< 30 October | 1 November > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲水 09:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
King Janno
- King Janno (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 rapper who has put out one single. Article lists three albums he will release by 2015. No reliable, independent references to be found. Case of WP:TOOSOON. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No significant coverage found for this artist. With a debut album scheduled for 2013 according to the article, maybe such coverage will come in the future, but for now it seems too soon for an article (WP:GNG/WP:MUSICBIO). Gongshow Talk 07:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. No albums released. -- Whpq (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Could find no significant coverage in any reliable source so completely fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Albums listed under Discography won't be released until 2013 to 2015 if they are recorded so WP:NOTCRYSTAL also applies. With no credible claim of importance or significance, this article meets criteria A7 for speedy deletion. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 03:28, 7 November 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. SpinningSpark 19:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chloe Lang
- Chloe Lang (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)
One (future) notable role. Fails WP:ENT. Too soon. (Prod removed without comment.) SummerPhD (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Stephanie (LazyTown) - Probably too soon and her only significant achievement would be the LazyTown role. I found a press release here and a news article here that briefly mention her and the other results appear to be forums and the like. SwisterTwister talk 22:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Not notable, but is a possible search term and Stephanie (LazyTown) is an obvious redirect target. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Stephanie (LazyTown). This one role is not enough to make her notable yet. For An Angel (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 2 November 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) — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
L. M. Kit Carson
- L. M. Kit Carson (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)
Possibly non-notable screenwriter/actor. No references to back up any information or confirm notability. Tagged with {{notability}} since december 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 21:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawing nom as refs has been added ant notability is established. Great work by User:Tokyogirl79! Bjelleklang - talk 18:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Carson is a significant screenwriter, known for his work on important and/or successful films like Paris, Texas, Breathless (the 1983 remake), and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2; for some occasional acting [1]; and as an influential figure in the Dallas filmmaking community. He is one of the select group of writers elected to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences [2]. In addition to the sources already provided in the article, GNews shows lots of additional coverage[3], including paywalled Dallas Morning News articles such as "Hollywood's Bad Boy Makes Good" (1985)[4] and "Kit Carson: A screenwriter rides hipness well beyond Paris, Texas" (1991) [5] and "Carson and Hargrave have projects galore" [6] --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep' Looks like the article may have improved since the original nomination, citations have been added and notability seems to have been established. Not to mention User:Tokyogirl79 seems to have tentatively indicated that she would be fixing the content as an edit message. 0x0077BE (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 2 November 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. SpinningSpark 23:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jean Edelstein
- Jean Edelstein (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)
Possibly a non-notable artist. Most results in Google when searching for her name and Temple Series shows Wikipedia mirrors or her own site. Also tagged with {{notability}} since december 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 21:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Paul Kurtz. The consensus seems to be merge and redirect. I suggest one paragraph would be about right, as most of the article duplicates other material about Kurtz, & some of the rest is advertising for forthcoming events. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Institute for Science and Human Values
- Institute for Science and Human Values (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)
Paul Kurtz founded several organizations throughout his lifetime, such as CSICOP and Center for Inquiry. These organizations meet the requirement for WP:N. In 2009, he left CFI and founded a new organization, Institute for Science and Human Values. This organization however I do not feel meets the requirement for WP:N. Searching for the organization's name brings up references to it in the media, but only short references in articles about Paul Kurtz himself. I can't find significant coverage of the organization itself. The proper place for information about this organization is as a subheading on the Paul Kurtz page. This organization may or may not become noteworthy in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While I think this sounds like an interesting organization, I do not see sufficient coverage to support a dedicated page at this time. The current sources are most (maybe all) primary sources and without reliable secondary sources it does not meet the WP:GNG. Once the organization is more established and is covered more thoroughly in mainstream media then perhaps it will merit an encyclopedia entry. I agree that ISHV should be mentioned in a section on the Paul Kurtz page but caution that after his death there have been some editors who have tried to add excessive detail about ISHV on his page. I personally think this page was an attempt to establish the legitimacy of those edits. This is a noble project and one that Kurtz worked on over the last few years of his life but it is not, by far, the biggest impact that he has made on society and it is important that his page represent that in a balanced way. Allecher (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Who you are, please? It is odd to be dealing with an anonymous writer or is there a place on wiki to find out the names of those who would be editor? I object to this call for deletion. The work of the Institute is worldwide. This year alone the leaders have made presentations; in the Philippines, speaking at the first Atheists and Agnostics Convention in South East Asia; participated in the UNESCO conference in Paris, France at 21st Century Toward A New Humanism; taught at Moscow State University in Russia this summer on the intersection of humanism and feminism, with another presentation scheduled for December on the high seas. I do not read anywhere that an organization must be covered by the mainstream media. An article was published in Russian for the Russian Humanist Journal written by Toni Van Pelt this fall. Nathan Bupp has just released a new book and Stu Jordan book is in the final stages prior to publication. Norm Allen is due to release his next book on Black Secularists. The public policy director is a registered Congressional lobbyist for the Institute. These are some of the things the ISHV has accomplished this year. Tonivanpelt (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tonvanpelt, you should read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I should have linked this in the opening post, but neglected to. The main criteria is notability, which are determined by third party news sources. I do not feel that ISHV has met the requirement, as most news sources that discuss it, discuss it briefly in larger articles about Paul Kurtz. When ISHV achieves such notability, then it can have an article on Wikipedia. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Harizotoh9 if notability is of main importance than Council for Secular Humanism page should also be deleted as there are no notability sources at all. I would like to know who you all are to verify if you have a conflict of interest. Please respond as to your identity. I used my complete name in the interests of transparency and honesty right from the start. Who are you and who is Allecher. What I have read from Allecher has been opinion. As to the biggest impact of Paul Kurtz, there are many world wide in scope, including the founding of Prometheus Books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonivanpelt (talk • contribs) 03:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My and other Wikipedian editor's identities are not relevant to this discussion. Wikipedia editors are encouraged to assume good faith. This Deletion discussion will move forward regardless, and should be debated on its own merit. Pointing out the notability issues of other pages is also not relevant (though in that case I'm not against merging it with the main CFI article). --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As to notatbility note press articles Buffalo News 7/10/201 "Kurtz Offers Venture to Explore Morality, Values in..", USA Today 9/15/2011 "Atheists Address Sexism Issues", ABC.online, Feb. 1, 2011 "God is Dead, NOw What?; UNPA 7/25/2010, "“Neo-Humanist” statement calls for a global parliament", USA today 2/23/2010 "Blacks say atheists were unseen civil rights heroes" versions of this article appeared in media across the US including the Christine Century. Also listed under Google Scholar is the ISHV public policy paper written by Ruth Mitchell and Peggy Brown, board member, " Every Child a Wanted Child: A Humanist Manifesto". If these cites must appear on the ISHV wiki page, we will rewritten to include them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonivanpelt (talk • contribs) 15:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are on the right track with those sources, Tonivanpelt. Before they can be added to the page they need to meet the qualification for a reliable source (which you can read in WP:RS) and they need to make more than a passing mention of the subject. Some of the ones you listed might qualify but the first one I checked - "Atheists address sexism issues" - appears to be an opinion piece with little editorial oversight and only mentions ISHV as the employer of someone named TONI VAN PELT. Not only is that a passing mention but it leads me to believe that your wikipedia username implies that you are the same Ms. Van Pelt, and you may be too involved in this project to approach it without what Wikipedia defines as a conflict of Interest. See WP:COI.
If you look at the edit history of Harizotoh9 or my own you will see that we have edited a number of pages in a wide variety of disciplines. I do not mean to imply in any way that your contributions are unwelcome, but merely that we are more familiar with navigating the complex rules of Wikipedia. We would love to have your help improving many different articles even if this ISHV page is not determined to be notable. Allecher (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] - In addition to the cites appearing on the ISHV wiki page, the information in that page not sources to a third party source, such as the information sourced to instituteforscienceandhumanvalues.net, should be removed from the page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are on the right track with those sources, Tonivanpelt. Before they can be added to the page they need to meet the qualification for a reliable source (which you can read in WP:RS) and they need to make more than a passing mention of the subject. Some of the ones you listed might qualify but the first one I checked - "Atheists address sexism issues" - appears to be an opinion piece with little editorial oversight and only mentions ISHV as the employer of someone named TONI VAN PELT. Not only is that a passing mention but it leads me to believe that your wikipedia username implies that you are the same Ms. Van Pelt, and you may be too involved in this project to approach it without what Wikipedia defines as a conflict of Interest. See WP:COI.
- Delete - I added some references (further reading) to the article. The institute started out with some press coverage in July 2010. However, the organization did not receive much press coverage after that. As the AfD nominator notes, the press coverage only was in the context of Kurtz attending meetings/speaking engagements and being identified as founder of the Institute for Science and Human Values. The many Kurtz Oct 2012 Obituaries did not go into any detail on the Institute. The topic does not meet WP:GNG. Also, given the past press coverage reliance on Kurtz, it seems likely that the Institute won't receive much press coverage in the future due to Kurtz's passing. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge / Delete - Based on the arguments presented about notability, this probably doesn't deserve its own wikipedia article (yet), but to the extent that any of it is useful, some of the content can be added to Kurtz's article. I also think a redirect to the ISHV subheader on Kurtz's page is appropriate. --0x0077BE (talk) 01:48, 7 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vince Orlando
- Vince Orlando (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 film producer. Previous AfD marginally kept the article on the assumption that at least some of the films were notable, but that has never been demonstrated and now all the articles on his films have been deleted. The only independent source cited is a lightweight movie mag, and I can't find any better in Google news archives. – Fayenatic London 21:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete without prejudice per weakly failing WP:FILMMAKER. While I opined a keep back in May of 2009, this return to AFD has caused me to re-evaluate what remains available online about this filmmaker and his works. There are a very few news articles about he and his works which almost push he and them to barely meet WP:N (articles not existent notwithstanding) and those instances might then have had him notable enough (barely) under WP:FILMMAKER. I suggest we have an article on his horror film Cut/Print be considered for creation by someone with the time to do so, as it appears IT might meet our inclusion requirements. [7] [8] [9] [10] Upon careful re-evaluation, and despite his minor recognition at Slamdance,[11] it looks here to be a case of slightly TOO SOON. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The few sources available merely list his name as in "Cast: Vince Orlando, ..." There is not enough coverage in reliable sources from which to write a biography article. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). As for Cut/Print, there's a mention in Holland Sentinel October 29, 2012 indicating that it will be released by Orlando entertainment. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:05, 6 November 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 speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion G11. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Johnny Keenan
- Johnny Keenan (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)
Unfortunately doesn't seem notable, only source is the guy's website. By the looks of it, there's decent enough coverage of the festival named in his honor, bet perhaps not of the man himself. I had a hard time finding significant coverage in independent reliable sources on Google Books or News archives. CtP (t • c) 20:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I CSD'd the page under A7, but in the event that it gets denied, my argument is in the talk page. Little WP:RS, and not notable. ZappaOMati 21:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have declined a speedy, because I think the festival is enough to pass A7; but finding a source to confirm that has shown me that the middle part of the article is a copyright violation, so I have blanked it with a template though, for the purpose of assessing notability, it can still be seen in the history. JohnCD (talk) 23:18, 31 October 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 per author request. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shaukat Ali Abdul Ghafoor
- Shaukat Ali Abdul Ghafoor (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)
Pakistani-Libyan businessman with no indications of notability. Citations refer to his daughter, and mention him in passing. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Borderline G11. Unsourced and non-notable too. --Anbu121 (talk me) 20:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt. Non-notable subject, and the article is full of devoted praise. P. S. Note that the author has just blanked the page, including the AfD template. Surely it can now be speedied ? Bishonen | talk 20:48, 31 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Al Blades
- Al Blades (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 doesn't given any indication on why the subject is notable. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place for memorials, no matter how tragic. I cannot find any measure of notability to pass WP:GNG or any other measure. Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Reverse position to Keep thanks to Cbl62's research! New data helps, doesn't it? --Paul McDonald (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep College football players who have received substantial, non-trivial coverage in mainstream media sources can qualify under WP:GNG even if they never play pro ball. Blades was a first-team All-Big East player. His career is covered/summarized in the following book about South Florida football: Sports Lauderdale. And while the article is in admittedly poor condition, a quick search reveals a number of articles in mainstream media sources (including USA Today, ESPN, Miami Herald) in which Blades is the main subject. See, e.g., (1) Al Blades, A Free Spirit, Miami Herald, 2003; (2) Plantation Honors Al Blades, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 2003; (3) Blades Finds a Savior in Football, Miami Herald, September 15, 1995; (4) Former Miami, 49ers safety killed in car accident, ESPN, March 21, 2003; (5) Uncle drives Blades’ NFL dream, USA Today, March 2007; (6) Blades Family Legacy Grows: Al Blades, the Younger Brother of Bennie and Brian, Has Made a Name for Himself at Miami, Orlando Sentinel, Jan 1, 2001; (7) UM’s Al Blades Being Investigated, Miami Herald, 2006; (8) Kinship With ‘Canes Al Blades Makes His Way in Brothers’ Shadows, Palm Beach Post, December 1998; (9) Blades Dislocates Bone in Forearm, Miami Herald, August 30, 1999; (10) Former Cane Safety Al Blades Killed in Crash, Lakeland Ledger, 2003; (11) Blades of a Feather, Miami Herald, February 8, 1996; (12) Ex-Cane Al Blades 23, Killed in Miami Crash, Palm Beach Post, March 2003; (13) A. Blades Waits Another Year to Debut: Torn Knee Ligament Saturday Ends UM Freshman Safety’s Season, Miami Herald, August 11, 1997; (14) Former Miami star Blades dies in crash, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, March 21, 2003; (15) Former Miami safety Blades killed in car crash, Ocala Star Banner, March 2003. Cbl62 (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notwithstanding the present "stubby" state of the article, this is a clear keep based on the sources presently included in article. Add the present sources to Cbl's extensive list above, and this is an overwhelmingly easy keeper. Generally speaking, when a biography subject is the primary topic of multiple feature articles in multiple regional and national newspapers, it's a given that the subject probably satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:52, 2 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Masterkube
- Masterkube (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 company. This company's single product appears to be an amorphously describe "solution platform", with little clear information about what that means. They managed to garner some notice from Lockheed Martin in that company's "India Innovation Growth" program, but that does not appear sufficient for notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Probably too soon, Google News failed to provide anything relevant though I found this blog myself, which would be insufficient. Aside from this blog, the other results appear to be videos and primary. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - insufficient 3rd party sources to establish notability of this software; created by an SPA with same name as software author, so likely promotional. Dialectric (talk) 13:40, 6 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LA Podfest
- LA Podfest (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. A month has passed since creation, the event has since happened, and the referencing is still no better than before, sole third party ref is a blog entry from a weekly paper site. A quick look around shows not much in the way of coverage. Declined prod (twice). Hairhorn (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Only independent source I can find is an Onion A.V. Club article and even that's not really about the LA Podfest, but simply general lessons about podcasting learned from it. That's just not enough. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:53, 25 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:47, 31 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jetset (video game)
- Jetset (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find video game sources: "Jetset (video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)
Non-notable video game, nothing that establishes notability in the references. Also, SubLogic released their flight simulator (later to become Microsoft Flight Simulator in 1979, if not earlier. Tagged with {{notability}} since december 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 19:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete: It would be nice to know who the original publisher was, among other things. There's really not much to go on out there. Faustus37 (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I'd normally be more hesitant since any sources would most likely not be on the Internet, but the last AfD was withdrawn to give it a WP:CHANCE and it's been three years. I'll reconsider if someone can make RS appear, but for now, it doesn't pass a good faith GNG test. czar · · 18:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not passing WP:GNG. As always with older games with only offline sources, it's hard to be sure. But this one seem non-notable and not covered at its time. Appears to be a small project of someone. I suspect the two books provided don't contain lots of info, it seems Byte only published source code. Previous AfDs claims of being noteworthy in flight sim history still isn't backed up and I doubt it really is. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:27, 1 November 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) 14:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 2 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Open Music Score
- Open Music Score (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ORG notability standards. Zero gnews hits that actually refer to organization/site; ghits that refer to site are generally mere mentions in lists of sheet music sites. Nat Gertler (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment zillions of links have been added in past few days as part of some WP-article ext-link farming of various content on the site by same editor who wrote this article. Spot-checking, they aappear to generally fail WP:EL, and gives appearance of this article being part of a WP:GARDEN. DMacks (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's no evidence of actual notability. Being "the only archive to exclusively offer XML files" doesn't make it any more deserving. In may turn out to be in the future, but at it stands /now/, I'd say not. That said, I think the only real problem with linking to the site as ELs is that the archive as a whole is pretty small. Even if the site doesn't gain enough notability for an article, it may be good enough as a useful resource. That's not all that relevant to the discussion outside of the fact that they were added by the page under discussion's creator, though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I fail to see how a few links are "zillions". If you look at the other links they are grouped with, you'll see clear relevance and they do meet WP:EL from what I can tell . There is no "link farming" going on here. I can understand if Open Music Score as an article doesn't live up to WP standards. But, I'll leave that to more experienced users. Ngreen2001 (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 2 November 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 Canadian Soccer Association. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Colin Linford
- Colin Linford (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)
Apparently non-notable person most known for having resigned as president of the CSA. If this is the case, this may fall under Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event and should either be removed alltogether or merged into the article on the Canadian Soccer Association Bjelleklang - talk 18:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I wouldn't consider him notable based on his tenure with the CSA and related organizations. PKT(alk) 15:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. There is no indication of significant coverage, so the article fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Canadian Soccer Association - likely search term but no evidence of any other notability. GiantSnowman 17:26, 2 November 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 Speedily deleted per G11 and G12, without prejudice to a future article written without promotional material or copyright violations. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pine River-Backus Secondary School
- Pine River-Backus Secondary School (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)
Speedy G11 declined on the grounds that this is about a school (normally this argument only applies to A7). The first word of the article is "welcome". The first word of the second sentence is "we". The third sentence contains the string "we are proud to offer". How could G11 be more blatant than this? Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:21, 31 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Burge
- Lee Burge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article makes explicit claim to non-notability by pointing out that he has never played a first-team game -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:01, 7 November 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. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 22:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mem Martins Sport Clube
- Mem Martins Sport Clube (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)
Completing AfD on behalf of User:Always Learning reason to follow ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: - With reference to the Club Notability Test user essay WP:NTEST we get this result:
- Q1. Has the club played in a national cup (listed in the Blue Column)? YES
- Q6. Does the completed article generally meet the notability standards set down in WP:GNG? NO
- Q7. Has sufficient time been allowed for the preparation of the article? Suggest appropriate time is allowed for the authors to bring this article up to scratch having regard to the following sources:
- Taça de Portugal 1990/1991 Round 2
- ZeroZero - Mem Martins Sport Clube
- ForaDeJogo - Mem-Martins Sport Clube
- Mem Martins Sport Clube
- Blog de Mem Martins Sport Clube
- "Mem Martins Sport Clube" site:jornaldesintra.com (161 articles)
- "Mem Martins SC" site:jornaldesintra.com (149 articles)
- "Mem Martins SC" site:sintradesportivo.blogspot.com (4,940 results)
- "Mem Martins Sport Clube" site:sintradesportivo.blogspot.com (2,610 results)
- There must be other sources that I have missed and in my view there is no reason why an article should not be prepared that meets WP:GNG standards. League Octopus (League Octopus 17:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - playing in the national cup is a decent claim to notability, and probably enough to keep at this AfD while the article is brought up to meet GNG. GiantSnowman 18:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Most teams play in a national cup. No other claim to notability. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Club has only played in regional championships (DIVISION FIVE or lower), agree with Walter 200% --AL (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The reason for this AfD appears to be the club has played no higher than the fifth tier of the Portuguese league system. In this context we must remind ourselves that in England we have clubs playing in the eleventh tier that are notable because they have played in a national cup. At the moment the underlying principle that we follow is set down in the essay WP:FOOTYN which states All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. In this context Mem Martins Sport Clube is clearly notable as they played 2 matches in the Portuguese national cup (Taça de Portugal) in 1990–91. More importantly there is evidence above that the article can be prepared to a standard that meets WP:GNG. League Octopus (League Octopus 09:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Userfy to League Octopus' userspace if he's willing to bring this otherwise non-notable club to GNG status. Two appearances in the national cup don't confer notability, as local consensus doesn't override wider consensus. – Kosm1fent 16:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The references in the article and listed above can't be said to provide evidence of significant coverage. Eldumpo (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm finding zero English language references for "Mem Martins Sport Clube." The article cites "Sporting and Mem Martins Sport Clube reached a deal" (PDF). CMVM (in Portuguese). 4 July 2010., but that has no mention of Mem Martins Sport Clube. The references cited by League Octopus above are a mixture of non-independent sources and non-Wikipedia reliable sources, neither of which contributes towards meeting WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: - With reference to the above comments the fact that there are no English language references is absolutely of no relevance at all? There are 2 excellent Portuguese language sources - ZeroZero and ForaDeJogo. There is a good newspaper source with a wealth of material in the Journal de Sintra. I know that I can produce an article that meets WP:GNG if we keep to our normal standards of 4 or 5 sources (and I would expect to provide around 10 sources for this article). However, in this case I am not going to produce a revamped article as I think we should concentrate on the core issue of whether appearances in the national cup confers notability. For the last 5 years this has been a core parameter in our decision-making. League Octopus (League Octopus 09:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- I think we should move away from "playing in a national cup confers notability", (works perfectly for England, but not everywhere) and instead use your table (TEST) which shows at what level a club should have played to be "presumed notable". Mentoz86 (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have certainly prepared WP:NTEST with this in mind and I have drafted an amended version of the TEST itself which gives priority to whether a club has played at a "notable level" - it is very straight forward to tweak the TEST. For me a key consideration is not to rush into making changes unless we are sure that Editors are generally supportive. I am also concerned to treat in a fair manner those who in good faith have prepared articles in accordance with the essay WP:FOOTYN over the last 5 years. League Octopus (League Octopus 20:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- ZeroZero is a poor source of prose. It's just a bunch of stats. You can't write a descriptive article merely from stats. As for ForaDeJogo, that's essntially the same stats information, but posted at a different fan site. Even if the topic is important/significant under WP:NOT due to the clube's appearances in the national cup, the topic still needs to have received enough coverage in reilable sources for a stand alone article under WP:GNG. If there is not enough coverage in reilable sources for a stand alone article, then the article will not convey enough encyclopedic information. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are no sources either in the article or, as far as I can tell having gone through a fair number of them, listed above, to indicate non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources as required by WP:GNG. The local weekly paper refs are mostly fixtures and results, and the others are sites connected to the club, stats sites or blogs, which can be used to supply detail but not to establish notability. As to WP:CONLIMITED, there isn't even a local consensus to suggest that a club entering any national cup regardless of entry criteria can be assumed notable, whatever it may say in the essay WP:FOOTYN or in any other essay, so we do need to demonstrate GNG, and as yet we haven't.
No prejudice against re-creation as and when notability can be demonstrated. If League Octopus or anyone else thinks they can improve the article so that it demonstrates general notability, that would be a benefit to the encyclopedia and much appreciated. But that would be better done in userspace, not mainspace. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:14, 8 November 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 College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Wayne State University. MBisanz talk 00:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wayne State University Department of Physics and Astronomy
- Wayne State University Department of Physics and Astronomy (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)
Individual department in a good quality research university .The department is not particular notable among physics departments, nor is it world-famous. Normally, we restrict articles on individual departments to that. I note that most of the 3rd party references are to press releases & the like -- except for the most famous departments, this will usually be the case, which is why they almost always fail notability
There is nothing here that is not covered in the departments web site. and almost everything about the academic program will be of interest only to students there or prospective students.
The copyvio problems affect only material that wouldn't be relevant anyway DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per DGG. Good school, but not an especially notable department. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. a13ean (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. University departments are not individually notable.--xanchester (t) 07:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Wayne State University. No sign of more-than-average notability for a department. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:26, 4 November 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 speedily deleted G11 by Jimfbleak (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: no evidence of notability). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jitsakul
- Jitsakul (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 removed by editor. Autobio or at least COI (written by somebody with same name as the "family" which is the subject). It talks about a rich family from Thailand. No assertion of notability. No reliable sources. Claims they "own a hotel" and "they are a minority shareholder of the local Toyota dealer". Neither one is a claim of notability. Alexf(talk) 15:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE as nom. The article also mentions under Notable Members, Dr. Prasert Jitsaku who received an hononary doctorate degree in business and management from Mae Fah Luang University for investing in business and tourism industry in Chiang Rai. So it claims that he bought an honorary degree. Hardly notable. -- Alexf(talk) 15:52, 31 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Climate Nine
- Climate Nine (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)
NPOV, notability, WP:NOT Petebutt (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for NPOV, notability and WP:NOTPetebutt (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 19 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:24, 24 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - POV-pushing rubbish which would easily be merged into Plane Stupid - absolutely no need for a spin-off article and the sources don't support one anyway. There's no way, as far as I am concerned, that the subject could possibly pass WP:ORGDEPTH. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:17, 31 October 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 Power Rangers Lost Galaxy. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Valerie Vernon
- Valerie Vernon (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)
- Ismay Johnston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject very clearly fails WP:NACTOR. She has not done any acting other than Power Rangers: Lost Galaxy, no major fan base (except hardcore Power Ranger fans), and the interior design company she is now running does not seem very notable either. I am also nominating Ismay Johnston for deletion because she is another former Power Ranger actress who has not done any other major role or contributions and does not seem to have a major fan base either. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ismay Johnston
- Delete as does not meet WP:ENT. No significant articles in NZ media about her or her acting career. NealeFamily (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Power Rangers Dino Thunder#Allies, so that our readers could be send to her only role of weight. No multiple significant roles to pass WP:ENT nor she passes GNG, so no need of a separate article. Cavarrone (talk) 07:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Confusion which of the two articles is being nominated?? My delete only relates to Ismay but someone has changed it NealeFamily (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That was me, I removed the header since it affected the log, and put on a second {{Find sources}} as it is done normally for multiple nominations. I've put the header back now (with a lowered level) to separate the !votes as they were before. Sorry for the confusion — Frankie (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Frankie NealeFamily (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That was me, I removed the header since it affected the log, and put on a second {{Find sources}} as it is done normally for multiple nominations. I've put the header back now (with a lowered level) to separate the !votes as they were before. Sorry for the confusion — Frankie (talk) 14:52, 30 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Valerie to Power Rangers Lost Galaxy, Ismay to Power Rangers Dino Thunder. Neither actor is notable, but they are mentioned in the articles on the series they appear in. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 1 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ComicAttack.net
- ComicAttack.net (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 fansite. Ref is for an award won by the owner's separate business, not the website. Site was nominated for an award, but did not win. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Much of the justification for keeping the article on the talk page centers around the site itself being potentially considered a reliable source in the comic book community and has tons of hits. This falls under WP:POPULARITY, which doesn't count towards notability. I'd also like to state that being a potentially RS for Wikipedia articles or for various communities doesn't automatically mean that you/it merits an article. For example, if a top editor for a major newspaper had a blog or personal website, that would be usable for a RS in most cases but that doesn't mean that the editor themselves or their website would merit an article. I did a search and there's just nothing out there that actually covers this site in any detail. It didn't win the award it was nominated for and for that to give notability, they'd have to have won the award. Just being nominated means nothing, especially since it looks like anyone can nominate something if I'm reading that correctly. Since it's received no in-depth coverage from independent and reliable sources, nor received a major award of any kind, there's really no choice other than to delete it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:19, 25 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There's a mention in School Library Journal April 1, 2011, but that seems to be about it. Delete per Tokyogirl79. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:55, 6 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prashaant Kumar
- Prashaant Kumar (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)
Previously a Prod with the rationale "No evidence that the subject meets the notability guidelines. (One reference, to a July 2012 gossip article that describes him as a "newcomer", is insufficient and if anything indicative that he has not yet attained notability)." The Prod was removed along with maintenance tags by an IP. I'm now bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the Prod. AllyD (talk) 19:39, 17 October 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, SarahStierch (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:35, 25 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Actor notability is not inherited from the films they work on, and Wikipedia is not IMDB or its Bollywood equivalent. I could find nothing in Google that would merit inclusion under WP:NACTOR. §FreeRangeFrog 17:59, 31 October 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. CSD G5. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vinny De Vingo
- Vinny De Vingo (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 actor and producer. Credits include minor independent films only, or minor, unnamed characters. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please just go ahead and delete this page, forgive me everyone for my Behaviour and in-correct References to a Non-Important Actor, Someone who is small. Big Paul99 (talk) 20:46, 2 November 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; effectively a recreation as the page is entire dependent upon the main bio. postdlf (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Rathnam Discography
- Thomas Rathnam Discography (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. The subject's main article Thomas Rathnam has been AFD deleted twice (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Rathnam, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Rathnam (2nd nomination)) and speedied many more times. jonkerz ♠talk 15:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The parent article, Thomas Rathnam, isn't notable. Neither is this.--xanchester (t) 15:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:32, 1 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Red Roots
- Red Roots (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 big promotional love fest for this band. Has a huge list of award nominations but none are major awards. Has some blog coverage and some passing mentions but lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. (previous afd was about an unrelated band). duffbeerforme (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If the author's only claim to notability for the group is that they are the 2011 Mississippi Gospel Convention Association's Mississippi's Trio of the Year then I don't see how this even remotely meets WP:ARTIST. No charting, no major backing label, no major media coverage, nothing. §FreeRangeFrog 17:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I edited down the majority of the promotional speak, meaning that the article size is pretty much a third of what it previously was. I've removed a lot of the primary sources and otherwise non-RS links, but it does look like they've gotten a lot of local coverage from one newspaper. Of course that can be debated as to whether or not that is enough to pass WP:BAND.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:MUSIC. Actually, it should be speedied as the recreation of a previously deleted article. Qworty (talk) 03:13, 2 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ivy Sports Symposium
- Ivy Sports Symposium (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)
Other than a couple of blog posts (the most notable being a piece on Business Insider that reads like a press release), I don't see any third party coverage of this event. I don't think it's notable. If it is kept, it needs to be rewritten from scratch, as every other like is overly promotional and pecocky. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I found a press release: reuters.com Oct 13, 2010. A mention in Forbes January 16, 2012 and in New York Post September 2, 2012. Not enough to meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is providing information about a completely legitimate event. I don't understand what the problem is here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamespino (talk • contribs) 19:29, 29 October 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, SpinningSpark 13:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete fails WP:GNG. Simply existing is not the same as notable. LibStar (talk) 05:59, 6 November 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 speedily deleted by User:Panyd under criterion G11. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 12:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Big Dogs
- Big Dogs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be a notable company as per WP:CORP. Purely an advertisement, and has been significantly contributed to by editors with WP:COI. Contains WP:PUFFERY and weasel words to make the company appear notable. I agree it exists, but Wikipedia is not a business directory (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've nominated it for a speedy under promotional concerns because well, just look at it. You can't get any more promotional than that unless they were to list coupon codes right on the Wikipedia page. If by some chance it doesn't, I did try to search for sources. There are routine mentions of stores opening/closing/whatnot as well as a large amount of press releases, but not enough in-depth coverage about the company itself to show that it would pass WP:CORP. As Bwilkins put it, the company exists but we're not a directory. This company just isn't notable enough for Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:29, 31 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Penfight
- Penfight (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 wonder if any sources would exist for this. Looks like WP:MADEUP. Anbu121 (talk me) 09:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is pretty obviously something that was made up one day. While people have done pen fighting in one form or another since the advent of writing utensils, this particular form of pen fighting is not notable in the slightest. An article on pen fighting in general would be of dubious notability because it hasn't really been covered in a ton of reliable sources to begin with.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as rubbish. We used to have pencil fights at school. Much more fun. Emeraude (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Clearly WP:MADEUP. Does not even attempt to assert notability, because it cannot hope to do so. Not actually in a category eligible for A7 speedy, but I doubt anyone would be sad to see this go early. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete. I've asked before; I'll ask again...why isn't there a speedy criterion for games??? The article is even all written in the second person. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:03, 1 November 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) 22:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Diner lingo
- Diner lingo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:WINAD. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is the topic of diner lingo notable apart from the dictionary? (Similar to how we have an article on French language but not a dictionary of French words.) There is the ref to the Village Voice article, and there are a few mentions online about diner lingo/diner slang[12][13][14][15][16][17]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep(and remove dubious unsourced entries) By the late 1930's "diner lingo" such as "Adam and Eve on a raft" and several other phrases were actually used between the waitress and the cook to order food in many US diners and cheap eats restaurants. It faded away, probably by the 1960's, as greasy spoons were replaced by fast food chain restaurants, and became a nostalgia topic. But notability is not temporary. .There have been enough articles dealing with it to satisfy GNG: [18], [19].(which notes there's a chapter about it in a book about slang), [20], (there was a museum exhibit about it). [a promo in a Saturday edition from 1938 promised an article about it in the Sunday edition which I could not find online, but there are likely additional sources such as that which could improve the introductory explanatory section of the article. It was also used in movies and widely in fiction. It is easy to make up new humorous examples of such argot, so the article should be edited down to remove those lacking good sourcing, and make sure none of the entries were made up by the contributing editor. Edison (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment Colapeninsul compares this with the article on the French language, which has no list of words, but a more apt comparison would be with the articles on various cants and argots, which do include referenced examples, so I suggest working on this article to make it look like them. (I'm not saying "Keep it because other stuff exists," but rather "Keep it because the subject is notable, and edit it to be more like comparable articles about other cants.") See Polari, about a cant used by British actors, carnival workers, thieves and homosexuals ( (has a long unreferenced word list), Thieves' cant, which just has 10 unreferenced examples in a list, and Carny a cant used in US carnivals, which has (unreferenced) examples throughout the article rather than a long list such as this article. See Boontling about a secret cant formerly spoken in one town in California; has a wordlist. Without examples of words, an article about a cant might as well not exist, but I doubt that a mass nom of cant and dialect articles would get anywhere. Edison (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.106.183.195 (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Same reasons as above, can't really add anything that Edison (talk) hasn't already said. King of Nothing (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.92.194 (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, 109.58.92.194. I've removed your comment above towards the nominator. You're of course welcome to comment on the subject of the article, and why you think it should be kept, but please don't attack other editors — Frankie (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As Edison said, there is material. For articles on topics like these, a list of words ins necessary to show what is being talked about; there should of course also be some discussion. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 7 November 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 By-elections to the 41st Canadian Parliament#Victoria. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Summerville
- Paul Summerville (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 deleted PROD: article does not meet the criteria for Biographies of living persons: POV issues, lack of notoriety Illia Connell (talk) 07:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete His only claim to notoriety that I can tell is twice running as a failed candidate: once for federal parliament in Toronto and once for a policy position in the party. I vote to delete. Big blue bridge (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to By-elections to the 41st Canadian Parliament#Victoria. Simply being a candidate is not sufficient to have a Wikipedia article; the person must be otherwise notable. Note that routine election coverage will not be sufficient to meet WP:GNG in this case. Finally, the previous deletion discussion doesn't really help us here, since a number of arguments there no longer meet current policies for notability (particularly the assertions that notability isn't required for independent articles). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Good point - I change my vote to redirect.Big blue bridge (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect I agree with Qwyrxian, simply being a candidate is not sufficient to have a Wikipedia article; the person must be otherwise notable. This article should be deleted to redirected to either list of 41 by-election. Moss rocks (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete then redirect No notoriety. It's clear Summerville has written most of the content. No citations, many dubious claims, and NPOV issues throughout. I vote to delete then redirect to the 41 By-election page. 24.69.85.97 (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Lack of clear notoriety. I also vote to delete and redirect to the byelection page. 174.116.185.54 (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:54, 1 November 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 per WP:CSK #2 (non-admin closure). Mephistophelian (contact) 05:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Ahsham (Mughal Infantry)
- Ahsham (Mughal Infantry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is written by a blocked user - a sock puppet. The article has multiple issues - and has been tagged for a rewrite. Why are we keeping this? IMO it should be rewritten before being re-submitted by a valid user Fatbuu1000 (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A user being blocked has no bearing on the article. As per the associated article Mughal Artillery. Until we have a list of volunteers, I don't see a reason to delete good faith efforts on an article that has no fatal issues. It was not submitted though AfC. -- :- ) Don 17:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per criteria 2 "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and (since bad motivations of the nominator don't have direct bearing on the validity of the nomination) nobody unrelated recommends deleting it" AFD was created by a blocked sockpuppet in violation of the block. The nomination statement is a direct copy of the statement given by Gbawden in the deletion discussion for Mughal Artillery. There is clearly no purpose in this other than disruption. Ryan Vesey 19:58, 31 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Department of theoretical physics and astrophysics of Masaryk University
- Department of theoretical physics and astrophysics of Masaryk University (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)
Individual department in a fairly high quality research university .The department is not particular notable among physics departments, nor is it world-famous. Normally, we restrict articles on individual departments to that. I note there are no 3rd party references -- except for the most famous departments, this will usually be the case, which is why they almost always fail notability
There is nothing here that is not covered in the departments web site. and almost everything about the academic program will be of interest only to students there or prospective students. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. University departments are not independently notable. Normally, a redirect is appropriate, but I doubt that this lengthy title is a plausible search term.--xanchester (t) 15:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mephistophelian (contact) 16:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mephistophelian (contact) 16:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; I would be open to moving this (in)to Masaryk University Faculty of Natural Sciences. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 2 November 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. Withdrawn before any other comments; nomination was in error (wrong page). Qwyrxian (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peace on Earth (Kitaro album)
- Peace on Earth (Kitaro album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable musical release. No evidence of charting. No evidence of awards. No evidence of long-form professional reviews. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Ancient Journey. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw. Sorry, I was looking at the wrong page. Not sure whether it was a WP:TW error or a me not paying attention error. Probably the latter. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:14, 31 October 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. Yunshui 雲水 09:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MyFire
- MyFire (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)
MyFire does not appear to pass WP:GNG. A search for newspaper and tech sites does not reveal sources that would aid in establishing notability. LauraHale (talk) 05:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of notability, no independent references. Looks like self-promotion. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability of this software; created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 02:03, 4 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My Name Is Not Merv Griffin
- My Name Is Not Merv Griffin (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)
Appears to be non-notable; I could not find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Would speedy under A9 but appears to have been covered by an artist or two that do have an article. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article has been flagged for notability concerns since August 2011, and nothing has been done to cure the problem. Based on my searches this song has never received more than a passing, one-sentence mention in a couple of articles and has never been ranked on any significant charts. Fails WP:NSONG. OfficeGirl (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, there doesn't seem to be any article where this song would even be mentioned, so there is no place to redirect this.OfficeGirl (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This could have been speedied under db-a9 (no notability claimed for song and no article for artist). --Richhoncho (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per WP:IAR: Any rule that prevents us from improving the project should be ignored. This song was apparently played on regularly on a nationally syndicated radio show, the Dr. Demento show. Apart from that, the song appears to have received coverage from Stereo Review magazine, Fanfare and the The Sacramento Bee. In addition, due to the time frame in which the song was released (1982), there may be additional print sources which are not available online. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Newyorkbrad really likes it! (I think that's as good of a rationale as the "Hotties are always notable!" one which has been used successfully in other AfDs). Volunteer Marek 04:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're kidding...? It was with much effort that I restrained from saying "Surely you can't be serious". Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 07:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't call good-faith editors "Shirley." Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're kidding...? It was with much effort that I restrained from saying "Surely you can't be serious". Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 07:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added another reference from the newspaper Sacramento Bee. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Cover versions by at least three other artists gives the song a notability that goes beyond any notability of the original artist or the original album. That is, it meets notability under GNG outside of WP:MUSIC. Even under WP:MUSIC there might be an arguable case—doesn't "repeated airplay on the Dr. Demento Show" amount to placed in rotation nationally? And WP:SONG says songs "that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Since all three of the cover artists have articles we can presume them notable. SpinningSpark 00:40, 8 November 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. Yunshui 雲水 09:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pojn Hill
- Pojn Hill (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)
If this isn't WP:MADEUP it's really close. No hits on gbooks/news or on Highbeam. Even more strikingly, a Google web search excluding mirrors of WP content yields zero hits. Prod tag removed in 2010 with a rationale of "I used to be from that area and I had heard this story." Camerafiend (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Clearly not a recognized place name. Story as presented has the general feel of an in-joke for a group of youth. As noted in the nomination, a staggering zero Google hits outside of mirrors. This really should have been followed up on for deletion back in 2010. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - never mind the place name; the incident described, even if true and well-known locally and reported in reliable sources, is quite WP:run-of-the-mill. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:18, 1 November 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. Yunshui 雲水 09:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nhat Nam (martial art)
- Nhat Nam (martial art) (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. Only two references for this "not well known" martial art. One reference is for a school that teaches it. The other is in lithuain and when translated appears a small blurb for more classes. Only references I can find seem to all be schools that teach this and not many of them. So far have not been able to find a single independent refernce to this "historic" martial art. Ridernyc (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So, it's a Vietnamese martial art with hundreds of years of history, known only to the nation's elite, and now practiced in... Lithuania? That's the sort of thing you'd expect would attract at least a little attention, if true. But there's nothing out there. Searches for Nhat Nam/Nhất Nam/Nhất-Nam are deeply unproductive. The Vietnamese Wikipedia has an article at Nhất Nam, which may be about the same martial art (it certainly has a bunch of Lithuanian external links). But it has a different history, claiming to have been created in 1983 in Hanoi by Ngô Xuân Bính. That's at least more credible. Regardless, that article is also dreadfully unsourced, and nothing there is even a little helpful in demonstrating notability for an article here. Unless there are some compelling reliable sources that I just cannot find -- which is possible, as my ability to search Vietnamese-language material is less than ideal -- this lacks sufficient notability for inclusion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The VNA source is short, but clearly the sort of thing we're looking for. I think the the VN Express article looks acceptable, as well. I'm less certain about the quality one of of the other links, but regardless, it seems that I dropped the ball on sourcing this time. Plenty out there!
Striking my delete,Supporting retention now, but noting that our article needs a wholesale rewrite regardless (this is not an ancient tradition, but a modern one). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]- I've rewritten it as a more accurate but very brief stub with references. This was also necessary because the original version was a blatant copyvio from http://www.nhat-nam.co.uk/about_nhat-nam.html. Voceditenore (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The VNA source is short, but clearly the sort of thing we're looking for. I think the the VN Express article looks acceptable, as well. I'm less certain about the quality one of of the other links, but regardless, it seems that I dropped the ball on sourcing this time. Plenty out there!
- Keep.Here is another link. http://tnhvietnam.xemzi.com/en/group/show/357/Nhat-Nam-Giap-Nhat---Vietnamese-Traditional-Martial-Arts-Club i am not good too to search in Vietnamese, but it is definitely the same martial art mentioned in Vietnamese wikipedia teosm (talk)
- Keep
CommentIt's a little easier to search if you use a Google image search simply on "Nhat Nam". I was able to find the following news stories: [21], [22], [23] (this one's in Spanish on the Vietnam News Agency site). The other two are in Vietnamese. Apparently, it's really big in the countries of the ex-USSR bloc because one of its masters, Ngo Xuan Binh, is a long-time resident of Russia. He's also mentioned in the Vietnamese Wikipedia article [24]. I think I'll ask WikiProject Vietnam for their input. Voceditenore (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There was also a feature on Niat-Nam (as it's called in Lithuanian) in the online version of the Lithuanian paper 15 min [25] and a feature on the Vietnamese-language pages of Voice of Russia [26]. Voceditenore (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been notfied to WikiProject Vietnam. - Voceditenore (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Viet Nam News has a lengthy article on this subject in English. Kauffner (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepComment I am sorry i am not very good as you in posting the right way, some vietnamese friends just sent me some other links:
- teosm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the links in that list are appropriate sources, or evidence of notability - they're to YouTube and blogs, and a site not independent of the subject (Swiss Nhat-Nam Association). However, we already have a sufficient number of reliable sources to justify a keep in my opinion. (I've also struck your second "Keep". You can't !vote twice.) Voceditenore (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think there's enough coverage in Vietnamese sources to support the claim that this meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:12, 3 November 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. MBisanz talk 00:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison of smartphones
- Comparison of smartphones (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)
Too broad in scope. There are no sources that compare all smartphones from 2002-2012 from all brands with all operating systems from all ranges (low, mid, high end) with each other. For the same reason why there should not be a comparison of cars in Wikipedia. Andries (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Smartphone (there isn't even a list of smartphones it could be redirected/merged to). This is too large a subject to be treated this way, and such a comparison isn't going to be useful or comprehensible. The best hope is to redirect to an article which provides a comparison of the different types of smartphones. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect. There are lots of smartphones with many new ones being launched monthly. I don't think it would all fit in here. The article is simply too large at size and comparisons are too hard to read. Also the tables simply do not compare everything. We don't need an article like this on Wikipedia. It should be deleted, and would save hours of work from Wikipedians.--Gaming&Computing (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a ridiculous article, with fast changing smartphone industry, this article seems obsolete.--Skashifakram (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to List of smartphones. This is clearly a list, and thus should be named as such. The word "comparison" makes the article sound too commercial in nature, as if it's a shopping guide that allows readers to compare features, but Wikipedia is not a guide or how-to manual. Still, it satisfies the notability criteria under WP:LISTN; the subject of smartphones have clearly been treated as a group in reliable sources. The criteria for inclusion are also suitably narrow and well-defined. It's easy to distinguish a smartphone from a basic phone, or at least I think so. --Batard0 (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think that all smartphones from 2002-2012 as a group have been treated in multiple reliable sources. Andries (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or split. If it's too cluttered, we can split it up by era / generation and / or trim it down to the most notable current and historical models. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Renaming as a list makes no sense -it is indeed a comparison by several features, like many articles of the same type. I don't see how it is too broad in scope -there are many smartphones, sure, but the scope is very clear nonetheless (it's not like a "comparison of phones"). It satisfies WP:LISTN. --Cyclopiatalk 20:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be all right to keep the "comparison" heading on those grounds, but I see a fundamental difference between the purpose of this article and articles like Comparison of butterflies and moths. Because smartphones are commercial products, a comparison of them becomes in some ways a guide, which is something Wikipedia is not. It becomes a comparison-shopping tool, in some sense. I grant that there are other similar articles, like a comparison of Android phones, but WP:OSE and these should perhaps be renamed as well. A list is more encyclopedic than a comparison guide when it comes to commercial products, in my view. The naming of the article may be a formality, but I think it should be renamed nonetheless to better reflect the encyclopedia's purpose. --Batard0 (talk) 06:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. Butterflies and moths are notable objects. Smartphones are notable objects too. That you can buy the latter is no grounds to make differences between them. It's a comparison: if you use it as a guide, then it's your personal usage of it, and it's fine, but it's not meant to be a shopping guide. --Cyclopiatalk 10:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the second part of this. And to reflect that it's not meant to be a comparison shopping guide, it should be renamed as a list, in my view. We can present it either as a comparison of smartphones or a list of smartphones and their features. The latter I think more accurately reflects Wikipedia's purpose and is more encyclopedic. --Batard0 (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. Butterflies and moths are notable objects. Smartphones are notable objects too. That you can buy the latter is no grounds to make differences between them. It's a comparison: if you use it as a guide, then it's your personal usage of it, and it's fine, but it's not meant to be a shopping guide. --Cyclopiatalk 10:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be all right to keep the "comparison" heading on those grounds, but I see a fundamental difference between the purpose of this article and articles like Comparison of butterflies and moths. Because smartphones are commercial products, a comparison of them becomes in some ways a guide, which is something Wikipedia is not. It becomes a comparison-shopping tool, in some sense. I grant that there are other similar articles, like a comparison of Android phones, but WP:OSE and these should perhaps be renamed as well. A list is more encyclopedic than a comparison guide when it comes to commercial products, in my view. The naming of the article may be a formality, but I think it should be renamed nonetheless to better reflect the encyclopedia's purpose. --Batard0 (talk) 06:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Comparisons are encyclopedic summaries, and appropriate articles. They're more than lists, because they give a much wider variety of information that can not easily fit into list format. A list would be appropriate as well. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 7 November 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nikollë Bojaxhiu
- Nikollë Bojaxhiu (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)
"Significant coverage" is not present. Notability is not WP:INHERITED. Redtigerxyz Talk 05:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep since the page is linked from the Main page, see Wikipedia:Speedy keep#Applicability point 5. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)No longer relevant. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Speedy keep as per John of Reading - 202.71.129.154 (talk) 06:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed link from article for now as per speedy keep. We can restore it, once the article is no more in DYK. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tag restored as no more on DYK. --Redtigerxyz Talk 08:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nikollë (Nicholas) Bojaxhiu is covered in many sources and obviously the notability of his activities (only Catholic councillor of Skopje, his company constructed the city's first theater etc.) isn't related to his daughter.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tag restored as no more on DYK. --Redtigerxyz Talk 08:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Mother Teresa. Any notability whatsoever is attached to Mother Teresa, as the article citations indicate. This person is not notable enough to warrant their own article. --NINTENDUDE64 02:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A merge into Mother Teresa would unjustly inflate her article. I added some more sources, and others can be added too. A spinoff is already warranted now, but if the article is merged, it will be warranted later, so a keep seems reasonable at this point. Mamurrasforever (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I see that some more has been added, but the content of this article does not demonstrate in any way that Nikollë Bojaxhiu is notable beyond being Mother Teresa's father. I also don't see how merging this with Mother Teresa would unjustly inflate her article since her article isn't all that large in the first place (well below 100K). In addition, it is perfectly standard to mention, at length if warranted, someone's mother or father in their biography. --NINTENDUDE64 21:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is plenty of biographical content about Nikollë, such as being on the city council of a major (now capital) city, founding that city's first theatre and funding a major transport link, that can be reliably sourced but doesn't belong in his daughter's article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case it wouldn't be included there. Just because it's reliable sourced doesn't mean it belongs in a Wikipedia article. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant that there's enough such information to pass the general notability guideline, so justifying an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Merge if/where necessary. I'm just not seeing the notability here. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete not notable Nemambrata (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Historical figure, not a contemporary politician. Adequate sourcing showing in the footnotes, which doesn't even start to touch the Albanian-language periodical press of the day. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Carrite and Phil Bridger. There is enough coverage in RS for him to meet WP:GNG, and most material in the article has no place in the one about Mother Teresa. --Cyclopiatalk 20:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Appears to pass WP:POLITICIAN based on being elected to the Skopje City Council (Skopje being a major city in the Balkans). He also seems to have had a hand, albeit a minor one, in the creation of Independent Albania. The article needs some TLC, but it stands on its own merit apart from Mother Teresa. Faustus37 (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of series run in Weekly Shōnen Jump. SpinningSpark 19:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pajama na Kanojo
- Pajama na Kanojo (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)
This is an article of a manga that has not received adequate coverage in reliable third party sources and does not satisfy WP:BK. 十八 01:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --十八 01:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of series run in Weekly Shōnen Jump. Not enough reliable coverage was found in either Japanese or English. However, since the title is a possible search term, the content can probably be merged to the List of series run in Weekly Shōnen Jump article (which itself needs work). Still, the manga isn't notable enough to warrant a separate article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Redirecting to List of series run in Weekly Shōnen Jump. --雛鳥 (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Search for reliable sources isn't coming up with anything beyond booksale rankings, illegal scanlations, and a couple of blog postings. But that is not enough to pass either WP:NOTE's or WP:BK's criteria for inclusion. —Farix (t | c) 19:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of series run in Weekly Shōnen Jump, without merging any content. The series doesn't seem to have enough coverage to support an article, but since it is listed in that list, I don't see any reason why not to redirect to the list. Calathan (talk) 03:39, 5 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kalappurackal
- Kalappurackal (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)
Unfortunately, this article has been troubled since its beginning (April 2011). This past May, a user started adding content as shown by the history log which was irrelevant and one of them was a copy violation (copy vio was added shortly after a protection's expiration). This is an example of what the user was adding. What troubles me is that the article's subject shifted from a surname to the history of St. Thomas Christians. Google News provided mostly results for people with the surname "Kalappurackal" but Google Books found two relevant results here and here (this second result, although relevant to Catholicism, appears to be a directory). I should also note that Google India provided nothing useful. Honestly, I believe this article could be rewritten by people familiar with the subject, but it would probably be better to move it to another Wikipedia (Tamil, Telugu, etc.). SwisterTwister talk 20:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is about a specific clan, which, in much of South Asia, is pretty much equivalent to a surname, rather than a history of St. Thomas Christians in general, so I don't share the nominator's concerns about the subject shifting. Notability is another matter about which I don't yet have a view. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for non-notability and lack of sources. Looking at the content of the article, its very unlikely that a source exists. --Anbu121 (talk me) 21:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- If the subject is notable in a veracular WP, it should be notable in the English one. My main concern with this is that it is with the lack of adequate sourcing. I find the prospect of there being a reliable genealogy for 1950 years surprising, and this needs much better citation, if necessary from vernacular sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've done a search in the usual places and nothing substantial turns up. I'm not yet confident enough to say delete, though, because of the possibility that there's significant coverage in Hindi or other language sources. It would be helpful if someone knowledgeable about Indian languages could do a search for sources. --Batard0 (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is the equivalent of dumping a piece of granite in a sculpting club and telling everyone that La Pieta is in there, if only they could remove the extra material. Stubs like these created by people who want to document something that is of minimal historical but high personal importance should be left to those people to write, source and improve. No problem with this being an article, assuming that the author is actually interested in turning it into one. §FreeRangeFrog 01:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding your last sentence, it seems, unfortunately, that the author was a single-purpose account and probably won't edit again or anytime soon. The second editor appeared to have intentions towards adding content but appeared to be incompetent as a result of ignoring repeated warnings and blocks. Honestly, with Indian subjects, especially if historical, sources aren't probably easy to come by and probably aren't English or Internet-based. Although moving this article to any of the India language Wikipedias may attract India-based users, foreign Wikipedias especially of the Middle East or India, will hardly maintain tidy and appropriate articles. SwisterTwister talk 02:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No claim is made for notability of this local family. There may be printed version of the family history (Edamanakalathi Kudumba Charithram) available, but that is written by a family member himself as claimed in the article. Salih (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is the Kalappurackal clan a recognized faction of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church of some sort, or is it just a really, really old family name? If the church formally recognizes it in some manner, then I say keep. Faustus37 (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge with political impact of Hurricane Sandy, as this was the consensus on the talk page of that article. Whether that article itself should be deleted or merged is a topic for another discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mitt Romney FEMA and Hurricane Sandy controversy
- Mitt Romney FEMA and Hurricane Sandy controversy (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)
Somebody's going to take this to AfD and it might as well be me. Haven't we already had enough of these articles? If it can be demonstrated that this is actually a noteworthy topic for an encyclopedia, I might change my mind, but right now, I think this is just another unnecessary election article. AutomaticStrikeout 01:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Changed title to [[Political reactions. The Hurricane is clearly a political story also and this creates a article to cover it. It will certainly have an effect on the election. Casprings (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed titled to Political ramifications of Hurricane Sandy. I think this is a tighter title that is currently WP:N and will have an effect on the election. Casprings (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Rather you like it or not, it clearly meets WP:N. Multiple reliable sources are commenting on this.Casprings (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Recentism and POV against a politician running for office, using a 'controversy' about an ongoing disaster. If this was such a big deal it would be all over a cursory search of 'sandy romney' on Google News, but that's not the case. If this is a minor thing then it can be merged into the main hurricane article or its inevitable satellite articles; if it ends up being a HUGE deal then I'm sure no one would object to this being recreated and documented. §FreeRangeFrog 01:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and give Casprings a slap with a WP:TROUT. I am so glad the election is almost over, this kind of crap is really getting old. Just to add, that this had absolutely nothing to do with hurricane Sandy. Romney made the comment months ago, and apparently it was not a controversy then. The only reason it is being put forth is because the election is in a week and it is an attempt to make political points. Arzel (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Look Who's Talking.--В и к и T 15:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - silly, POV, election-related synth. There are "reliable sources" but not ones giving coverage to this subject - they cover a range of disparate subjects tenuously connected by this article alone. Even if there had been a couple of editorials giving credence to the idea as a standalone subject, it would still probably struggle against accusations of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT#NEWS. Trout for Halloween dinner methinks. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - but only if we can somehow work the Seamus the dog angle into it. --Malerooster (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sorry, Casprings, but this article looks like a Synthesis to me. Although, if the story takes off in the press, it is conceivable that I might change my mind.. Cardamon (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's been significant coverage, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. More importantly, it's not clear that this controversy, which does rely on synthesis to a degree, will have any lasting WP:EFFECT. Merge anything verifiable that's not already covered in the campaign and presidential race articles and delete. --Batard0 (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not independently notable. If Mitt Romney was not a presidential candidate we wouldn't be having this discussion. If there's any notability to this at all it can be merged into an appropriate controversy subsection of the main Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 article or other similar page.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Campaign 2012 fooliganism. Carrite (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Delete - Mitt Romney and his campaign is going to receive press coverage and whether Wikipedia has a stand-alone political article on a biography part of his life or campaign should be judge on whether the topic is an appropriate spin out article of any of Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, Political positions of Mitt Romney, Public image of Mitt Romney, Electoral history of Mitt Romney, or Governorship of Mitt Romney. This topic is not an appropriate spin out article of any relevant Wikipedia article and, as such, does not meet WP:GNG. The election is November 6, 2012 and to prevent gaming the Wikipedia system to keep the topic live until November 6, 2012, snow delete now. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: Interesting idea, and it could decide this close election -- like anything, such as the weather in Akron, Ohio on November 5. I wonder, though if it's too crufty, or as Carrite calls it, "fooliganism". Also, as BatardO notes, while it's certainly all over the news, I'm not sure if it's significant, coverage-wise or for any eventual notability. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Do I sound like an undecided voter? Bearian (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There continue to be hundards of sources for this today. A google news search of the last 24 hours of Romney and FEMA gives over 10 pages of results. http://www.google.com/news?ncl=dVTX8PiruNQG2ZM72xbbSzu9ZNt_M&q=FEMA+Romney&lr=English&hl=en Casprings (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So does every single thing that has google hits deserve a stand-alone article? Why not just strip apart the main article and create a stand-alone article for every single paragraph with more than one citation? What is your point of creating flimsy contrived articles? Arzel (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge in Political positions of Mitt Romney. Information is surely notable, but a whole article is overkill when it can be mentioned (along with commentary) in a main article devoted to that. --Cyclopiatalk 20:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Absolutely absurd. Article created by an Obama supporter looking to demean Romney. Thismightbezach (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Information is covered in Political positions of Mitt Romney. Do not need to keep as redirect it is an unlikely search term. Dough4872 23:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or Speedy Delete Allegations that Romney's well-established positions on FEMA and State responsibilities are a "controversy" worthy of an article is pure opinion, cannot be anything other than an attack article. Take the editor-supplied "controversy" out of the title, and it is clear that there is no Article. Creation of this Article may violate General Sanctions.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 02:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Why do we seem to see a new article every time a candidate does or does not do or seem to do (or say) something? Per Automatic Strikeout, Carrite, Arzel, etc. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Seriously, what the fuck? Every nutty or semi-nutty thing a politician says nowadays is now memorialized in article form? WP:RECENTISM and the traditional "not news" thing. At least common sense is ruling the day here for a change, unlike the "binders of women" discussion. Delete this and ban the creator from political articles til the new year, please. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Dough4872.--В и к и T 15:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Potentially merge about 1 sentence into the article about the current election. This is at most a footnote. Not remotely worthy of an actual article. --Onorem♠Dil 16:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:RECENTISM & WP:SYNTH.--JayJasper (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everybody, Wikipedia is not an election blog. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Keep for now maybe merge later based on referances and information based on outcome in election. --216.81.81.84 (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article does not specifically violate any Wikipedia policy. JayJasper's claims are wrong - NOTNEWS does not mean Wikipedia has to be out of date, RECENTISM does not apply to this specific story which simply is recent overall, and SYNTH is absurd since the story is based on the news articles. However, there is no obvious reason why we can't Merge per Cyclopia, simply because multiple notable aspects of a topic don't have to be in separate articles if one can cover them all. It may be that the long article on Romney's political positions should be divided into sub-articles, but perhaps by some broader line of cleavage, e.g. taxing priorities and spending priorities, international issues and domestic issues. That said, this topic could continue to mushroom over the next week, or if it turns out to kill Romney's campaign, perhaps years. So this merge should be without prejudice to the later revisiting of the topic if things change. Also, though, I hate the title, as I hate any title with "controversy" in the name. Wnt (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Possibly it would make sense to re-title and refocus to something like Political reactions to Hurricane Sandy. That would allow it to include things like the recent endorsement of Obama by Mayor Bloomberg of New York. Cardamon (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I like that. The political reaction to it is essential and looks to play an important role in the election. Casprings (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No it isn't. Is there any doubt that Sandy is a also a political story with WP:N?
*Weak keep, but definitely rename Unlike a one-liner from a debate (cough, cough, binders full of women), the political ramifications of a major event certainly warrants enough lasting coverage for an article, especially considering it occurred less than a week before what's likely to be the closest presidential election in more than a decade. Generally, I'm against these types of articles, but in this case, I am going to make an exception. I do agree, however, that renaming it to something more neutral such as Political ramifications of Hurricane Sandy or something similar would be an order per WP:NPOV. With the new title, however, I think the article should be broadened to include everything that arises from this storm politically...for Obama, Christie, Romney, Bloomberg, whomever. So I guess my !vote is more of a merge to an article that doesn't yet exist than a keep. Go Phightins! 02:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC) see below[reply]
- Comment Casprings decided to rename the article in the middle of the AfD (which I think is a very unwise decision), obviously in order to maintain the article. As such I have removed all of the stuff unrelated to the new article name along with a ton of stuff that is obvious original research and synthesis of material. I would say there is even less of a reason for the new article. Arzel (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Hurricane Sandy. 'Political ramifications of X' is a legitimate topic, but here there's no need for a separate article; it can be added as a new section to the main article. It's arguably not a notable subject in its own right. Robofish (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- HOLD IT, this is a different article! As retitled, Political ramifications of Hurricane Sandy is an article well worth keeping. It covers at least four different topics - the FEMA funding levels that were the topic of the AfD'd article, the effect on the campaign tours (currently only one rally by Romney is mentioned, but both candidates canceled stops and considerably altered their strategies in the final two weeks), the comments by Michael Brown (the former FEMA head who apparently landed on his feet as a radio troll), and the effects on voter turnout - which I haven't added yet, but which are actually quite crucial, as they are probably going to decide the election. I was actually considering starting a new article with a broader focus but didn't get around to it, but this one has been edited to do the job. Please do not apply votes based on the too-narrow focus/proposed merge of the first article to this new one. Wnt (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even with the rename, I still think it's just a footnote for the election article. --Onorem♠Dil 17:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Congratulations! Article just made worse Added to the breathless declarations that (mis-stated by editors) clear pre-existing positions are now a "controversy", we now have prose as to what "probably" WILL happen. More problematic than before, ramifications are always added as HISTORY, not as WP:CRYSTAL/prediction. The only swing state affected by Sandy is PA, and what that effect will be is UNKNOWN.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole thing is still POV WP:SYNTH. That quote says nothing about FEMA, in fact he specifically avoided (evaded, perhaps) any mention of FEMA in particular. The article provided as a reference for the FEMA cuts claim is an editorial where the author highlights Paul Ryan's budget plans and suggests Romney's silence on FEMA means he would cut the FEMA budget. It's purely speculative and the title even suggests as much. Putting that article, that claim and that quote together is pure WP:SYNTH. Plain and simple. Romney's relief rally was a response, not a ramification, regardless of political intent. The "impact" or ramification would be that it had to be changed from a political rally. But this isn't made clear - just another effort to "balance" the article with other "examples" so the POV FEMA synth has a coatrack to hang on. And before anyone jumps to any conclusions... I'm Australian and I don't really care about your election. But this article (under any title) is rubbish and original authors know it I think. Stalwart111 (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Congratulations! Article just made worse Added to the breathless declarations that (mis-stated by editors) clear pre-existing positions are now a "controversy", we now have prose as to what "probably" WILL happen. More problematic than before, ramifications are always added as HISTORY, not as WP:CRYSTAL/prediction. The only swing state affected by Sandy is PA, and what that effect will be is UNKNOWN.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even with the rename, I still think it's just a footnote for the election article. --Onorem♠Dil 17:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: I do not support changing the name and broadening the topic of the article mid-AfD...I support this as the outcome of the AfD. Go Phightins! 20:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
- keep per the above - the article all those "delete"s applied to no longer exists. Political implications of Sandy is, at least potentially, a perfectly sensible article and clearly notable William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per users above. United States Man (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Purely OR synthesized crap; all of a sudden we decide that an editorial is a significant topic for an article? Not our decision. -Fjozk (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We now have Political impact of Hurricane Sandy, a split from the main article about the hurricane. This article should be deleted as being redundant to that. Dough4872 05:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, in light of about the 15th major change since this AfD began, I would now !vote to merge any substantive content to Political impact of Hurricane Sandy because its a better main title than what we have here and it's less POV crap-filled and I suppose redirect this title there. Go Phightins! 05:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have actually just put merge tags on both articles, Political impact of Hurricane Sandy to be merged to Political ramifications of Hurricane Sandy but you are welcome to reverse the pointers. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Great! A clear POV fork in order to push the GW angle. Seriously, when will people stop using WP to push political agendas? Arzel (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what you mean by "GW angle". And it is hard for me to believe that those deleting information from the article are not motivated by political agendas. Remember, our purpose here is supposed to be to build an encyclopedia, which is generally done by actually covering all the sources! Wnt (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Wnt, but the original version was total rubbish. Nothing about the content was a matter of "covering all the sources" - it was a patchwork quilt of synthed-together ideas from a range of sources, some of which did not include those ideas at all. Like coverage of Paul Ryan's budget plan being used as a "reference" for the in-article claim Romney is (without question) going to cut the FEMA budget, synthed with a quote which it was claimed backed the assertion about FEMA cuts in which Romney didn't mention FEMA at all! In an effort to come even close to "covering all the sources" (without WP:UNDUE weight) the article in question has now had to be watered down to such an extent that it brings together three small (disparate) ideas which are covered in their own respective articles. We now have Political impact of Hurricane Sandy which is slightly better. At least most of the ridiculous POV synth hasn't popped up in that one. Despite assertions above, the two are not the same. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- MERGE with Political impact of Hurricane Sandy or better yet merge both back into Hurricane Sandy because Political impact of Hurricane Sandy was split out with hardly any time for discussion on the talk page assuming you were lucky enough to spot the discussion since there was no proposal tag. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Political impact of Hurricane Sandy. There's no need for two articles that essentially cover the same thing. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:07, 6 November 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. Wifione Message 04:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Web Pro Manager
- Web Pro Manager (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 multi-blog publishing system. — ṞṈ™ 00:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Every reference I could find seems to have been generated by the people who created it. Another non-notable PHP CMS §FreeRangeFrog 01:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - First 100 Google hits reveal nothing more consequential than a directory listing [Here]. Another common case of SW companies that are good at creating 'hits' in a web search through paid and directory listings, but not a bit of reliable coverage in RS. If it's out there, it's deeper than I looked. Celtechm (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Promotional article for a product that hasn't been covered by secondary sources. Subject does not meet the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 15:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability of this software; created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 14:21, 5 November 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.