modern English translation of the work. INeverCry 20:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep wow, this article is of obvious benefit to Wikipedia. Evermore2 and INeverCry are doing some astounding work on Russian literature, and look what happens. Perplexed, Сол-раз (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've seen the great amount of work done on the article. It is pretty different from when i nominated it. I withdraw the nomination. I feel the nomination helped the article to wrap contributors to get the article guideline-ready. Regards. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 22:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that while the article has been improved, that is not the purpose of AfD. Especially for a new article, you should have just tagged it for the deficiencies. You don't take to AfD an article whose subject you believe to meet our notability requirements. LadyofShalott 22:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm afraid there's been some serious misunderstanding behind this nominataion. Re: The article relies mainly on the book itself and no reliable sources are given on the article. - On the contrary: the article relies mainly on the prominent Soviet scholar I.G.Iampolsky's commentaries, - the fact that they happened to be published in the Vol.3 of the Complete A.K.Tolstoy doesn't make them 'affiliated' in any way. The word Комментарии in the original Russian language footnote was supposed to be the key one. That was my fault, of course, not to make all this clear from the beginning. Sorry, and thank you, everybody, for help. -- Evermore2 (talk) 13:52, 28 May 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) →TSU tp* 02:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Duck lake fire (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 event. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now—given that this is receiving news coverage nationwide, let's give this some time to develop before we make any decisions on deletion or possible mergers to other articles. Imzadi 1979 → 05:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it's been covered by CNN here and here, the Detroit Free Press, and this one states that it is close to being the state's third largest wildfire. Chris857 (talk) 22:22, 30 May 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 by nominator. RunningOnBrains(talk) 20:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Gabriel–Popesco theorem (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 indication of notability. I prodded this but it was de-prodded without explanation. A reference has since been added but it's not available online , and I suspect it neither calls the theorem the "Gabriel–Popesco theorem" or indicates its notability. A search for "Gabriel–Popesco theorem" turns up a different theorem. Pierre Gabriel lists two theorems with similar names, both of which redirect here. Could be this is being confused with something else. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've not checked notability but the theorem in the MIT lecture notes appears to be the same as the one in the article. Both talk about a functor of an Abelian category, defined through homomorphisms that is full and faithful and has a left-adjoint that is exact. Dricherby (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The lecture notes cited in the nomination expressly reference "the classical Gabriel-Popesco theorem." GBooks and GScholar searches similarly turn up a convincing set of references to the term. Perhaps the article does not present the theorem correctly, or in its standard form, perhaps it does; but those are resolvable content issues, not grounds for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive me if you already know this. It's pretty common in mathematics to restate theorems in the way that's most useful to the person applying the theorem. In some cases, there's really only one way to state the theorem but, in many cases there's no "standard form" as such. For example, even something like "There are infinitely many prime numbers" might get restated as "For any x, there is a prime p > x." Dricherby (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment so what is it called ? Gabriel–Popesco theorem or Gabriel-Popesco theorem for Ab5-categories (the name when I prodded it) or Gabriel–Popescu embedding theorem (the other of two links to it at Pierre Gabriel)? And I agree a theorem can be stated in many forms it's usual for well known theorems to be stated in a particular form, typically the form used when it was first proved.
- But if these problems are resolved I still don't see that brief mentions of it establish notability. The paper it is from has been cited 40 times, less than once a year, so does not seem notable on academic grounds (not that there is a guideline for that: WP:PROF is for people).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure citation count means a lot. First, online coverage of older papers can be somewhat sketchy so there may be many more citations that just aren't in the database. Second, once a result becomes sufficiently famous, people don't bother citing the paper it came from, especially if it's in textbooks. For example, something like Hall's marriage theorem is used all the time but nobody bothers to cite Hall's paper any more because everyone knows what the marriage theorem is — but I've no idea whether the Gabriel-Popesco theorem is at that level. Category theory is a very specialist area of mathematics that even most mathematicians know little or nothing about; to be honest, I don't think anyone who's not an expert in the area can really say whether this theorem is notable or not (which is why I'm not !voting). Dricherby (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever variant of the title is used, it should say Gabriel–Popesco, with an en-dash rather than a hyphen, if it's a conjunction of names of two persons, and Gabriel-Popesco, with a hyphen rather than an en-dash, if it's the hyphenated name of one person. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is an important theorem and "Gabriel-Popescu" is a rather standard name for it (and its generalizations). See for instance the use in Wendy Lowen, Michel Van den Bergh, "Deformation Theory of Abelian Categories", Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, Vol. 358, No. 12 (Dec., 2006), pp. 5441-5483 and Leovigildo Alonso Tarrío, Ana Jeremías López, María José Souto Salorio, "Construction of t-Structures and Equivalences of Derived Categories", Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, Vol. 355, No. 6 (Jun., 2003), pp. 2523-2543. The MIT-lectures notes referenced in the nomination also refer to (a slight generalization of) the same theorem. Generally, any theorem that has a name is worthy of coverage as people would want to look it up. Deleting the article would in no way help our readers or improve the encyclopedia. AxelBoldt (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- withdraw OK, not sure of the protocol for this but given the changes made to the article since nomination I'd like to withdraw my AfD nomination. Mostly it's now clear that there's not two or three theorems named after these two, just one, which means it's clearly the one being referred to and the references for it are sound. I'm still not convinced it's notable enough for it's own article, but it's certainly encyclopaedic so even if not worthy of a standalone article can be merged which does not need a deletion discussion.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:30, 30 May 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. Consensus was to delete as obvious hoaxes, all of which have already been done by User:Drmies (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Guozbongleur (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)
Added:
- Gustave de Zarbouble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- John Bargel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- La Maison du Guozbongleur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Related articles that also seem to be hoaxes. Peter E. James (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems non-notable and possibly a hoax, as it is not mentioned in two of the three sources cited (I haven't been able to find the third). No non-Wikipedia mentions of this word online. Peter E. James (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ‣ Yes, appears to be a WP:HOAX along with connected articles. No hits in Google News, Books, or Scholar, nothing non-Wikipedia in a general Google search, and even fewer hits when the search language is limited to French. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 13:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. I couldn't find notability and it smells like a hoax, to me. From following links within the article, I'm also concerned about Gustave de Zarbouble (aka "Zarbublius" — seriously?), John Bargel (aka "Snargelius" — seriously?) and the alleged restaurant La Maison du Guozbongleur [which weren't originally in the AfD — DR]. My suspicion is that they're all hoaxes but it's possible that the restaurant was real and the rest were an invented story to explain the restaurant's name. My reasons for suspecting a hoax are as follows.
- Most important, none of them has any mention outside Wikipedia, its mirrors and spam pages that use text from WP to con search engines.
- None of these France-related articles appears in French Wikipedia.
- It seems terribly convenient and unlikely that the restaurant lost its Michelin star in January 1968 and closed two weeks later. Unless there was some disaster, surely the locals would continue to eat there, as well as visitors using older versions of the guide — a nearly-Michelin-starred restaurant is still a damned fine place to eat.
- All the names are absurd and sound like Pythonesque made up French names.
- Alleged involvement in the Affair of the Poisons (all the pages cite Anne Somerset's book on the subject) but no mention in that article.
- Pepys allegedly talks about Bargel but there's no mention of "bargel" or "snarg" in his diaries at Project Gutenberg or in the Google Books fragments of the cited book of Pepys's letters.
- A citation to Kepler's Somnium, which was written before Bargel's birth.
- Perhaps these other articles should be merged into this RfD? Dricherby (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly - I wasn't sure whether that could be done as they were created by different users (or more likely different sockpuppets), also I decided to wait for comments here before adding the other pages. There is another article, Robert de Baldoque, that probably needs to be checked, although it's possible that only a rename is needed there. Peter E. James (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the articles to the nomination. Peter E. James (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to check creation and they were indeed created at substantially different times, by different users. But I do find it suspicious that all of these users follow the same pattern: huge bursts of editing (tens of articles over a few days), interspersed with periods of weeks or months of total editing silence.
- Captain Abu Read: 45 edits as a new user 2011/11/03-09, then 20 more 2011/11/16-18 and total silence since.
- Nellie Seamonster: 12 edits as a new user 2009/10/20, then 8 edits 2009/11/29, then 10 edits 2009/12/29, then 10 edits 2010/02/25 and nothing since (though these are often several small edits to the same page).
- Silver Starfish: 137 edits as a new user 2010/10/24-29, total silence before 90 edits 2012/04/22-27, total silence since then.
- One of the Ruins: 35 edits as a new user 2012/03/12-13 and silence since then.
- Doesn't prove anything but looks odd to me. Dricherby (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see below for the likely banned user/wikistalker who has created these hoaxes and why he has done so. All four accounts have been listed in the latest Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that the article Speculum Sophicum Rhodostauroticum, which the hoax articles cite and which in turn makes reference to the,, was created by Groomtech who was part of The Wiki House, a shared account with Kenilworth Terrace and A.K.Nole, one of the previous accounts of the banned editor Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see below for the likely banned user/wikistalker who has created these hoaxes and why he has done so. All four accounts have been listed in the latest Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to check creation and they were indeed created at substantially different times, by different users. But I do find it suspicious that all of these users follow the same pattern: huge bursts of editing (tens of articles over a few days), interspersed with periods of weeks or months of total editing silence.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Guozbongleur is not in my French encyclopaedia or either of my French dictionaries. All articles look like hoaxes as per analyses above.—A bit iffy (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax articles by banned user These articles all seem to be hoax articles created by sockpuppets of the banned user Echigo mole. He has just commented here using an ipsock.[24] He has also written fork articles on Rue Cardinale abd Quartier Mazarin, which are content-free forks of Aix-en-Provence dealing with the part of Aix described in some of the hoax articles. (He is a wikistalker and, having found out my name, has discovered my address in the French Pages Blanches.) The names of thehoax articles all have links to former usernames of indefinitely blocked sockpuppets of Echigo mole (Zarboublian and The Wozbongulator (talk · contribs)). Echigo mole's favourite word is "hoax". For more details please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why this is a hoax The history of St-Jean-de-Malte can be read up to 1896 in a homily available on Gallica here, written on the occasion of the restoration of the church and installation of a new organ.[25] There it is recounted that Saint-Jean-de-Malte was run from 1667 until 1720 by Jean-Claude Viany, who was nominated as prior by the Grand Master of the order of St John of Malta. Funds for embellishing the church and building the adjacent prior's palace (completed in 1695, now the Musee Granet) were raised using surrounding properties of the order. This contradicts the schoolboy story of Echigo mole. If more detail is required, I have access to the 1987 history of Jean-Marie Roux. Mathsci (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- John Bargel/Bargelius/Snargelius is now deleted, and so is Gustave. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- LA MAISON DU GUOZBONGLEUR In the history of Aix-en-Provence the claim about the La Maison du Guozbongleur being in rue Cardinale seems to be an invention which contradicts recorded history. Here is the entry for that street in Roux-Alpheran's "Rues d'Aix, Tome 2". [26] No mention whatsoever. So hoax by Silver starfish. Mathsci (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- GUOZBONGLEUR The claimed abolition of this post in 1791 cited to page 210 of "The Handbook of Comparative Criminal Law", Stanford University Press,[27] (searchable version) is also an invention. There is no mention there at all. So hoax by One of the ruins. Mathsci (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All gone after further browsing. What a mess. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What's going on? Why/how have the articles been deleted without this AfD being closed? Dricherby (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've asked the admin who deleted the articles to do the formal closures of the AfD debates. The articles were speedy-deleted as blatant hoaxes, and there's no real doubt they should have gone, but this AfD process ought to be finished off.—A bit iffy (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that deleting the articles was the right thing to do. Dricherby (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've asked the admin who deleted the articles to do the formal closures of the AfD debates. The articles were speedy-deleted as blatant hoaxes, and there's no real doubt they should have gone, but this AfD process ought to be finished off.—A bit iffy (talk) 07:24, 2 June 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: Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and as a content fork of a related article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of bus routes in Alton, Bordon and Tadley area (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)
Primarily Not Notable (Particularly as a collective group) - Not currently sourced (and the only sources available are primary) - Google Keyword Tool reveals that this Term has never been searched for, not only that while it reveals a small number of Google users searched for buses from Alton, far more searched for the routes of individual bus companies in the area (Google also suggested Basingstoke buses as a suitable search alternative). Web Hits for the Article show very little activity only occasionally rising above normal Web Spider activity. Wikipedia is not a travel guide or directory.... Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:5P, it may not have to be notable. There are so many articles with only primary sources, that are deemed notable. Lacking secondary sources, isn't a reason for deletion, as some notable subjects can only be proved with primary sources. Adam Mugliston Talk 10:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like an other stuff exists reasoning. and per our verifiability policy "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic." - This information is expected to be provided and maintained by the Bus Companies and Local Authorities, not Wikipedia. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because Wikipedia is not a directory or travel guide. This article is completely unsourced, and I'm not sure what benefit it provides; anyone wanting to know how to get from one place to another in the Alton-Bordon-Tadley area would be better off consulting the bus company web site in order to find the routes and schedules of the buses, as opposed to this article which doesn't provide, and can't practically provide, such information. A similar article was deleted recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Huntingdon, St Ives and St Neots. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. This and the other articles should be in List of bus routes in Hampshire, the split into several small articles (other than possibly large towns and cities with their own networks of routes) seems unnecessary. Peter E. James (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Metropolitan90 and because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. There can be no certainty that a page is not out of date or vandalised when accessed. It should not be used as a guide.--Charles (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT; we're just not a travel guide and this isn't encyclopedia-type content. Imzadi 1979 → 23:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above and most of the other comments. List of bus routes don't belong here. People would want to go to an official website not Wikipedia. People will not want to look on Wikipedia for bus routes which official websites such as Traveline have.Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 07:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Merge It's fairly clear that this list on its own doesn't satisfy WP:LISTN but the wider topic of bus routes in Hampshire does. Therefore this content should be merged into that article. waggers (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Intresting, per WP:LISTN do you have evidence of reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject of bus routes in Hampshire as a collective group? From my own searches the majority reliable sources tend to discuss the route or routes of specific bus companies rather than discussing a wide geographical list of routes by multiple operators. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've put this page on Uk Transport Wikia. See here. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 15:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As Ipswich & Woodbridge, Harleston, Stowmarket & Needham Market and Huntingdon, St Ives and St Neots has shown us thease small bus routes pages are not notable. I can imagine having and article for the London bus routes but not some small towns. Most of the above articles where longer than this and still got deleted therefore this shows us they are just not notable. Got to a bus site not wikipedia from routes to a town. Anyway it's on Wikia so why have it here as well. 81.147.191.124 (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge This is covered by List of bus routes in Hampshire not sure why it is a separate article. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 17:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:34, 2 June 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) →Bmusician 05:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Metro Manila Popular Music Festival (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 sources. Doesn't seem relevant. It should be merged into the OPM article. Bleubeatle (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Provisional keep until I can fetch a reference. "Metropop" was big back in the day. Although for some reason, references are quite impossible to find. –HTD 16:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yeah, it's hard to find info for pre internet Philippine subjects but it's not impossible :) . --Lenticel (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was looking for even a passing mention but failed to get one hit. That was odd. –HTD 01:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, considering that this was the Philippine Idol during my childhood years.--Lenticel (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article has been sourced. Could use more TLC though.--Lenticel (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. 10 cites added since nomination, and plenty of others available. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are now enough reliable sources to establish notability. The list of winners seems too long for me though, and there doesn't seem to be much information about the History and Competition format. Those issues need to be addressed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sourced and improved now. It is in much better state. →TSU tp* 16:48, 1 June 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 G11 by admin Jimfbleak (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Management accountant day (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 research essay Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 09:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. KTC (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as WP:CSD#A7 (No indication of importance) and, frankly, bordering on G1 patent nonsense. Dricherby (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and no sign of notability. GregJackP Boomer! 11:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is an organization celebrating its anniversary. I don't see coverage by reliable sources. The text reads like copyvio, but I can't prove it. It's also
borderlineadvertising. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Speedy delete, db-corp, garbled and unsalvageable. Hairhorn (talk) 04:34, 27 May 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 Speedied. Peridon (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Aagolosophy (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)
Neologism, can't find any sources which use this word. Delete per WP:DIC Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 09:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Agree. If the term becomes more widely used, then maybe recreate but for now, Delete. User Talk:W.D. 09:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as WP:SD#G10 attack page aimed against AAGO Brand Consulting, who use the term "Aagolosophy" to describe their corporate ethos [28]. Dricherby (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I had a funny feeling it was some sort of thinly-veiled attack, but couldn't figure it out. Thanks for that. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 10:12, 26 May 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. This is difficult as it in part appears to be a "method" being pushed by an individual company more than anything else. Weak consensus after multiple relists appears at this for Keep (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Systematic inventive thinking (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)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable thinking method. Refs are sources for the method, not evidence that it is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As notability guidelines specify: "… there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability". In my case the topic is a well-known innovation methodology, derived from another (and better known) innovation methodology named TRIZ (which also has an article of its own, and mentioned SIT in it, long before this article has been created). This methodology has been developed by two Israeli academic figures, and is being taught in various academic institutions as a creative problem solving and NPD methodology. Furthermore, the content which I've cited is based on various journals (namely Harvard Business Review, Science magazine, Marketing Research, etc.). Also, google's search results (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) shows Google's Scholarly articles (all cited by other Scholarly articles), all of which I've used to cite in my article. Therefore, I fail to see why all the above doesn't account for an evidence for "significant attention from independent sources". Please clarify if (and which) other actions are ought to be taken in order to verify notability. Thanks! Danedt (talk • contribs) 12:39, 11 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No case to answer here. 1) the article is already cited with several reliable sources. 2) Systematic Inventive Thinking: a new tool for the analysis of complex problems in medical management, Heymann et al 2004 is an RS and it shows the technique has been around since 2000 and has been studied scientifically. 3) Systematic Inventive Thinking Method Based on Theory of Constraints, Jiang and Li, 2010 4)Several training companies offer SIT among other techniques, so they are not tied to SIT specifically, and it is widely taught as indeed the article claims. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:05, 18 May 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, Sandstein 09:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep ‣ More than a hundred Google Scholar hits, dozens of Google Books hits, and dozens of Google News hits. This topic easily satisfies notability standards, though the article should probably note that there is an Israeli company with the same name involved in researching and promoting the method, especially if this is the company of the method's developers. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 13:32, 26 May 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. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Joyland (novel) (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 appear to (yet) meet the notability guideline for books. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (contested prod) – hysteria18 (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Stephen King. This is one of those things that is highly likely to not only come out but will also be highly notable, but the fact is that there's just not enough information about this book at this time. The only information we have stems from the Neil Gaiman interview. No matter how many other articles we pull up and attach to the article, those articles are really only paraphrasing what Gaiman listed in his interview. Since it's likely to be a few years before it's released (I'm guestimating 2014) and all we really know about it is the title and very basic plot, it's just far too early to have an article for this book right now. It's likely to come out, but then it's also likely that King might also change the book partway through or drop the novel, which is something that many authors tend to do. Even if we look at the idea that everything King produces is notable (I'm of the mindset that it would be, as he's that influential), this book has yet to actually be finished and there's no depth of coverage for it. It's just far, far too soon and there's nothing in this article that couldn't be summed up in 1-2 sentences in King's article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP When King announces books they're finished and expected to be published in the next year. This was true of Under The Dome, 11/22/63 and The Wind Through The Keyhole. There is little doubt this will be published. This is hardly crystal ball as this will be published in 2013. If you delete this page you may as well delete Dr. Sleep as well since it's also an upcoming book with a publication date of 2013.TurtleMelody (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thanks for pointing that book out, but the difference is that we have just slightly enough to warrant keeping it. Most of the articles are pulled from what little King has released, but there are more sources and information than is in Joyland. Besides, saying "other stuff exists" isn't a good argument. Dr. Sleep's sources are pretty small, so there's still enough reason for someone to nominate it for deletion, as most of what we do have is pulled from one or two appearances and mentions by King. As far as "crystal ball" goes with Joyland, what that generally means is that we have no concrete proof that things will turn out as they've been stated. The Dark Tower series is a good example of crystal balling: after the fourth book there was talk about the next book in the series getting released rather soon, yet it didn't get published until about six years later. There was even talk about King not even finishing the series, yet of course he did. That's why we can't say that something is guaranteed to be released or that it's a "sure thing" because quite frankly, we don't know what's going on in King's mind. He might be finished and be completely happy with it or he could decide to toss half of it and re-write it, making the release date sometime in 2015. He could decide at the last moment that he's completely unhappy with all of it and re-write the entire thing. It could just fall between the cracks in favor of another book and become just another footnote in his bibliography. The point is, we can't say that something is sure to come out and that it's sure to become notable. Right now there's nothing for Joyland beyond information taken from the Gaiman interview and that's not likely to change for at least another year.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Stephen King per Tokyogirl79. Not against recreation when a substantial amount of information becomes available. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 09:06, 24 May 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, Sandstein 08:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect I think for now it would be better as a redirect, but when it comes out and is notable, maybe consider recreation User Talk:W.D. 08:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Tokyogirl. This is a working title for a novel in progress. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I withdraw this? A few new refs were published today, which I think help the article meet WP:NB and WP:CRYSTAL concerns. (I was until recently User:Hysteria18.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep any new novel by Stephen King is notable, even before publication. It is better when it has a definite title, but the CNN & NYT references establish that. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Since the original nomination there has been more information become available, some of which has been incorporated into the article. BillyJack193 (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As more information is becoming available now, with even the ISBN and a firm publication date, there's no more need for this. Articles with less information exist. Jmj713 (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Improved now. Also, refs are added and the article looks much much better now. Problem is addressed and thus keep. →TSU tp* 16:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Is it possible that Wikipedians are knee-jerk reactionaries? There weren't enough references so it's nominated for deletion. A few days later more articles spring up and it's suddenly notable. So this whole process was a waste of time. Congrats Wikipedia bureaucracy! TurtleMelody (talk) 20:05, 1 June 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 Canal Hotel bombing. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Chris Klein-Beekman (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 notability. Kraxler (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin This AfD nomination was malformed and was never transcluded in the daily deletion log. I have refactored it, and will now add it to the log, please consider the AfD as running from the time of this comment for purposes of deciding when to close it. Monty845 21:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 11 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Some sources:
- Ward, Olivia (December 21, 2003). "U.N. aid workers face daily peril; Agency struggles to improve security Hundreds killed, injured in line of duty". Toronto Star. Retrieved May 13, 2012.
{{cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - Associated Press (August 20, 2003). "Eleven victims, including three Americans, identified in Iraq bombing". Associated Press. Retrieved May 13, 2012. (subscription required)
- Ward, Olivia (December 21, 2003). "U.N. aid workers face daily peril; Agency struggles to improve security Hundreds killed, injured in line of duty". Toronto Star. Retrieved May 13, 2012.
- Comment - We know these sources, they are listed in the article. That's still no indication of notability. Just being mentioned twice in the news is certainly not enough. Kraxler (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources I presented were not in the article at the time of its nomination; I added them afterward. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum to nomination – See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site; I quote: "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." Kraxler (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Canal Hotel bombing - WP:BIO1E "...the degree of significance of the individual's role within [a newsworthy event] should be considered... When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate." ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 02:25, 26 May 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, Sandstein 08:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Canal Hotel Bombing I do not think that this page would have been made if such person hadn't of died. Also agree that lacks notability and somewhat violates the 'Wikipedia is not...a memorial site. User Talk:W.D. 09:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above. To put it somewhat bluntly, getting blown up does not make one notable. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 16:56, 27 May 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 that although the project they are involved in is notable, the individual does not meet notability guidelines, and notability is not inherited (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Haci ibrahim nehramli (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)
notability of azerbaijan businessman in question, reads like resume Karl 334 Talk--Contribs 21:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Awful article but the bloomberg source confers notability. One more decent source would seal a keep. Needs extensive reworking to remove puffery and provide a better translation. I wonder if there's a copyright issue since it does look like a poor translation. isfutile:P (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 11:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 11:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The subject is the president of Avesta Concern, which is responsible for the Khazar Islands project. There is no lack of news sources for the Khazar Islands project, like the Bloomberg article, and some of these mention the president of Avesta Concern by name. But the ones I saw only mention him in passing (as in "..., company President Haci Ibrahim Nehramli said in an interview ..."), which is not enough for helping to establish notability. The abundance of ways to refer to the person (Hacı İbrahim Nehrəmli; Haji Ibrahim Nehramli; İbrahimov İbrahim Hüseyn oğlu; Ibrahim Ibrahimov) does not help in searching, but in any case I didn't spot a single independent reliable source providing substantial depth of coverage. --Lambiam 11:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One of the thousands business people, does not look like some exception, particularly in terms of WP:ANYBIO. Brandmeistertalk 11:42, 13 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Replace: The subject of this article is relatively noteworthy. The main problem is how poorly it is written. Harpsichord246 (talk) 03:49, 24 May 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, Sandstein 08:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Poor prose aside, see WP:NOTINHERITED. The project is noteworthy, the individual is not. MSJapan (talk) 14:48, 26 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- TRAVERSE (software) (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)
I couldn't find any RS and the two included seems to be self-written. mabdul 19:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Try opening the Google News link at the header of the discussion to find some articles.
- Forbes Magazine: Avaya Bulks Up On Wireless Software
- ComputerWorld Australia: Avaya buys mobile software company in US$15M deal
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 03:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I starting to hate google! The only entry is [29] at Gnews which is really not usable. mabdul 09:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those links are for Traverse Networks and not the Traverse accountig software. They aren't relevant. -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I starting to hate google! The only entry is [29] at Gnews which is really not usable. mabdul 09:27, 14 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 17 May 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, Sandstein 08:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - [30], and [31] are about teh software, and [32], and [33] are about the company. It might make more sense to create an article about the compan, Open Systems, Inc. and then merge this product page and Open Systems Accounting Software to it. But in any event the material ought to be kept in some form. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 29 May 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. Fails music notability (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Vince Cirino (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)
Seems to have been put through AfC by a non-registered user. Article seems to be about a backing musician whose claims to notability are tenuous, cited to his own website, a fansite and a blog. Sionk (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Searching for coverage in reliable sources, all I could find was this item which is a passing mention. No significant coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 29 May 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. Fails basic notability - some refs are even those that one adds one's self to and thus fully unreliable (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael Noack (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)
PROD previously removed. Fails WP:GNG. Of the eight sources listed, 2 are "Who's Who"-style business directories, 3 are passing notes "CFO: Michael Noack" in business documents, 2 do not even mention the subject, and 1 is Wikipedia (!). Frickeg (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 07:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Other than plenty of mentions of the fact that he's the CFO of Australian Vintage, the only source I could find was this short profile at Businessweek and that's not enough for WP:GNG. Dricherby (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nothing notable done instead of being CEO of a company who doesn't have article on wikipedia. Other thing only generate importance, but no notability. →TSU tp* 16:54, 1 June 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. Non-notable blog/website. MMA *in* Japan may become a notable topic, but this individual blog is not (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- MMA-Japan (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 Japanese mixed martial arts blog. Fails to establish notability, no third-party references. Speedy deletion contested by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm unable to find any reliable sources covering the site, thus fails WP:GNG. Article also appears to fail WP:WEB. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I didn't find coverage of this blog in any reliable sources. The article gives no independent sources and I don't see anything that would show this is a notable website. To recap--this is an unsourced article written by the subject's creator that fails to show notability. Jakejr (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unable to find secondary sources discussing the blog, let alone in any detail. Mtking (edits) 06:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Temporary Keep/Weak Delete Originally I was going to say "weak delete" and that I'd be neutral if the article were at least better paragraphed and contained a few sources. Its Alexa traffic ranking doesn't terribly justify an article for instance, but that's not everything. However, the article appears to have been only created yesterday. A little soon for a deletion nomination don't you think? The article should be given a week or two to develop and justify its existence first. If it's still problematic after that, then probably delete it. Beansy (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteFor the above reasons. The author (of both the blog and article) has made no attempt to address the citation issue.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep First UFC event in Japan makes this notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.65.63 (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Barely passes A7. Not much notable thing done by the web and no ratings also. There are no refs to support the article and it is quit hard to find. →TSU tp* 16:56, 1 June 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 Clean, fix Fringe, rename. Consensus is to 1) cleanup, 2) deal with concerns about FRINGE, and 3) rename to NPOV title. I'll fix the third after closure (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- CIA drug trafficking (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 POV fork of CIA transnational anti-crime and anti-drug activities. The title itself (CIA drug trafficking) is highly POV since it implies that the CIA actually smuggled drugs itself, while the article itself discusses incidents where the CIA may have bungled certain operations, or trained people who later went on to smuggle drugs. The sourcing is atrocious - there are a number of conspiracy theory books being used here that allege things that are patently ridiculous (and that are described as being patently ridiculous by reliable sources such as the Washington Post). The article is using a source that claims that Bill Clinton teamed up with Oliver North and the Bush family to smuggle drugs into Arkansas! GabrielF (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please retract the phrase "WP:POV FORK" which has a specific and actionable meaning which is quite impossible, as the CIA drug trafficking article was created in March 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CIA_drug_trafficking&oldid=44614781 and the transnational article as a sort of Disambiguation or list page on Christmas Eve, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CIA_transnational_anti-crime_and_anti-drug_activities&oldid=179964796
- Anarchangel (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The best outcome would be a balanced merge, since one piece is largely pro-CIA fluff and the other is an anti-CIA screed. They are both huge pieces, however, so it may well be that leaving bad enough alone is the way to play it, with a renaming of this to Allegations of CIA drug trafficking. Some specific charges in this matter (although not necessarily the whole laundry list here) are not as ridiculous and "fringe" as the nominator makes them out to be, although there's no disputing that some dispassionate NPOV editing needs to be done to both pieces. Carrite (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A case can be made that official anti-drug operations and various other operations aiding-and-abetting (at a minimum) the drug trade over the years are separable historical topics, so I'm liking the idea of a merge less and less. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The CIA and transnational crime article covers much of what is in the CIA drug smuggling article: the Gary Ross allegations of links to the Contras and the Ramon Guillen Davila indictment. This material is also covered in CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US. The remaining sections, particularly Mena Arkansas, are really terrible. The books cited are not reliable sources: "The Fraud of the Fraud" is self-published (CreateSpace), "The New Oceania: An Untold Story of the Growing Misuse of U.s. Power Against Its People" is published by Trafford Publishing, which is also print on demand. The article also uses a book called "You Are Being Lied To: The Disinformation Guide to Media Distortion, Historical Whitewashes and Cultural Myths". Where reliable sources such as the Washington Post are used, what these sources actually say, that the Mena allegations are a fringe theory with no validity, is ignored. If you removed the material that is duplicative or poorly sourced there would be little of value left. I'm also not convinced that the CIA and transnational crime article is "pro-CIA fluff" since I just removed a sentence stating that the CIA's involvement in anti-drug activities is ironic due to allegations of the CIA dealing drugs. GabrielF (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A case can be made that official anti-drug operations and various other operations aiding-and-abetting (at a minimum) the drug trade over the years are separable historical topics, so I'm liking the idea of a merge less and less. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to Allegations of CIA drug trafficking, per Carrite, and clean up as necessary. Edison (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Modify it but dont change the name or merge it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_UbAmRGSYwÀ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG1Id2qpSOE&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT4XA18cj3I&feature=related there are proof that the cia trafficked coke , thats why GARY WEBB "KILLED HIMSELF" WITH TWO BULLETS TO THE HEAD.DONT DELETE THIS PAGE IN HIS HONOR JUST MODIFY IT CAREFULLY.Vjiced (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there may be reasonable grounds for believing that the CIA has allowed smuggling of drugs into the U.S. in order not to 'blow' covert information-gathering operations. I heard this off one of my political science professors years and years ago. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename per Edison above. Unless someone can come up with a court decision or something similarly authoritative proving that the CIA was running drugs, it's an allegation. Given the number of people who believe that everything on the web is true, we should be careful how we name things. Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Robert Bonner ex head of the DEA admitted it ,WHAT OTHER PROOF DO YOU WANT ? LOOK AT IRAN CONTRA and hey think one second there is more money made with drugs than the oil and automobile industries together each year , you are a fool if you believe that governments wont gets theirs hands dirty,Vjiced (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What other proof do we want? How about WP:RS to establish WP:N? And what policy-based reason does the rest of your comments establish for the retention of the article? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 2 June 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. There seems a rough consensus that the subject meets the notability criteria for events and the general notability guideline. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- UFC 145 (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 event fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability. The event last month has only received routine coverage that all sports events get in the day or two after then event and prior to the event again the sources are just routine coverage of who may (or may not) appear mainly in MMA specialist websources. The only prose in the article is limited to 3 lines about the event build up, nothing on the actual event. Mtking (edits) 04:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you elaborate on which part of WP:NOT this article fails? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mtking (edits) 04:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - I can't believe what I am reading! People are actually pushing for the deletion of most or all UFC articles when in fact they are often the only sources that contain a wide variety of information about events that cannot be found anywhere else online! Based on the fact that fights affect future fights, events (whose pages are claimed by many biased users to be subject to deletion based on policy) form an interconnected web that has a growing place and influence in sports and even economic implications, not to mention effects on the participants' popularity and lives and the worldwide presence of MMA's fan base, which is increasing in size and area faster than that of any major sport. I am strongly taken aback by this irresponsible, inconsiderate and unprofessional movement to delete these web pages! Carfreak555 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.220.171 (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Routine report of a routine sporting event. WP isn't The Sporting News. --Calton | Talk 04:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - we don't have articles about every fight and every sporting event that takes place. This fight doesn't seem to be particularly unusual or notable.Sionk (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This "fight" is actually an event, comprising twelve fights, one of which is for the UFC Light Heavyweight Title (roughly akin to a Stanley Cup or Superbowl Championship). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Im biased about the two users who agreed to delete this article , and this ruins a lot of work put into the contributions to wikipedia over 100 UFC Events. ~~TheShane39569 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheShane39569 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You may find WP:EFFORT helpful in explaining why that is not a reason to keep an article. Mtking (edits) 08:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per the arguments given in similar deletion attempts of similar articles by similar nominators for similar reasons. Oppose doing this for each notable PPV. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is not a single fight, it was an event with 12 different fights with ramifications in six different weight classes, including a Light-Heavyweight World Title fight that was the culmination of one of the biggest feuds in the sport. It received coverage months in advance, and it's also available for purchase as a standalone DVD (http://www.amazon.com/UFC-145-Jones-vs-Evans/dp/B007VYEBAS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1338025744&sr=8-1), which is generally pretty indicative of enduring notability beyond routine sporting events. Beansy (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This event does not fail WP:EVENT. Jon Jones retaining the title was a catalyst in setting up UFC 151: Jones vs Henderson. Other wins and losses affect other future matchmaking, passing WP:EFFECT. WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:INDEPTH are easily passed (though this currently isn't demonstrated as clearly as it could be). WP:PERSISTENCE is demonstrated in pre-fight analysis of fights stemming from UFC 145 fights, but can not be demonstrated until that analysis is written. WP:DIVERSE is unclear. The article has references from three unique reliable sources; how many would you prefer? WP:ROUTINE does not apply. These are not like hockey or baseball games, which occur 82 (or so) per season per team. There are about 20 UFC shows per year and they are scheduled dynamically, depending on rankings, fighter popularity, injuries and feuds (all of which result from previous events). I hope that's enough policy for you. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I voted delete because I only see one source which could be called independent, reliable and indepth - Yahoo Sports News. I don't see any guidelines which say sports events can by-pass notability requirements. If other WP:IRS exist they need to be added to the article. Sionk (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What is wrong with MMAJunkie.com or MMAMania.com? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- MMAjunkie is notable enough for its own article, but not to use sources from. Portillo (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What is wrong with MMAJunkie.com or MMAMania.com? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I voted delete because I only see one source which could be called independent, reliable and indepth - Yahoo Sports News. I don't see any guidelines which say sports events can by-pass notability requirements. If other WP:IRS exist they need to be added to the article. Sionk (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nomination has been advertised as being disruptive to ongoing RFC. Article is a breakout of notable topic list of UFC events that it is inappropriate to merge there due to balance (see WP:SS). Merge is possible. But most important, an ongoing local agreement of how to prevent disruptive AFDs needs to be forged first. JJB 16:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep if improved, otherwise delete (How's that for a screwed up !vote? :) The article in it's current state, with no other research is a delete. It contains only routine information about fight results and changes to the fight card. The article contains no well-sourced prose discussing the notable aspects of the event as requested by WP:SPORTSEVENT. The article currently cites only a single non-MMA related source which on the face is a borderline failing of WP:GNG. That said, it appears there are more non-MMA related sources that could be cited. Since the event included a championship event, this event could pass the SNG I've accepted at WP:MMANOT (though that discussion isn't really going anywhere at the moment) if it included more sources and more prose. I'm willing to help write that prose as I did for UFC 140 during it's AfD if the !votes suggest that it won't be an easy delete. Therefore, with those improvements, which I'm willing to help out with, keep. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds reasonable, TreyGeek. Though I wish WP:MMANOT would stop being referred to as if it carried actual authority. It is an essay, with mere advice InedibleHulk (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IT HAD A FLIPPIN TITLE FIHT!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.205.39 (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails enduring notability. Portillo (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edits) 04:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the UFC is a league and is the top league in MMA today. Additionally, championships for each weight class are not defended every 3 weeks, instead they defended closer to the 1 year time frame like you just stated. BearMan998 (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This only shows how Mtking has no idea on what is UFC or MMA.Evenfiel (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In this link, when talking about secondary sources notability,: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRIMARYNEWS#Secondary_sources_for_notability It states, "AFDs require showing that topics meet the general notability guideline's requirement that secondary sources exist. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find secondary sources for run-of-the-mill events and breaking news. Once a couple of years have passed, if no true secondary sources can be found, the article is usually deleted." It says right there, in plain English, that you must wait a couple of years before you can delete an article due to a lack of secondary sources. Just because the article is short right now and just because it lacks whatever sources you are looking for is NOT grounds for deleting it. It is grounds for IMPROVING it. Why would you keep going around putting things up for deletion instead of trying to IMPROVE them? Gamezero05 (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there is no indication that this will ever reach that standard. You are saying lets keep it on the off chance it becomes notable, like we do for all high school football players. Mtking (edits) 06:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't about high school football players. Irrelevant point. Gamezero05 07:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the general notability guideline's requirement is that secondary sources exist, then this article meets that requirement. Now. Not in two years. There is no need to find a secondary source that explicitly states "UFC 146 is notable enough for Wikipedia". That burden of proof would be unfairly heavy. The diversity of the indepth coverage from multiple reliable and independent sources speaks for itself in establishing notability. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there is no indication that this will ever reach that standard. You are saying lets keep it on the off chance it becomes notable, like we do for all high school football players. Mtking (edits) 06:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Event has received plenty of coverage by the media, fighters also have received plenty of coverage. If is was a single main fight it would be notable enough due to the coverage alone. However, being a full event I see no reason to delete since it doesn't fail notability. --Loukinho (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now. Article needs improvement but otherwise passes WP:GNG. Disagree that article fails WP:EVENT given the fact that there was (apparently) a championship bout featuring one of the (apparently) more notable fighters in the sport. None but shining hours (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Agree that work is to be done on the article, but AfD is not for clean up. And per above, it does pass WP:EVENT. It also clearly passes WP:GNG →TSU tp* 16:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the actual sources of some of the references provided, including the LA Times, NY Post and USA Today pretty much makes the notability of this event an open and shut thing. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Of course there is coverage in the sports section of mainstream press, but if you look at those sources they are just the routine coverage of a spots news event, for example every ALF, NFL, MLB, Soccer or MBA game would get just as as much coverage if not more, what is missing here is any claim to why the event is of enduring notability and not just one in a long line of routine sports events. Mtking (edits) 07:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly any sports events at all would pass your twisted idea of "enduring notability". By using your logic, no Super Bowl is notable since a Super Bowl happens every single year. It gets the routine coverage all Super Bowls get. The only Super Bowl in recent memory that could pass your definition of "enduring notability" is the Super Bowl in Houston a few years back when Janet Jackson had a "wardrobe malfunction" when her boob was shown on national television. Your definition of enduring notability is ridiculous. Gamezero05 07:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course there is coverage in the sports section of mainstream press, but if you look at those sources they are just the routine coverage of a spots news event, for example every ALF, NFL, MLB, Soccer or MBA game would get just as as much coverage if not more, what is missing here is any claim to why the event is of enduring notability and not just one in a long line of routine sports events. Mtking (edits) 07:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - While Mtking wishes to spout off about this event's lack of (enduring) notability, s/he conveniently ignores any source that may disprove his/her point. The Globe and Mail had at least three in-depth articles about individual fights leading up to the event ([34], [35], [36]), while the Telegraph had at least two articles about the rivaly in the main event ([37], [38]). Such articles cannot be considered simply routine. Does this prove enduring notability? Perhaps not. But it is very difficult to find sources that would indicate that, for instance, the 1991 Monte Carlo Open or even America's Next Top Model, Cycle 17 has any enduring notability. But, as per Wikipedia guidelines, notability is not temporary, and I quote: "once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage" (emphasis mine). The fact remains that this was one of the major events run by the world's leading mixed martial arts organisation, which included a championship fight. I can understand perhaps relegating UFC on Fox events (and their like) to secondary, not-individually-notable status, but Mtking has gone way too far in his/her fanatical dislike for anything related to the UFC. Physcher (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources are still just routine sports reports, the same sort of stuff that is published ahead of any sports game, take a look at Fox Sports and you will see they publish numinous articles in the run-up to AFL games each week, it's what you expect, nothing unusual happened at this event, there were some fights, some winners and some looses and on to the next one. If I am guilty of anything it is not wanting to see the project turned into a sports result service, it is not, it never has been and we have a policy to that effect. If you want fanatical then have a read of your colleagues at Sherdog Forums. Mtking (edits) 09:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm tempted to put this in bold italic underlined caps with four exclamation marks, but I'll just calmly repeat it. NHL/AFL/NBA/etc games are prescheduled before the season starts. The results of Game 12 have no effect on who plays who in Game 13. Or Game 82. If the Oilers lose 79 games, they still may face league leaders. In UFC, losing or winning is much more serious. Two or three wins can turn a "nobody" into a title contender while two or three losses can turn a contender unemployed. You say "UFC is not a league" when it suits you and make comparisons to "similar" league sports otherwise. The only valid argument for deletion was a lack of sourced descriptive text, which has been addressed (Good work, by the way!). Can we please not do this again for UFC 147? Typing on a PS3 is hard work! InedibleHulk (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources are still just routine sports reports, the same sort of stuff that is published ahead of any sports game, take a look at Fox Sports and you will see they publish numinous articles in the run-up to AFL games each week, it's what you expect, nothing unusual happened at this event, there were some fights, some winners and some looses and on to the next one. If I am guilty of anything it is not wanting to see the project turned into a sports result service, it is not, it never has been and we have a policy to that effect. If you want fanatical then have a read of your colleagues at Sherdog Forums. Mtking (edits) 09:02, 3 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Durga (1990 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)
Contested prod. Movie with no assertion of notability. The only reference is the URL of Youtube's home page. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete based on current content. For all I know this might be a notable film, but so little information has been provided, much less references, as to make it impossible to evaluate favorably. If this film is worthy of an article, the article needs a complete rewrite. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how "For all I know this might be notable" is a reason to delete. Dricherby (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's possible that a notable Indian film might have gotten left out of the Internet Movie Database, but as of yet I don't even know whether this film really exists. The cited reference to http/youtube.com is obviously useless. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's on YouTube in its entirety so it almost certainly exists. If you pause in the first second, you see the classification certificate dated 7th August, 1990, which gives the title as Durga. The summary of the video is essentially the same as the article text. Dricherby (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notability found. IMDB lists several films named Durga but none was released in 1990. OTOH, perhaps we're being WP:BIASed — I wouldn't expect there to be many English-language sources on the web about a 20-year-old Tamil movie. Dricherby (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete as lack of sources are not enough reasons to delete an article. the movie is a Tamil movie from 1990 so the sources to prove notability would be generally found in the tamil language media and tamil websites.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:10, 28 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- At First Glance (novel) (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 self-published debut book, author doesn't have an article. Sarahj2107 (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Reads like an advert and definitely not notable. Keresaspa (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No notability exists for this ultimately self-published novel. (I know being self-published doesn't automatically mean non-notability, but it's the case 99% of the time.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The author of the book has no article on wikipedia. It looks like a self-publication and fails WP:GNG. No review or ratings are received by the book and no awards also. Thus, fails number of criterias of Wikipedia:BKCRIT. →TSU tp* 17:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just because the author has no article, it doesn't mean this one needs to be deleted. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:42, 2 June 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.