< 30 August | 1 September > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2013 Persib Bandung season
- 2013 Persib Bandung season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability. Team doesn't seem to be fully professional, and there is indication that the 2013 season is notable in and of itself (under WP:NSEASONS). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Team is fully professional as plays in a league recognised as such here. As a team playing in a "top professional league" it passes the requirements of NSEASONS. In addition, the article, about an ongoing season contains sourced prose from sources other than the club or leagues official website, so assume by the end of the season any wider GNG requirement will be fulfilled, it certainly appears that there is already a degree of additional coverage to date. Presumably this has been nominated in error? Fenix down (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Fenix down. Appears to meet WP:NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 12:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Per above, clearly meets Subject Specific Guidelines. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 14:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw - Seems I misunderstood NSEASONS (and thanks for the list of fully-professional teams). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abdul Ghafoor Hazarvi
- Abdul Ghafoor Hazarvi (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)
Doubtful notability, Google returns around 80 hits on his name (mostly links to a single YouTube video), none from notable sources except for one cursory mention of his grave location in a Pakistani national newspaper [1]. Google Books returns a few hits on his name mentioned very cursorily in a single historical book. The Wikipedia article, unsourced and full of peacock terms, has been written by a single-purpose account Sobanhazarwi (talk · contribs · count) (note the surname!) alternating with an IP editor (most likely one and the same person) who doesn't seem to care about facts or verifiability. kashmiri TALK 22:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Aside from the described editing problems, if the Sitara-i-Imtiaz award can be evidenced, that is probably sufficient for biographical notability? AllyD (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsure per WP:ANYBIO; but even then, English- and Urdu-language search does not return any hits ("Sitara"+"Imtiaz"+"Ghafoor+Hazarvi", "ستاره امتياز"+"عبدالغفور هزاروی"). Most likely a bogus claim. kashmiri TALK 08:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete- the article claims he founded Pasban Khatme Nabuwwat but doesn't provide any evidence. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Pasban Khatme Nabuwwat" also fails WP:N in my opinion, although no doubt an organisation by this name exists. Google returns just 42 hits for Pasban Khatme Nabuwwat and 19 for Pasban Khatm e Nabuwwat, none of them from a WP:RS. I will tag that article as well. kashmiri TALK 09:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think if you think that organization fails notability, you ought to nominate it for deletion as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Pasban Khatme Nabuwwat" also fails WP:N in my opinion, although no doubt an organisation by this name exists. Google returns just 42 hits for Pasban Khatme Nabuwwat and 19 for Pasban Khatm e Nabuwwat, none of them from a WP:RS. I will tag that article as well. kashmiri TALK 09:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He is notable as founder and first president of Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan, a political party still an active part of a major parliamentary coalition 43 years after his death. By the way, we don't count Google hits when establishing notability, especially with regards to a person likely to have been covered in Urdu sources published many decades ago. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a god awful article in need of tons of work, but the founder of JUP - still a major player in Pakistan's legislature - seems to pass WP:POLITICIAN. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Switch to delete after coming back here and reading comments from Zora and the Banner. Another reason is that there doesn't seem to be a corresponding article on Urdu Wikipedia; one would imagine that if the claims were substantiated, there would be one. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not backed up by sources in the article. That is essential as an editor&IP with a COI (possibly even a family relation looking at the name) was filing the article with puffery and unsubstantiated info. The Banner talk 14:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If he had been a founder of a notable Pakistani political party, there should be sources proving this. Sans sources, his status as founder is mere assertion on the part of a possible descendant. Perhaps "founder" in family lore means that he made tea for party gatherings :) It is, of course, possible that the assertion is correct. If someone can find proof in moldering Urdu newspapers, and publish an article in a reputable venue establishing his party role, the article can be heavily rewritten and restored. Zora (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If his role was only to make tea, Zora do you really think that he would be mentioned 16 times in the definitive English language history of that political party? That's strong tea. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hmmm. I was basing my comments on the info that was available here, without searching in Google books. I checked the book that you mention. The two snippets that Google allow me to see of THAT book convince me that he was among the notables of the party. He is described as the leader of a faction within the party. Another book, on Sunni-Shi'a conflict in Pakistan, described him as a leader of the JUP. OK, leader. Out of how many? I'm not sure that he could be described as a "founder". I still lean towards DELETE, but if the article is kept, I would want it stripped of anti-India and anti-Hindu bias, of puffery, and of overstated claims for his importance. Does WP have other articles on politicians connected with this party? If he is kept, perhaps an effort could be made to add other articles, to give a more balanced picture. Zora (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep per very longstanding consensus that high schools are almost always notable; and in this case, there are sources available that prove notability. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saxony Lutheran High School
- Saxony Lutheran High 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)
A completely average high school that apparently does not meet the notability requirements for organizations. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a high school. No reason to think that sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. (I'll clean it up tomorrow, its too early in the morning here!). The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can find sources showing notability, I'll withdraw the nomination. But "Keep because it's a high school" and "Keep because it's important to people" are not meaningful arguments. From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is.... "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES may be useful for the nominator. danno_uk 02:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. Please read the section of that page titled Citing this page in AfD.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Sighing' is not a policy. Outcomes is indeed neither a policy nor a guideline but it simply documents various common outcomes. In this case , they are more than just 'common' as hundreds, perhaps the vast majority, of AfD closures of school articles will demonstrate. That sustains a precedent that countless RfC have been unable to chance. If you wopuld like that precedent changed, please do it through the appropriate channels and not through the backdoor of AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I am going to cite the longstanding consensus and precedent at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." Google news search (above) may only link to a regional newspaper, but that's enough. Ansh666 22:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - according to a fairly consistent and substantive consensus, high schools meet our notability requirements. That's a bit silly sometimes but consensus is what consensus is. Of course consensus can change, but I don't think it has. Nominating high school articles for deletion has long been a fairly pointless exercise as a result. I'd suggest trying to change that consensus before trying to hack away at it on a case-by-case basis. Stalwart111 03:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a secondary school, for reasons endlessly reiterated. We have clear consensus on this subject, no matter what the small minority of editors who disagree would like to believe or claim. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I am also going to cite the longstanding consensus-through-precedent documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 video game emulators. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Corn (emulator)
- Corn (emulator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a minor program without anything to assert notability. TTN (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it's notable. Just because it's not used right now after its development has ended, does it not negate the fact that Corn at its time was groundbreaking – similar to UltraHLE. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability on Wikipedia means that the subject had received multiple pieces of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources (Please see WP:IRS for info on reliable sources). Assuming that this emulator is groundbreaking it should be quite easy to find sources covering it. While It's true that the fact this is no longer in use would not make the subject non-notable the fact that no one else is suggesting that as a reason for deletion makes that moot point. All that being said I think a redirect is a good idea though if reliable sources can be found I have no objection to retaining the article.--64.229.165.126 (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it's notable. Just because it's not used right now after its development has ended, does it not negate the fact that Corn at its time was groundbreaking – similar to UltraHLE. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—This may well have been a significant step forward in emulation software, but unless there are some reliable sources documenting that the article should be deleted. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to list of video game emulators. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- References added proving Corn’s notability. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how any of those could be considered reliable sources. It's just a bunch of emulation sites detailing minor updates and confirming that it exists. It needs information relating to its cultural impact, reception information, and the like. Those don't accomplish that at all. TTN (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All these confirm that Corn's emulation speed was groundbreaking at the time. I even added the quotes to the references. And yes, websites of emulation experts are reliable. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd hardly call them "emulation experts", nor would I think those could be called reliable sources under normal circumstances. They're hobby websites with a focus on providing updates and downloads for emulation related programs. It's no different than a toy collector website detailing various toys or a stamp collector website listing every stamp. Those would not be reliable sources for creating articles on every single action figure or stamp that has ever existed. TTN (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Zophar’s Domain and AEP exist since the 1990s. Few websites exist such a long time. ZD is considered important enough that it has its own article.
- If you are unhappy with the sparse amount of emulation-covering websites surviving 14 years, feel free to dig through your collection of old PC gaming print magazines from that time. I remember that in the wake of bleem several mainstream PC gaming magazines covered console emulators.
- 64.229.165.126 asked for sources proving that Corn was groundbreaking at its time and I provided several independent references backing up those previously unsourced claims. The article deals with Corn’s unprecedented emulation performance and the techniques it uses. Therefore it contains more information than just a table converted into prose form.
- Could the sources be better? Yes. Are the sources so untrustworthy and the article so bad (primary sources with blatant advertising,…) to justify its deletion? No. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make them reliable sources. I'm sure there are plenty of hobby websites that have been around even longer. There may be some sort of context where they can be utilized (unlikely), but this is not one of them. All they do is catalog everything related to emulation and provide updates on them. Again, that is no different than sites collecting information on stamps, action figures, or vehicle unique mufflers. Simply having them list the topic does not mean they can be used to establish its notability, else every other hobby site could be used to do the same with everything they catalog. Emulation itself is a notable topic, and maybe a few sentences about this one could be placed into a section discussing N64 emulation. That does not mean this topic needs more than that without reliable sources to establish it as a viable topic. TTN (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, they are reliable sources. As per WP:IRS at least AEP and ZD are run by an editorial staff, not a single person, therefore do not count as self-published sources, they are third-party publications, and they don’t “have a poor reputation for checking the facts”.
- The notability as groundbreaking N64 emulator has been successfully established and independently verified by three entirely different sources. No flawed analogy to stamp collectors changes that (even though there are many articles about individual stamps on WP).
- If you can’t read the verdict by an AEP editor because it is written in German, then I’m sorry. The Cite News template does not have a parameter for a translated quote. I’ll be happy to provide an English translation once the translated_quote parameter has been added. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make them reliable sources. I'm sure there are plenty of hobby websites that have been around even longer. There may be some sort of context where they can be utilized (unlikely), but this is not one of them. All they do is catalog everything related to emulation and provide updates on them. Again, that is no different than sites collecting information on stamps, action figures, or vehicle unique mufflers. Simply having them list the topic does not mean they can be used to establish its notability, else every other hobby site could be used to do the same with everything they catalog. Emulation itself is a notable topic, and maybe a few sentences about this one could be placed into a section discussing N64 emulation. That does not mean this topic needs more than that without reliable sources to establish it as a viable topic. TTN (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd hardly call them "emulation experts", nor would I think those could be called reliable sources under normal circumstances. They're hobby websites with a focus on providing updates and downloads for emulation related programs. It's no different than a toy collector website detailing various toys or a stamp collector website listing every stamp. Those would not be reliable sources for creating articles on every single action figure or stamp that has ever existed. TTN (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All these confirm that Corn's emulation speed was groundbreaking at the time. I even added the quotes to the references. And yes, websites of emulation experts are reliable. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not doing to disagree with you that AEP may, in some circumstances, be a reliable source. However, neither AEP link on this topic is substantial enough to warrant consideration. Do you know of any articles on Corn? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bombadil Publishing
- Bombadil Publishing (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)
[was at 'MfD' my error]
wrong venue- this is an article talk page with an article, so should be using WP:AFD instead if you want to scrap the article. I would be inclined to want to keep the article if it actually published 50000 authors. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed. (Apologies, @Graeme Bartlett:). The blurb reads like a vanity publisher, which would explain the high numbers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for fixing that, that removes an objection, now it will have to be checked for real notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. (Apologies, @Graeme Bartlett:). The blurb reads like a vanity publisher, which would explain the high numbers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to delete right now.It doesn't help that the article and the company's website are both written in PR-speak promotional blather so laden with buzzwords that I can't figure out what they actually do. They claim thousands of authors but a GBooks search yields just a small number of books of no apparent notability. GNews does turn up some articles in various languages, but those I've looked at seem to be press releases or not particularly informative. My review of articles in some of these languages is limited to whatever Google Translate reveals. If someone finds something more substantive, I'll certainly reconsider. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. There is a thicket of press releases, but I was able to find enough independent news coverage in various countries (including a couple of items already listed under References, although two have vanished unarchived) to recast the article and I believe to demonstrate that the company meets the general notability guideline. It helps that they got into a legal wrangle with a government ministry in El Salvador. There is presumably coverage out there about their financial problems in Sweden, too. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I'm inclined to keep the article, since they after all published a number of books while in existence. However, it needs to be rewritten to reflect that it is a defunct publisher, and all marketingspeak must be removed. Tomas e (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 23:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - no brainer. Obvious keep per WP:GNG, sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed my "leaning to delete" !vote above, given the major improvements of the sourcing and text of this article by Yngvadottir. I continue to have doubts about some of the claims made about the company, given the difficulty of actually locating very many of the the tens of thousands of books they apparently claim to have published (my searches at GBooks and Amazon.co.uk turn up very few), but at this point I imagine that can be addressed through appropriate editing. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Citrus Crossing
- Citrus Crossing (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)
Disputer PROD. Reason was "This article, short as it is, meanders. Citrus crossing now appears to be a shopping mall where students live, with a theatre surrounded by other stuff. Non notable, and confused, with no references" Fiddle Faddle 21:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It no longer meanders, but it remains non notable and unreferenced. Fiddle Faddle 21:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it's just a local shopping area with nothing to make it notable. Eeekster (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not appear to meet WP:GNG guidelines. The article is unsourced (in fairness, it was PRODded only 10 minutes after its creation, and AfDed after less than an hour, so the author has hardly had time to find references). In a search of Google News I found trivial references but not enough to sustain an article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
XM-X Crossbone Gundam
- XM-X Crossbone Gundam (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 entirely in-universe, and it has nothing to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Asserts no notability and belongs on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTPLOT - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3 (hoax), G5 (long-term abuse). --Kinu t/c 23:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chaos(Musician)
- Chaos(Musician) (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)
Procedural. CSD (hoax) repeatedly removed by IP. I take no position on the validity of the CSD tag. GregJackP Boomer! 21:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was snow keep all. Discussion of problems with individual entries can continue, if necessary, on talk pages of the relevant list, but there is clear consensus that deletion of all the lists is not the answer here. BencherliteTalk 21:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of rampage killers
- List of rampage killers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of rampage killers (Africa and the Middle East) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of rampage killers (Americas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of rampage killers (Asia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of rampage killers (Europe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of rampage killers (Oceania) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of rampage killers (workplace killings) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of rampage killers (school massacres) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)– (View AfD · Stats)
When I started a discussion about these lists of "rampage killers" on Jimbo's talk page, several (if not all) of the lists contained entries for "rampage killers" who had not actually killed anyone. In some cases these were living people, in other cases the non-killing killers were already dead. The lists also contain entries for people who had been arrested for the crimes, but not found guilty. Both of these are obvious and direct violations of our policy on biographies of living people. In almost every entry in these lists, the perpetrators of these killings are not notable outside of these events.
Note that WP currently has no article called Rampage killer. These lists are the product of years of original research by a small number of editors. The main editor of these lists, User:Lord Gøn, has serious ownership issues. Their comments make it clear that they do not understand our policies about living people.
WP is not "the sum of human knowledge". There is much that is excluded by our notability guideline and our policies about living people. I nominate these lists for deletion on the basis of editorial discretion. WP does not need these lists. So long as they exist, they are magnets for policy violations and other issues. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic seems notable per WP:LISTN as there are numerous sources about it such as the International Handbook of Violence Research; Rampage: Canadian Mass Murder and Spree Killing; The Myth of Martyrdom: What Really Drives Suicide Bombers, Rampage Shooters, and Other Self-Destructive Killers and many more. We even have two entries from these lists on our main page currently — Nidal Malik Hasan and Robert Bales. Jack the Ripper is also on the main page though I suppose he's a serial killer, rather than a rampager. We have several lists of serial killers such as List of serial killers by country and we have numerous other lists of criminals. BLP is not a reason to delete the whole of these lists because many entries are historical and/or the killers were killed, executed or committed suicide. Problems with particular entries are a reason to edit those entries not to delete the whole thing indicriminately. That's our editing policy. Warden (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with lists of people like this is that someone always pulls out that some platitude like "Problems with particular entries are a reason to edit those entries not to delete the whole thing" as if fixing the current problems will have any impact on the damage already done to people's reputations and Google results. Fixing the existing issues will not prevent them from recurring. It does not address the reasons why the lists ended up with entries that violated BLP or make sure that the editors responsible will not repeat the same errors. Everything you say in defence of this article could be applied to List of gay bathhouse regulars. Occasionally we have to make editorial decisions to lose some things for the betterment of the project. This is one of those occasions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a pretty plainly notable and encyclopaedic topic for lists in my book. (We may not have an article entitled rampage killer, but we do have spree killer, going postal, running amok, active shooter, and more.) Sure, there are potential BLP problems with these lists, but that could be said of many other lists and articles related to criminal acts; I don't think these ones are especially problematic. Indeed, in most cases rampage killings are so notorious that adequate reliable sources should be available. The fact that they may be difficult to maintain is not in itself a reason for deletion.
- My biggest worry about these 'all-time top killers' lists, personally speaking, is that they might somehow encourage certain readers to try to top the list themselves... but that's probably a pretty low risk. In any case, the information would still exist out there, whether or not we had an article on it, so we'd hardly be protecting anyone by taking it down. Robofish (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Topic is notable, and the fact that it has problems is not a reason to delete. If we deleted every article that has problems we would end up with just 42 articles on wikipedia.Martin451 (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, noteworthy and encyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the term "rampage killer" seems well enough established, and most such incidents do gain significant numbers of reliable sources. If the articles have problems, go edit them, that's not a valid deletion rationale. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well-established where? Not at Rampage killer. There is this unsourced mention in Spree killer: "Another term, rampage killer, has sometimes been used to describe spree killers, but it does not differentiate between mass murderers and spree killers". That hardly seems well-established to me. It seems more like original research and synthesis. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- [2], [3], and [4] show up with just a very cursory search. We don't have to have an article on a term in order to use it. It's clear reliable sources do use this term. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well-established where? Not at Rampage killer. There is this unsourced mention in Spree killer: "Another term, rampage killer, has sometimes been used to describe spree killers, but it does not differentiate between mass murderers and spree killers". That hardly seems well-established to me. It seems more like original research and synthesis. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. WP:POINTy, borderline bad-faith nomination. "Editorial discretion" is nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The list concept is clearly notable, and AFD is not a replacement for cleanup, content you personally don't like or to strike back at other editors. Resolute 02:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but with reservations. While it's true we don't have an article "rampage killer", we have other articles for terms that are at least arguably synonyms. At any rate, that just means the article should be renamed, not deleted.
- I also don't buy the argument that we shouldn't have people who aren't convicted. This isn't "list of rampage murderers", but "list of rampage killers". If a court finds that someone did indeed kill but they are not legally liable, they should appear in a list of killers. And since the court itself has decided that they killed but that they did not commit a crime, we can likewise call them a killer without implying that they committed a crime.
- I do agree that the articles need to be purged of people who have no victims. That doesn't mean deletion, however. Ken Arromdee (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By "not convicted" I did not mean found responsible with mitigating circumstances, I meant that there was no indication that there had been anything other than an arrest. That is a clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME and I expect that it will happen as long as these lists exist. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Point of information: the tables were all purged of people who have no victims before this AFD was filed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose you have absolutely no knowledge of the subject, nor did you read any of the given sources in the list, otherwise you would not say that "there was no indication that there had been anything other than an arrest". Let's take a famous example, one that is comparable to pretty much all the other cases where the perpetrators have been arrested, Anders Behring Breivik, who has been caught at the crime scene with a gun in hand, readily admitted to the bombing and shooting, sent a 1500 page manifesto around the world, even has been filmed by a helicopter shooting those kids on the island, so to say there was "no indication" for anything but an arrest defies any common sense. To not name him as the perpetrator, convicted or not, would be an insult to any reasonably thinking person, and the edit wars that were going on after the arrests of both Jared Lee Loughner and James Eagan Holmes, where the circumstances were similar, prove that a lot of people are thinking the same way. Rampage killings are almost never an instance of "Who Dunnit?", and if there are reliable sources reporting a rampage killing, blatantly stating "and that's the guy who did it" then we on Wikipedia are obliged to belive that. We can't just twist it around and say he's the "alleged" perpetrator when that is not covered by the sources.
- By "not convicted" I did not mean found responsible with mitigating circumstances, I meant that there was no indication that there had been anything other than an arrest. That is a clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME and I expect that it will happen as long as these lists exist. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But anyway, even if we disagree on naming the "suspects", what you cannot deny is that in case a rampage killing is reported, it should be included in the list. So there is certainly no question of deleting entire cases, which has been done in a rash of action against supposedly gross violation of BLP, but merely of deleting the perpetrators' names. But going by your suggestion there would be a great amount of cases where we claim the perpetrator is unknown, while all the world around us is discussing not who did it, but why he did it. Any person not familiar with Wikipedia policies would be left dumbfounded by the absence of the perpetrators name, even years, maybe decades after the crime, if he is found unfit to stand trial, and then question our sanity and the reliability of Wikipedia in general.
- Finally, I find it to be quite a disregard of Wikipedia's community to complain at Jimbo's talk-page when you find something you don't like, or disagree with, without even leaving a note at the talk page of the relevant article, or its editors. I am always trying to explain why I do things the way I do, and I am open for any discussion and helpful suggestions, so it is an insinuation to claim I have ownership issues and don't understand BLP. I do understnd it very well, and more than once have I seen people misinterpreting it, turning the intention behind it into an outright absurdity, or clearly violating its spirit, so it may suit their cause, and as I see it this is one such instance. That said, your behaviour is beyond me. Hell, I don't even know what it is supposd to achieve to run to Jimbo, since everything here is based on consensus and not the opinion of its founder. You say there are many articles here on Wikipedia that "glorify" serial and mass killers, so why do you not address any NPOV issues by actually editing those articles, or simply adding a POV-template, instead of wasting your time with complaining to Jimmy Wales who rarely seems to answer. But then, by what you say it is apparent that you don't like to have any articles on the subject at all, probably because you find them to be offensive, asking for "editorial discretion" and all. As you said: "my issue is with the lists themselves" and "I think we can live without these lists." So, if we can live without these lists, then why are there dozens of books and hundreds of scientific articles on the subject? Why are newspapers frequently printing their own lists of rampage killers of the past? Why did this list have over 250,000 page views in the month after the Sandy Hook shooting? To me it looks like you are on a crusade, because you have found something you don't like. A five minute google search would've been enough to prove that the subject is notable, nonetheless, you preferred to start an AFD. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- Yep, User:Delicious carbuncle, of all the things Lord Gøn has said, "I find it to be quite a disregard of Wikipedia's community to complain at Jimbo's talk-page when you find something you don't like, or disagree with, without even leaving a note at the talk page of the relevant article, or its editors" is by far the most important. Why you felt a compulsion to go running to Jimbo to discuss a purely editorial issue is beyond me. I guess we'll all need to be wary of your modus operandi in future, no clues, just snitches to Jimbo, followed by pointy AFDs, despite your "issues" being resolved beforehand. Also, in the nomination, Delicious carbuncle claims "serious ownership issues" from Lord Gon. I completely refute that accusation as I've made many serious edits to all these pages and Lord Gøn and I have had a reasonably amiable discussion on my talkpage about why. There's been no indication of ownership, just genuine discussion. Not sure what Delicious carbuncle's beef is here. But it sure smells odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lord Gøn, you still don't seem t grasp that adding people to those lists as killers, if they only been arrested but not yet found responsible, is a direct violation WP:BLP. Do you not understand this? This is precisely why I am asking for these lists to be deleted. They will attract these kinds of BLP violations. As for my thread on Jimbo's talk page, I don't see what you have to complain about, since I started this deletion discussion, as suggested there. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A plainly ridiculous perspective. Of course all entries should be referenced, but any article can become subject to BLP. At any time. If you see BLP violations in any article you should act directly to solve it, not go running to Jimbo to complain, and then spend hours waiting to create an AFD to whinge about it. Keep on digging. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Although you don't agree with deleting these lists, I am sure that as an experienced admin you agree that people who have been arrested but not yet tried should not be on these lists. Is that correct? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists should have clear inclusion criteria and be fully referenced. If you have found entries that are not referenced, tag them or if they are BLP violations, remove them. No need to destroy dozens of reasonably referenced entries just because you object to a couple. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You know that isn't what I asked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you wish to continue to assume bad faith, don't expect too much sympathy when this is held up as a demonstration of how not to make a point. If you feel there are violations of BLP (and for the fourth/fifth (?) time of asking), do something about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You know that isn't what I asked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists should have clear inclusion criteria and be fully referenced. If you have found entries that are not referenced, tag them or if they are BLP violations, remove them. No need to destroy dozens of reasonably referenced entries just because you object to a couple. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Although you don't agree with deleting these lists, I am sure that as an experienced admin you agree that people who have been arrested but not yet tried should not be on these lists. Is that correct? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are asking to delete a perfectly valid article whose subject is beyond doubt notable, just because you are of the opinion that it violates BLP in some parts. How that is supposed to be a reasonable response I don't know. Also, I have made my case why I think the BLP violations are unfounded, or at least dubious. A reiteration that we have here an obvious and direct violation of BLP is not doing a lot to clarify the situation. Not for me, at least. You didn't even bother to participate much in the discussion over at Talk:List of rampage killers (Americas) that somebody else has started in response to your complaints at Jimbo's talk-page. A simple referral to a Wikipedia policy is not really explaining how you come to your conclusions. And if you don't understand all by yourself that running straight to daddy Jimbo without informing the editors involved, or at least leaving a note at the article's talk page that there may be a problem, comes across as somewhat alienating and insensitive, then any further words on that matter would be a waste of bytes. Or what would you think, if you'd create an article, putting a lot of work and time into it, and then someone else starts scheming behind your back to get it deleted? Ain't that rude? I say it is. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- Well, no, I am not saying that the general subject of mass murderers is not notable. What I am saying is that WP does not need to have lists of mass-murderers which can be sorted by number of victims. Just like we chose not to have List of gay bathhouse regulars, we can choose not to have these lists, and for the same reason - they will attract BLP violations. Regarding your failure to understand our BLP policy, I'm not sure how the policy could be any clearer on this point - have you read it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- IAR, have you read it? All policies are subject to common sense. Every single one.
- Refusing to list someone in the list because he was incompetent to stand trial, and therefore no conviction happened, even though he was caught red-handed killing people in a very public and directly obvious manner, defies common sense. Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ken, I guess you missed my clarification above. That is not the situation under discussion (although that one does occur). Individuals were listed who had been reported as arrested, but about whom there no further reports. We do not know if those individuals were found to have committed the crimes or completely exonerated. Do you understand now? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A List of gay bathhouse regulars would obviously fail WP:N, so we choose not to have a list like that for notability reasons, not because of BLP concerns. Would the subject be considered notable by the world outside of Wikipedia, including scientific studies and all that, we could not reject the creation of a list like that. Of course every entry would have to be sourced, but reliably sourced additions could not be removed, neither because of WP:SHIT, nor WP:BLP.
- Yes, the list of rampage killers does include cases where it is not known if the perpetrators were convicted, but it is unreasonable to expect that we will be informed about every conviction about every rampage killer. China, e.g. has a tendency to sentence and execute such people in absolute secrecy, so we will always have a lot of cases of rampage killings where we will never know what happened to the culprit. Your argument about not knowing if those individuals were convicted works both ways btw, because you could as well say, we do not know that they were acquitted either. Sure, you are not guilty before the law, unless convicted by a court, but that doesn't mean we must not add any information about a possible crime in a biography until a conviction is secured. If we'd do that a lot of relevant information could never be presented. Take Raymond Allen Davis e.g., the guy killed two people, but he was protected by diplomatic immunity and therefore could not be prosecuted. By your reasoning we could never say that he shot those men, even though there's a wealth of sources that proves just that. No, what we have to do is stick to the sources, and if they report that somebody has killed someone, we can not assume that it may not have been so, because that would violate WP:OR.
- About "not needing" the list: So you think that the New York Times, Mother Jones, and many other newspapers are catering to nobody with their tables? You think that Grant Duwe has wasted his time creating his own list for the scientific study of mass murders? You want to say that the Encyclopedia of mass murder was published with the expectation that no one's gonna be interested? That those 45,000 people visiting the page the day after the Sandy Hook shooting have come to the list of rampage killers, because they've clicked the wrong link?
- I tell you, the world was in severe need of this list, because before it existed a lot of misconceptions were floating around in the media and the relevant literature, that such incidents are only an occurrence of the recent past and that they happen only in western countries with a focus in the United States. This list has proven once and for all that these claims were unfounded. Furthermore, there is no better starting point on the entire internet, or anywhere else, for someone who wants to cunduct a study on rampage killers, because here he can find them listed all in one place, neatly categorized and with a lot of information and sources. Of course scientists are uneasy about using Wikipedia as a source, but the fact that Psychology Today has one crappy article that is completely based on this list, and Flaskerud cites it in "Case studies in amok?" proves that it is read also by those dealing with the subject on a professional basis. At least once Wikipedia is at the forefront of providing scientists with information, and you want to have it removed, because you think "it's not needed". (Lord Gøn (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- Lord Gøn, I understand that you have a deep interest in "rampage killers" and have a great desire to spread that information. You are free to do that elsewhere, but I don't think you should be doing it here. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay bathhouse regulars. It wasn't deleted because gay bathhouses are not notable nor because the people in the list were not otherwise notable (they were). It was deleted because it was a "BLP disaster". I think these lists are the same. You continue to insist that you will add people to your lists even if the only information you have is reports that they have been arrested. Let me say it again - this is a violation of WP:BLP. You can't do it. Sorry. Them's the rules. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) Judging by the way this AFD is running, you're on your own in believing what you're writing Delicious carbuncle. (2) If you can see BLP violations, please do something about them, tag them or delete them. Not to do so would be wilfully negligent. Them's the facts. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) That's ok, it's how the AfD system works. (2) Chenggu axe massacre alleges, based on very brief and contradictory press reports, that a named individual killed 9 people. The references report only that he was arrested. This is a BLP violation. Now that you are aware of it, not dealing with it would be wilfully negligent. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article says Yang Mingxin killed those people, because that is what the sources reported, quote: "Delayed reports from a Chinese weekly said Yang Mingxin, from Chenggu county in Shaaxi province killed nine and injured three others in a fit of rage on June 23" How do you want to twist that around to come to the conclusion that he may not've done it? Saying that he may not have been responsible for the death of these nine people is not covered by any of the available sources. And to say that the sources are contradictiory is an outright lie. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- Oh dear, Delicious carbuncle, please.... why would you start to make things up now? The beef smells stranger by the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to say I'm a bit surprised by your absolute WP:DICK attitude in this AfD, Rambling Man. You seem to be trying to be trying to score points in some private game rather than actaully discussing issues raised. I'm not in the habit of making statements that I can't support, but this isn't the place for it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to say I'm completely surprised by your odd crusade. I'm not doing anything other than standing up for a user you seem determined to make feel inadequate. I've discussed the issues. You have a BLP bee in your bonnet, but yet feel that you can't actively help other than seek the deletion of several pages. Embarrassing yourself on the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm trying to egt the user follow our BLP policy, not make them feel inadequate. I've opened a discussion on the BLP noticeboard to get more input so that other people can offer their opinions (which may not be the same as mine) and encourage the user to follow policy. I don't feel embarrassed. Maybe I should. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm trying to egt the user follow our BLP policy, not make them feel inadequate. I've opened a discussion on the BLP noticeboard to get more input so that other people can offer their opinions (which may not be the same as mine) and encourage the user to follow policy. I don't feel embarrassed. Maybe I should. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to say I'm completely surprised by your odd crusade. I'm not doing anything other than standing up for a user you seem determined to make feel inadequate. I've discussed the issues. You have a BLP bee in your bonnet, but yet feel that you can't actively help other than seek the deletion of several pages. Embarrassing yourself on the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to say I'm a bit surprised by your absolute WP:DICK attitude in this AfD, Rambling Man. You seem to be trying to be trying to score points in some private game rather than actaully discussing issues raised. I'm not in the habit of making statements that I can't support, but this isn't the place for it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear, Delicious carbuncle, please.... why would you start to make things up now? The beef smells stranger by the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article says Yang Mingxin killed those people, because that is what the sources reported, quote: "Delayed reports from a Chinese weekly said Yang Mingxin, from Chenggu county in Shaaxi province killed nine and injured three others in a fit of rage on June 23" How do you want to twist that around to come to the conclusion that he may not've done it? Saying that he may not have been responsible for the death of these nine people is not covered by any of the available sources. And to say that the sources are contradictiory is an outright lie. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- (1) That's ok, it's how the AfD system works. (2) Chenggu axe massacre alleges, based on very brief and contradictory press reports, that a named individual killed 9 people. The references report only that he was arrested. This is a BLP violation. Now that you are aware of it, not dealing with it would be wilfully negligent. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) Judging by the way this AFD is running, you're on your own in believing what you're writing Delicious carbuncle. (2) If you can see BLP violations, please do something about them, tag them or delete them. Not to do so would be wilfully negligent. Them's the facts. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lord Gøn, I understand that you have a deep interest in "rampage killers" and have a great desire to spread that information. You are free to do that elsewhere, but I don't think you should be doing it here. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay bathhouse regulars. It wasn't deleted because gay bathhouses are not notable nor because the people in the list were not otherwise notable (they were). It was deleted because it was a "BLP disaster". I think these lists are the same. You continue to insist that you will add people to your lists even if the only information you have is reports that they have been arrested. Let me say it again - this is a violation of WP:BLP. You can't do it. Sorry. Them's the rules. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ken, I guess you missed my clarification above. That is not the situation under discussion (although that one does occur). Individuals were listed who had been reported as arrested, but about whom there no further reports. We do not know if those individuals were found to have committed the crimes or completely exonerated. Do you understand now? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no, I am not saying that the general subject of mass murderers is not notable. What I am saying is that WP does not need to have lists of mass-murderers which can be sorted by number of victims. Just like we chose not to have List of gay bathhouse regulars, we can choose not to have these lists, and for the same reason - they will attract BLP violations. Regarding your failure to understand our BLP policy, I'm not sure how the policy could be any clearer on this point - have you read it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A plainly ridiculous perspective. Of course all entries should be referenced, but any article can become subject to BLP. At any time. If you see BLP violations in any article you should act directly to solve it, not go running to Jimbo to complain, and then spend hours waiting to create an AFD to whinge about it. Keep on digging. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lord Gøn, you still don't seem t grasp that adding people to those lists as killers, if they only been arrested but not yet found responsible, is a direct violation WP:BLP. Do you not understand this? This is precisely why I am asking for these lists to be deleted. They will attract these kinds of BLP violations. As for my thread on Jimbo's talk page, I don't see what you have to complain about, since I started this deletion discussion, as suggested there. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, User:Delicious carbuncle, of all the things Lord Gøn has said, "I find it to be quite a disregard of Wikipedia's community to complain at Jimbo's talk-page when you find something you don't like, or disagree with, without even leaving a note at the talk page of the relevant article, or its editors" is by far the most important. Why you felt a compulsion to go running to Jimbo to discuss a purely editorial issue is beyond me. I guess we'll all need to be wary of your modus operandi in future, no clues, just snitches to Jimbo, followed by pointy AFDs, despite your "issues" being resolved beforehand. Also, in the nomination, Delicious carbuncle claims "serious ownership issues" from Lord Gon. I completely refute that accusation as I've made many serious edits to all these pages and Lord Gøn and I have had a reasonably amiable discussion on my talkpage about why. There's been no indication of ownership, just genuine discussion. Not sure what Delicious carbuncle's beef is here. But it sure smells odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And may you eventually explain why you think that this information should not be present at Wikipedia? Why are you so adamantly against having a list of rampage killers, here, where it is available to a broad audience all around the world? It can't be notability, because that doubtlessly is established, and it can't be BLP either, because a lot of biographies may have, or may get BLP-issues, but nonetheless are kept, because they pass WP:N. Justin Bieber is listed among the most vandalized articles on Wikipedia, but who in his right mind would propose its deletion because of that? So why should I not "spread" that information here on Wikipedia, whose self-described aim is supposed to be to become "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge", and to be "the sum of human knowledge"? Because you don't like it?
- Regarding your List of gay bathhouse regulars, it seems a lot of issues were raised regarding its general encyclopedic value, its notability and the definition of the word "regular". Of course, since the list has been deleted, I cannot say how, or if notability of the subject and the entries in the list was established, but at least in my opinion a "List of gay bathhouse regulars" is of as much encyclopedic value as a "List of men who had sex with women." Though there may be some value to such a list if there are enough people whose visit to gay bathhouses was deemed notable enough to produce a sufficient amount of reliable sources on the subject. I can't judge that, since I am no expert in that regard, but the list that was once part of the Gay bathhouse-article to me gives the impression of being a collection of inane trivia, was overall badly sourced, and never made clear why it would be important to the subject of gay bathhouses to know that Freddy Mercury frequently visited such establishments in 1979. But I am pretty sure, that if notability of the list could've been clearly established, it would've been kept, BLP-issues, or not. Anyway, there is still a "Notable patrons"-section in the main article, and would it ever happen that this listing would become too long, it would have to be split off into, you guess it, a separate list.
- You keep repeating that it is a violation of BLP to name the arrested, but repetition doesn't make it true. I ask you to come foreward and make your case. Cite the relevant parts of BLP and tell me how you interpret them, then we can discuss where and why we digress. And btw, Wikipedia has no firm rules, it has policies and guidelines, but as one of the five pillars makes clear:
- "(...) they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception." (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- Read WP:BLP. Ask someone if you have questions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- {{sofixit}} Apply BLP, ask someone if you find it difficult to edit articles you believe have BLP violations. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, you don't want to explain your position. You could've spared me a lot of time by simply saying so. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- I thought I had done. I've started a discussion at the BLP noticeboard to get more opinions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And I thought I have made clear that you did not. Repetition is not explanation. Look, I have gone at great lengths, trying to explain how I see things, and where I think your reasoning is faulty, but you don't even have the decency to read what I have to say, let alone addressing it. You are claiming I have BLP issues, but please stop for a second and ask yourself, couldn't it be as well you who has BLP-issues? We're in complete disagreement how to read BLP, so much is obvious. I understand that BLP is an important policy, and it is absolutely necessary to protect people from unsourced claims, especially, if they are presented in connection with something as serious as murder. But if these claims are reliably sourced, we must not withhold that information on dubious grounds of considerateness. (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- I started that discussion at BLPN so that it wasn't just you and I disagreeing. Please discuss it there, not here. Perhaps other people will share your interpretation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And I thought I have made clear that you did not. Repetition is not explanation. Look, I have gone at great lengths, trying to explain how I see things, and where I think your reasoning is faulty, but you don't even have the decency to read what I have to say, let alone addressing it. You are claiming I have BLP issues, but please stop for a second and ask yourself, couldn't it be as well you who has BLP-issues? We're in complete disagreement how to read BLP, so much is obvious. I understand that BLP is an important policy, and it is absolutely necessary to protect people from unsourced claims, especially, if they are presented in connection with something as serious as murder. But if these claims are reliably sourced, we must not withhold that information on dubious grounds of considerateness. (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- I thought I had done. I've started a discussion at the BLP noticeboard to get more opinions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:BLP. Ask someone if you have questions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable topic per sources above (also easy to find rampage/spree killings on Gbooks [5], not hard to find proper inclusion criteria. The article needs lots of eyeballs on it, and possibly cleanup, but AfD is not for cleanup. Thanks to the nominator for first pointing that such articles contained BLP violations, but they aren't BLP violations per se, so deletion is not the right option.--cyclopiaspeak! 07:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I had already removed the "zero killers" before this AFD was raised. Suggest that definition of rampage killer is cleared up, but otherwise the lists seem well referenced as a minimum. Sortable tables are a disgrace but that can be fixed, better that than delete them. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but prune to convicted rampage killers whose bios are well sourced. If necessary, create the (sourced) article List of accused rampage killers as a holding area. --Auric talk 18:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If sources call them "mass murders" and "spree killers" then they should be on the list. Reliable sources that study them call them by all three names. Take this PBS educational bit for example: [6] "Mind of a Rampage Killer Can science help us understand why some people commit horrific acts of mass murder?" Whatever you name the article, it doesn't really matter. The list is perfectly valid. If you don't want to include people who haven't had time to go to trial yet, even if caught in the act in front of security cameras, then you can discuss their removal on the relevant talk pages. That isn't a valid reason to destroy the entire list. Dream Focus 21:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weng's Cold Storage Industrial Company ammonia leak
- Weng's Cold Storage Industrial Company ammonia leak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disputed PROD. reason was "WP:NOTNEWS" Fiddle Faddle 19:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:GNG. Part of the Wikipedia Category:Industrial accidents and incidents series. This accident killed 15 people, exactly how many died in the West Fertilizer Company explosion. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS as the article makes no claim to any lasting significance; it can be recreated later if it proves a catalyst for a change in law. LGA talkedits 20:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actual infinity
- Actual infinity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The topic of this article is not entirely clear to me, but if it's about anything at all, it's about infinity, which already has an article. This article also appears to present a rather different POV from the infinity article. NYKevin 19:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article seems fine to me, though I am not totally familiar with Wikipedia's deletion policies. I see this article as discussing a more philosophical aspect of the infinite. Additionally, indeed there are debates about the potential-actual distinction, but the entry has citations for sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.125.64 (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Valid topic and not a POV fork, since infinity is about the concept of infinity in mathematics, whereas this article is about the concept of infinity in the philosophy of mathematics. Notable topic and well sourced, although references could be tidied up. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As the article points out, this topic goes back at least to Aristotle. It's one that philosophers and philosophically inclined people write about. It is about a different idea from the various ideas of infinity used in mathematics. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. The distinction between potential and actual infinity is important philosophically and notable encyclopedically. E.g. Google scholar has 2700+ hits for the subject phrase and Google books has 12000+. "I don't understand it" isn't a valid deletion rationale. I disagree with Hardy's claim that this idea isn't used in pure mathematics: ordinals and cardinals are actual infinities, but the infinity symbol used in sums and limits is generally a potential infinity. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator comment Everyone says there's a distinction, but no such distinction is discussed in the article in more than vague, high-level terms. If such a distinction really exists, go add it; don't just tell me there is one. --NYKevin 20:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (after edit conflict} You seem to be reading a different article from the one that I can see, as the latter certainly does discuss the distinction. Admittedly it does so in an inadequate manner but that is a reason to improve the article by editing, not to delete it. I've made a start by deleting a vacuous section sourced to a "forthcoming" paper. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced of that. The article doesn't just look like a POV fork. It openly proclaims itself to be one. A rebuttal to that section, perhaps involving some sort of nonconstructively infinite object, would help, but I'm unconvinced the sources required to write such a rebuttal actually exist. --NYKevin 17:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand what you think needs to be rebutted. That section describes some viewpoints but doesn't describe any of them as correct because there is no general agreement, certainly at the philosophical level, about what is correct. Most mathematicians make pragmatic use of the concept of actual infinity because its acceptance leads to interesting and useful mathematics, but at the same time most mathematicians would accept that that is something different from accepting that actual infinity exists in the "real" world. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to hear more about why the Phil Bridger considered the section at the end 'vacuous'. The paper has a source and discusses the potential-actual infinite distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.190.168.50 (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The only source for that section was a forthcoming paper, with no evidence that the content is important enough in the context of thousands of years of discussion of actual infinity to merit a section in our article. We base our content on published material, and select our balance of content within an article on the basis of how much it is discussed by reliable published sources. Besides that it was written in a conversational instructive style rather than being descriptive of this concept, rendering it empty of any encyclopedic content, i.e. vacuous. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your forthcoming papers. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to hear more about why the Phil Bridger considered the section at the end 'vacuous'. The paper has a source and discusses the potential-actual infinite distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.190.168.50 (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A POV fork is an article that takes a minority opinion on the same subject as the main article that it is a fork of. This article is on a specialized subtopic of the theory of infinity (the philosophical divide between actual and potential) and covers multiple opinions on that one issue, which is not the subject of any other article. It is not a POV fork, no more than (to pick a random example from your recent editing) macro photography is a POV fork of photography. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand what you think needs to be rebutted. That section describes some viewpoints but doesn't describe any of them as correct because there is no general agreement, certainly at the philosophical level, about what is correct. Most mathematicians make pragmatic use of the concept of actual infinity because its acceptance leads to interesting and useful mathematics, but at the same time most mathematicians would accept that that is something different from accepting that actual infinity exists in the "real" world. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced of that. The article doesn't just look like a POV fork. It openly proclaims itself to be one. A rebuttal to that section, perhaps involving some sort of nonconstructively infinite object, would help, but I'm unconvinced the sources required to write such a rebuttal actually exist. --NYKevin 17:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The topic is a genuine point of philosophical/mathematical debate. This is clearly demonstrated in several references used. The size of the article is large enough to justify its own page, and the "Infinity" article is already quite big. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alan Capier
- Alan Capier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. Nothing resembling an assertion of notability under the SNG; article is barely more than a bunch of laundry lists and credits. No reliable sourcing for biographical content (which is pretty scant itself.) All GNews and GBooks hits are spurious or trivial. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom's analysis. Guidelines aside, according to the article he has been credited under eleven different stage names, and this is also a strong sign that he is a non-notable performer in his field. Cavarrone 20:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree with nom's assessment. Finnegas (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dirk Reynders
- Dirk Reynders (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)
Having myself despeedied it, and with a PROD removed by the article creator just now, the question remains: is this Dirk Reynders notable? I emphasize "this" because my Gnews archive search appears to mix in a different person of the same name, who is a digital media business person and not this digital media theorist -- or are they one and the same? The article's rather exhaustive list of accomplishments nor the external links refer to him being the "new media manager at SBS Belgium," which appears again and again in the Gnews search. So I'm rather inclined to think he is not that Dirk Reynders -- and does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:ACADEMIC. Am I mistaken and are they one and the same? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, the article creator has kindly clarified on the article talk page that these are two different people, which then throws the issue over to a Gbook and scholarly search, as an academic and theorist, I should think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Almost nothing on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- When i add some publications of Reynders, does this meet the evidence you need to proove he is an academic professor with relevance for the academic world?Wavesurfer2013 (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)wavesurfer2013 thank you so uch for responding and helping me....[reply]
- No. See WP:ACADEMIC. What is needed is evidence that his research has made an impact, not just that he and it exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok thank you for the respons, i think the references of the catholic university and brussels news prove already this, he is also interviewed for a glbt magazine about the relevance of his research for the gay community and the acceptance of homosexuality. I will add the link where he is mentioned.Wavesurfer2013 (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)wavesurfer2013[reply]
- No. See WP:ACADEMIC. What is needed is evidence that his research has made an impact, not just that he and it exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only source that might be usable for notability is Brussles News and ISSUU (ZiZo), which is not enough to meet WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks, i added the full magazine of the agora magazine online, it's a magazine of the university of Utrecht and the university of Leuven where he has an article about fashion and the male bodyWavesurfer2013 (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're doing multiple edits without using the WP:EDITSUMMARY, so it's hard for me to see which link(s) you mean. Would you want to post the new reference links here? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so this link is the agora one: http://www.agora-magazine.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/AGORA-2013-1-Seksualiteit.pdf
I also added now links to other wikipedia pages
I added the link with the full article from the newspaper de morgen, this is the link: http://lacquemant.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/de-nieuwe-man-spreidt-de-benen-wijd/
So what do i have to do next? :-) Wavesurfer2013 (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the Agora link, it appears to me that he'd had an essay published, and then is mentioned once in a colleagues's essay: it doesn't appear to be an completely independent source about him or his work, as really required by WP:N. Now, for the second blog link, forget that. But this one is WP:RS. That's a good one. The guidelines call for "multiple" reliable sources and so I usually try for three in articles I've created. If there are two more, from Belgian (or other European) publications (professionally edited, not user generated), radio or TV interviews, you'd have me onside. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is mentioned in 3 newpapers: de morgen, de standaard en het belang van limburg... Maybe you have a database where you still can find the articles. He is also mentioned on radio brussels, the agora magazine he published in is from 2 universities i think they wouldn't publish his article as it wasn't good.
The link to the blog is the article from the newspaper de morgen, also this refers to that article http://www.nieuws.be/nieuws/De_nieuwe_man_spreidt_de_benen_wijd_42daa22a.aspx Wavesurfer2013 (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This link is nothing: just an announcement on a news portal, based on the aforementioned blog. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the link to the newspaper de standaard http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20120724_00233556?fb_source=message Wavesurfer2013 (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only thing I see that adds up to notability is this exposition--but it's a small one, at a university gallery, that ran for two weeks. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That exhibition is a result of his research doctorate at that university, i think the article in de standaard en nieuws.be will meet up the required standards, thanks Wavesurfer2013 (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but that's one. And even if that one exposition did lead to other WP:RS where the subject is figured prominently, I suppose WP:SINGLEEVENT might come into play, as well, for some editors. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the link to newspaper de standaard, the most intelectual flemish newspaper and the link with nieuws.be, are they ok? Thanks :-) Wavesurfer2013 (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deletion WP:G7 — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Taylor (drwhosnippets)
- Jack Taylor (drwhosnippets) (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 YouTube kid. No coverage, no independent sources found. Fails WP:GNG, and therefore WP:BASIC. (Recreated several times, PROD removed on previous version before speedy delete, speedy tags repeatedly removed on this version.) Logical Fuzz (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Page should not be deleted. Large contribution to his specialised subject. Notable creator should be acknowledged along with his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starwatcher991 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not finding any significant coverage on this kid or his YouTube channel, and all the sources in the article come from said channel (or obscure social networking sites). Also, if the article is continually being re-created, maybe we should salt it? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 18:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt. Speedy was removed by an SPA who is clearly the creator of the article. OSborn arfcontribs. 21:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, Erpert, and OSborn. GregJackP Boomer! 21:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yakoub Islam
- Yakoub Islam (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)
Looks like the guy wrote this page himself. Not notable. I have looked at the page history and this page has always been like this. Loomspicker (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Article doesn't present any valid references. Seems to fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. scope_creep talk 19:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per User:scope_creep. Unrefereced & Fails WP:BIO. Davey2010 Talk 20:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the guy appears to be a convert to Islam and now an anti-Islamophobia activist, but I doubt there is anything amopunting to notability. Getting a few artilces publihsed and running a website is not enough for that. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4,000 hit club
- 4,000 hit club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:CONTENTFORK of 3,000 hit club list, the only official MLB stat club for hits. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Holy content fork, Batman! There is no "4,000 hit club" anyway. This page is WP:RECENTISM based on Ichiro Suzuki's 4,000th professional hit (the article creator admitted as much in the edit summary). But, he's not a recognized member of the 3,000 hit club yet, because more than 1,000 of them were in Japan. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with Muboshgu (talk). It's a warping of known facts. Simply not worth saving. scope_creep talk 16:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom and Muboshgu/scope_creep post. ///EuroCarGT 16:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator and Muboshgu....William 21:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all Mpejkrm (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cáhuil Bridge
- Cáhuil Bridge (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)
An apparently unremarkable and minor road bridge of conventional construction. I just don't see the notability. Mangoe (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitively... keep. There are plenty of sources on-line that discuss this bridge; and there are some offline (newspapers, books), some of which state it was a "vital necessity for the inhabitants of Cáhuil and Pichilemu to connect with the southern portion of the province (of Cardenal Caro)". Some links: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17], and there are more... Cáhuil bridge was, seemingly, an emblematic construction of President Lagos government. I could not find a single English language source regarding the Cáhuil bridge. Regards, Küñall (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep It is strong encyclopedic knowledge. scope_creep talk 16:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarence E. Anthony
- Clarence E. Anthony (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 was proded but it was removed. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Small town mayor....William 13:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions....William 13:55, 31 August 2013
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions....William 13:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]
- Simply being a small mayor is not a failure to meet WP:POLITICIAN: the 2nd criterion allows for "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Anthony seems to me to be a major figure within his local area, and more importantly, a Google News archive search yields significant results, with a long history of coverage and political activities. His past presidency of the National League of Cities also suggests that we are dealing with more than just a small town mayor.
Weakkeep (as dePRODder). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment More than half of that news coverage is WP:ROUTINE. About elections, mayor profiles, about qualifying to run etc etc. An ethics violation charge? Again Routine. How many politicians get accused of ethics violations every election cycle by opponents? This is a small town politican in my neck of the woods and I haven't even heard of them....William 14:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Upgrading from 'weak' - he seems to fully meet notability requirements of WP:POLITICIAN for local figures, especially with added refs. The nominator will appreciate I'm sure that his own lack of knowledge of the article subject cannot be a rationale for deletion. As for the "more than half" % of news coverage that is deemed "routine," that's irrelevant, even if so. We simply require that there be multiple instances of significant secondary coverage, among those very search results. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Small town mayor who made a national impact. President and now executive director of the National League of Cities, extensive coverage over a period of years in both local and national sources such as the Los Angeles Times and Governing (now added to the article).--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Being president of the NLC is a strong and unchallenged indication of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He has received significant coverage in several reliable sources due to his two leadership positions in the National League of Cities, which is the real notability claim here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Line 6 (Montreal Metro)
- Line 6 (Montreal Metro) (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)
Is this line notable enough for an article?? Why?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Article has less notability however it could be improved. Many active Montreal Metro lines are on Wikipedia including Line 1 Green (Montreal Metro), Line 2 Orange (Montreal Metro), Line 3 Red (Montreal Metro) and etc. Just needs more improving. However this line was a proposal, but article could show importance in history of transportation in Montreal and Quebec. ///EuroCarGT 17:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I'd say... a Google News Archive search reveals multiple news refs from the Montreal Gazette in 1982-4, satisfying WP:GNG for this unbuilt line. The defunct (but not online Montreal Star would have more, I'm sure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Holleran
- Scott Holleran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No particular indication of importance. Sources are all to blogs, listings, or the journalist's own articles, his own web site, and docial networks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Simply a puff piece with no credible sources. Fails WP:BIO, [[W:GNG]. scope_creep talk 14:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fringe, freelance journalist that no Independent Reliable Sources seem to have taken note of. All the links, and all I could find at Google News Archive, are to his own writing. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider keeping. A journalist is a person who writes things instead of being written about. It is a normal thing, so it is difficult to apply WP:GNG word for word in this case. He writes in serious journals (LA Times, Wall Street Journal etc.). Just an added info - 8 articles here on Wikipedia refer to him as a source. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=%22Scott+Holleran%22&fulltext=Search) Crazyforreading (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes true, but just writing things doesn't make a person notable, otherwise every journalist and writer would be notable, and the concept of a "notable writer" would be diluted. It's like the Google search algorithm, which gives high scores to pages that have many links to them ie. if other people consider that page important so will google search. Likewise we consider notable topics that have many people "linking" (talking about) the person. GNG exists so we have material to write an article with beyond basic facts of name, age and employment. Have to say why the person is important. Just being a writer isn't notable on its own. Usually what happens is a writer builds a reputation until they break out and people start noticing and talking about them. Or, they publish a book and get 4 or 5 book reviews in reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scooby-Doo! Stage Fright
- Scooby-Doo! Stage Fright (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)
Film doesn't have stand-alone notability; would recommend a redirect and not deletion BOVINEBOY2008 12:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This film easily passes WP:GNG, and i don't see what separates this film from all the other Scooby-Doo direct to video films that have articles. Koala15 (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per meeting WP:NF through WP:GNG and commentary and analysis in independent sources.[18][19][20][21][22][23] They should be added as citations, yes... but needing work does not equate to being non-notable. More, as the film became a comedy musical stage production,[24][25][26][27] a section on THAT spin-off could be added to this article. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe an online source discussing the film's production would be nice but I think it does well with WP:GNG for now. 和DITOREtails 18:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Keep MichaelQSchmidt has found proof it passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 19:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to Speedy Keep due to sources found. 和DITOREtails 02:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SK#1, the nominator withdrew their nomination with no outstanding support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Qualitas Career Academy
- Qualitas Career Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced article about a non-notable company, the tone is also advertorial. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep It's a further education college. Here is a FE Colleges in Scotland article, which shows these how articles types are valued. Sure there is no sources, but these can be added fairly painlessly. I do think it reads like an advert and it needs structural change, but it doesn't need rewritten. scope_creep talk 15:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is merely a commercial organisation, a company that sells training, not a real college (as in a public taxpayer funded institution). I don't see how the existence of a list of colleges in Scotland is in any way, shape or form relevant to the existence of an advertorial article about a commercial "diploma mill" in South Africa. In South Africa real FE Colleges are state-owned public institutions, not private for-profit companies. If there are indeed sources cited that will allow this article to qualify under the WP:CORP notability criteria I will withdraw this AfD. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published—even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet (though in most cases it probably would improve the article to add them). A notice suggesting citations and sources is in place.Roger's comment about what constitutes a 'real college in South Africa' overlooks legislation that allows for public and private institutions. Further commentary using derogatory terms made by the user suggesting the AfD indicates some bias. This is not the only private company on WP, ner the only private educational one... There are templates that once placed, call the community to assist and improve an article. Wikicheesecake (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Citations added, included news articles. (talk) - you are of course entitled to the opinion that a particular organisation is a "diploma mill", however, rather use WP guidelines, which you seem to know well, to promote better copy. The issue of "real colleges" / diploma mill should be cleared up by reference to the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of South Africa. It is certainly not the case that the only 'real' colleges in South Africa are state owned. Hence the need for accreditation by state funded mechanisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.134.57.162 (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination The the article now complies with WP:CORP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Divest1987, if you want this page to be userfied so you can work on it some more, contact me or another admin. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marcos Avellan
- Marcos Avellan (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)
On notability grounds Peter Rehse (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I'm very new to editing Wikipedia articles. This entry was written by me. I've been working extensively on it. I believe this person to be notable enough to warrant an entry considering he's a gym owner that trains professional fighters for organizations such as Strikeforce, BoDog, and Bellator. He's also an author of the book Black Belt Psychology. If there's more information I can add that would help this article avoid deletion, I would be more than happy to answer. As I said, I'm brand new to Wikipedia and I'm finding it very difficult to navigate. Perhaps someone could help out with the editing for me? Divest1987 (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, Divest1987. You need to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (especially the notability guidelines). The main problem of this article is the lack of third-party, reliable sources for the article's content, as the only source currently present in the article is his Sherdog's profile, which only provides his MMA record and other statistics (height, weight, etc). If you believe you can improve the article but don't have enough time until the debate's conclusion, you can request userfication and when/if it meets the general notability guideline (GNG) standard you can re-submit the article. As he also is/was an athlete, i also would like to point the sports notability guideline. But remember, contributions to Wikipedia cannot contain original research. Poison Whiskey 16:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added about 8 more 3rd party soures. Hopefully that will be enough to keep the page around. Please let me know if I need more or if there's anything else I can do to improve the article. I'm going to be continuously working on it. Divest1987 (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (or userfy) — Despite his extensive grappling background, i couldn't find enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. He is/was also a mixed martial artist, but doesn't meet WP:NMMA criteria. I'm willing to change to keep if the sourcing is improved. Poison Whiskey 16:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added about 8 more 3rd party soures. Hopefully that will be enough to keep the page around. Please let me know if I need more or if there's anything else I can do to improve the article. I'm going to be continuously working on it. Divest1987 (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divest1987 (talk • contribs)
I've added about 15 sources total. Hopefully that will be enough. Divest1987 (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've checked all sources added and this was my conclusion:
- Third-party, reliable: GracieMag issue no. 191 (summary found at thejiujitsuway.com)
- Third-party, reliable, but unrelated (has nothing about the subject): MMAjunkie.com
- Third-party, reliable, but only statistics: rottentomatoes.com (celebrities section)
- Not sure, but between borderline reliable and questionable: lapelchoke.com, jiujitsumania.com
- Self-published or questionable sources: lockflow.com, youtube.com (his academy's channel), fightingthai.com
- Blogs and forums: grapplersquest.com, nhbgear.com (forum section), thejiujitsuway.com, fiumartialarts.com
- — sources like MMAjunkie.com or GracieMag (sources don't need to be available online) are the way to go. Self-published sources or blogs — if reliable — can help towards verifiability, but won't help to determine the notability. I'll maintain my vote for the time being and wait for the input of other users. Poison Whiskey 17:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Some of the videos I've used on the channel are copies of news sources. They're hosted on the FFA channel for YouTube, but they're still copies of news broadcasts. I don't see how this doesn't qualify as a 3rd party source. If I just listed it as an offline source, would that make it 3rd party? I can also reference magazines that aren't available online. The more magazines the more notable this becomes? It also doesn't make sense to me that we have SEVERAL Wikipedia pages about fighters that Marcos Avellan has TRAINED and GIVEN RANK to, yet he's not notable enough to warrant his own page? That doesn't quite make any sense. I'll continue adding references and sources, but I'd like for someone else to review the article and give their opinion/vote on the situation. Is there an appeal process this can go through? This is craziness. Divest1987 (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Does not have the significant independent coverage from reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG. Clearly doesn't meet WP:NMMA. There's not enough to show notability for grappling. According to the NAGA website results, his second at the NAGA worlds was out of 3 competitors, so he might not have even won a match. Who he's trained or given rank to is WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says that it's irrelevant what other articles exist.Mdtemp (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more sources, this time verifiable 3rd party sources via OnTheMat.com. These sources verify who Marcos has trained and also his titles that he's won as a grappler. I would like another editor to review the page and give their input as to what I could add, please. Poison Whiskey, please let me know if there's anything else I can add that would help my case. Thank you. Divest1987 (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added another source, straight from the UFC website itself, where a former WEC title contender talks about The Freestyle Fighting system and references Marcos Avellan. Divest1987 (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's about 38 references now and I've added about 10 3rd party sources today alone. Let me know if this is sufficient. Divest1987 (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marcos Avellan has coached many fighters, most on TV and in major organizations. I've included references to all of them. How many fighters does an MMA coach need to be on TV/major organizations before he's "notable"? That's a legitimate question. There's more fighters I can add. Let me know what number of fighters would make a notable coach and I'll add that many. Thanks. Divest1987 (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Legitimate question: How many UFC fighters does a person need to have coached to be considered notable in the sport of mixed martial arts? Divest1987 (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mdtemp: Who Avellan has trained definitely counts as notability! The coach is very NOTABLE in any sport. Are you saying that Teddy Atlas, Cus D'Amato, Emanuel Steward, and Angelo Dundee are not notable because neither of them had ever fought a single pro fight? In MMA, are you saying that Greg Jackson is not notable? I don't think he has even competed in a grappling match. Divest1987 (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Avellan has cornered in the UFC... he has trained NINE referenced UFC Fighters (there are two more I am working on referencing), he has trained NINE Zuffa fighters (UFC, TUF, and WEC) and four referenced Bellator and Strikeforce Fighters... plus he himself is a referenced national grappling champion, his brother is a ADCC Bronze Medalist - and he has coached a two-time grappling coach for the ultimate fighter (3-0 pro fighter) and FILA World Champion Jason Soares... What else needs to be done to prove notability? How many more UFC fighters or world class grapplers? Does? need an Olympic medalist? (serious question). Divest1987 (talk) 00:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete It's a stretch to compare Angelo Dundee (who trained 16 boxing world champions) to a guy who's trained 9 Zuffa fighters in grappling. I'm not seeing significant independent coverage--the Graciemag article was by, not about, him and was featured based on him being a successful businessman ("Think big, be bold!" "The owner of an MMA academy he says brings over $1 million per year and author of the compelling book Black Belt Psychology shares pointers"). That's not enough to show notability. Passing mentions in articles as being an MMA fighter's grappling coach and routine sport coverage aren't significant either.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously didn't check the sources and references I posted. At this point, I'm realizing this page is simply being trolled and we're going to be reporting it for WP:Disruptive Editing. If anyone would like to add some constructive advice and wants to actually take the article serious, i'm all ears. Divest1987 (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like you misinterpreted the guidelines, but i'll assume that you missed them. I recommend you to reread my first comment (where i say "hello" to you) and click on the blue links (they'll redirect you to the guidelines). You don't need to worry, this discussion will still go on for a day or two (at least) before closing and even if the article is deleted, there are ways to restore it. For further information, take a look at this essay: WP:Why was the page I created deleted? and also, please assume good faith. Poison Whiskey 18:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing my best to assume good faith, I really am, but I've done my best to provide third-party references and sources. At this point, I've got about 30-something sources and about half of them are third-party. I went on a long hunt to make sure that I found more sources. I've asked many questions, let me recap:
- How many third-party sources do I truly need? Is 15 not enough?
- How many MMA fighters does Avellan need to have coached to be considered notable? He's even coached an Olympic Bronze Medalist!
- If 15 third-party sources and numerous grappling tournament victories aren't sufficient, then how do you explain the selective editing in letting a page like Randy Jean exist? He has literally two sources and has done nothing of notability, yet he's been allowed to remain. Or how about Shawn Williams or Alberto Crane (who technically has only had TWO fights in the UFC, therefore doesn't meet the incredibly subjective MMA guidelines)?
Divest1987 (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here from the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, where Divest tried to seek dispute resolution for this discussion. We don't do that there (any disputes here will be resolved by the closing editor or sysop), but without expressing any opinion about whether or not this article ought to be retained, I thought that I'd at least answer his questions:
- In theory one source is enough if it's good enough, though two is probably the actual absolute minimum. The problem that's being alleged is that the ones you've added are not good enough. It's not enough that they're third-party, they must meet the test of a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. (Remember that while two may be enough to establish notability, that every assertion in the article which is challenged or might be challenged must be supported by a reliable source.)
- The number of fighters coached is irrelevant to notability. Notability is determined by the existence of significant material in reliable sources. In general, see the general notability guideline.
- What happens in some other article is irrelevant to your article. Each article stand or falls on its own. It could well be that Randy Jean deserves to be deleted, too (thought I wouldn't know, I haven't looked at it). For a fuller explanation, see WP:OTHERSTUFF.
What you're struggling with is that Wikipedia is actually very complicated and it's very difficult even for an experienced editor to write an article. For someone who just comes in and tried to do it first thing, it can be exceptionally frustrating. You might benefit from reading my Advice to New Users. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Transporterman, I appreciate your help. Thanks for taking the time to check out this particular dispute. I do understand the importance of high quality references but that is where, in my opinion, the abusive editing is taking place. For example, Gracie Magazine is one of the most popular martial arts magazines currently circulated around the world. Marcos had his name on the cover and had a full two-page spread (that we referenced). The video that we referenced of the news coverage was a full piece about Marcos and his gym which was done by Emmy-award winning reporter Jennifer Santiago. I've also referenced his winning of a national title and an entry into the world's most prestigious grappling tournament in the world, which is the Abu Dhabi Combat Club aka ADCC. This is the top ranked tournament in the world. Quite frankly, Marcos, with his grappling credentials alone, has notability. On top of that, he is a business consultant, which was also mentioned in the Gracie Magazine, to business owner's across the United States. He is an author of Black Belt Psychology, which is also referenced in the Gracie article. And he has fought 3 professional MMA fights and coached countless professional fighters for professional organizations such as UFC, Strikeforce, and Bellator. I don't know if it's significant or notable, but he also has a YouTube channel with over 1.7 million views; he is a well-known figure in the martial arts community. Right now, I'm trying to figure out how to reference magazines because he has been referenced in over a dozen magazines while being featured on the cover several times. And I don't know if this helps, but he just got accepted as a contributing author on LiveStrong.com and his first articles are coming out in a couple weeks. Divest1987 (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just add the magazine's name, article's title, author, date, etc. As i said before, the references don't need to be available online (in other words, don't need to be external links). Poison Whiskey 22:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of My-Otome terminology
- List of My-Otome terminology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an overly in-depth collection of fictional details without anything to establish real world notability. The plot summaries of the companion articles should be able to function without such an article, and as summaries should be concise and to the point here, this information is more suited to Wikia. TTN (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yet another article that exists primarily because lists are easier to write than a proper plot description. --erachima talk 10:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge It is certainly overlong but could be reduced and merged into the original My-Otome article. It gets good reviews on IMDB and I guess a fan went overboard. scope_creep talk 16:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since the nominator refuses to contact the creator of the articles he nominates for deletion, I went and did that. Since the person is active on Wikipedia, I'm sure they'd want to know so they can join the discussion. I have exported the entire history of this article to the Manga Wiki at http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_My-Otome_terminology Dream Focus 19:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. I don't see how this could ever be anything but in-universe and sourced from primary sources. It belongs on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - My comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of My-HiME terminology and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Macross Frontier terminology pretty much sums up my opinion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Note that there is always room for trimming during the merger. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hanali Celanil
- Hanali Celanil (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 doesn't establish notability and only relies on primary sources. TTN (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nomination is inaccurate--multiple secondary sources are listed. They just don't happen to be unaffiliated and meet the threshold of independence some desire. Jclemens (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? All of those are official D&D resources, so they are all primary. The magazine is licensed by them and presents much of its information in an in-universe tone if that was what you were calling secondary. TTN (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First-party sources, whether secondary or not, are not enough to establish notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? All of those are official D&D resources, so they are all primary. The magazine is licensed by them and presents much of its information in an in-universe tone if that was what you were calling secondary. TTN (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- no third party sources to indicate stand alone notability requirements have been or could be met - therefore, transwiki to some gamer site that wants gamecruft, delete or merge any appropriate content to an appropriate target if one exists. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities or delete, the article doesn't establish notability in that the topic has not been significantly covered by multiple reliable, independent secondary sources per WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as List of Dungeons & Dragons deities is too long to include any information of substance of it. Has some independent sourcing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Too long" is not a valid argument and cannot trumpt WP:N. If the list is really too long, there's a good deal of overly detailed plot summary that can be trimmed. And there is no independent sourcing, or else you're not using the same definition of "independent" as WP.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Errr, we break out material all the time into segments, often with little to do with notability. You have a broader sense of independent than me which suits your goal of trimming stuff, just as my narrower definition suits mine of retaining it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- please explain which of the sources fall under your definition of "independent sourcing". TSR, Inc. is the creator, it is obviously not independent of TSR. TSR was bought out by Wizards of the Coast in '97 (if our article is correct) and so all things published by WotC in 2002 and 2005 are not independent. Dragon (magazine) is the officially licensed publication of D&D owned by TSR/WotC and is therefore not independent. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop trotting out this overly broad view of independence which you seek to render everything ever written by anyone affiliated with an entire chain of successive owners as non-independent. You believe it; I get it. I don't believe it, any more than SCO owns Linux. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- please explain which of the sources fall under your definition of "independent sourcing". TSR, Inc. is the creator, it is obviously not independent of TSR. TSR was bought out by Wizards of the Coast in '97 (if our article is correct) and so all things published by WotC in 2002 and 2005 are not independent. Dragon (magazine) is the officially licensed publication of D&D owned by TSR/WotC and is therefore not independent. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Errr, we break out material all the time into segments, often with little to do with notability. You have a broader sense of independent than me which suits your goal of trimming stuff, just as my narrower definition suits mine of retaining it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Too long" is not a valid argument and cannot trumpt WP:N. If the list is really too long, there's a good deal of overly detailed plot summary that can be trimmed. And there is no independent sourcing, or else you're not using the same definition of "independent" as WP.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Web Warlock (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Backyard Baseball. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Backyard Baseball 2001
- Backyard Baseball 2001 (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 and Backyard Baseball 2007 do not appear to be notable. None of the other Backyard Baseball games have been created. Jamesx12345 22:01, 15 August 2013 (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) 23:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge anything of use to the main page. I suggest that 2007 be bundled in this AfD. Ansh666 00:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a hard one for me. There's a slough of websites mentioning Backyard Baseball, and a few of its games, but not many seem to be reliable. PC Magazine had a Quick Clip about BYB '01, but that's barely a passing mention (it takes up not even a quarter of a page). Other than that, I can't come to the conclusion that any of these other sources are reliable. Most of them seem to be guide sites and whatnot. I would be opposed to a merge, because the main article does not have any references either. Therefore, I would say to delete all articles on the subject, including the main article. TCN7JM 09:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging by the number of page views (I know), I thought the main article is notable, but it appears to be a fairly standard arcade game. I don't know how WP:GNG applies here, as it might have received plenty of coverage before such stuff was indexed online. Jamesx12345 17:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's not an arcade game, for one. This, while hilarious reading, isn't reliable at all, and I'm not finding anything online. It does predate most of the biggest computer/video game sites, though, and fell off the radar in popularity (as far as I know) in more recent years. Ansh666 19:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 07:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Selective merge to article on series. Unnecessary and entirely unsourced detail on a game that doesn't seem to have enough coverage to be notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
M. Courtney Watson
- M. Courtney Watson (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 fails Notability - WP:Politician Subject has never held Statewide Office, as well as WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV - Press coverage is all local and trivial. WP:PROD removed without explanation. MilaPedia (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nine articles regarding Howard County Executives/Commissioners/Councilmen have been recommended for deletion based on not meeting only one of the three polices in WP:Politician by User:MilaPedia with an account created 9 August 2013.
A banner was posted using the “proposed deletion/dated format, with concern = Article fails Notability - WP:Politician Subject has never held Statewide Office”
WP:Politition states- 1. Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This also applies to those who have been elected to such offices but have not yet been sworn in. 2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. 3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate.
The banner stated - If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it
Following the specific instructions, the concern was met by meeting section 3 of WP:POLITICIAN by additionally citing each article from a book, in addition to existing citations. The notation was marked in the summary, and the AFS tag removed as instructed. The following entry was posted on MilaPedia’s talk - Thank you MilaPedia for your efforts to make sure all new articles related specifically to Howard County Elected Officials are to be deleted. The articles are works in progress, however each has been significantly cited from a variety of sources which meet criteria #3 of WP Politician (listed below). Some of the articles recommended for deletion are politicians that have also sought higher office and are also notable for their influence in their respective fields. In addition, the guidance clearly states alternatives to AFD "deletion" as a first step. I hope you will direct your future efforts toward expanding and improving these articles with accurate information and relevant citations.
Recommendations were given in Lieu of deletion. Six of the same articles were recommended for deletion again August 14, 2013 with the following notation – "Article fails Notability - WP:Politician Subject has never held Statewide Office, as well as WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV - Press coverage is all local and trivial. WP:PROD removed without explanation." Each article is in progress, and has been well-cited by a variety of sources, and extra care has been taken to exclude the extensive amount of voting history and procedure that may be considered trivial or not independent of the subject. Although notability is subjective, each is relevant in the history of a rural county that became one of the 10 wealthiest counties in America during their terms and provides supporting information to historical articles. Notification was provided to the user, and noted in summaries. The AFD’s recommended are very specific with similar articles in the same categories not facing the same scrutiny, such as Janet S. Owens or Calvin Ball, III. FlugKerl (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails notability. Apparently someone believes that being a county executive/board member qualifies people to have a page of their own. Lack of any references where the person is named as anything other then "candidate" or simply listed as holding said office. In fact for at least a couple the only articles about the person is their obituary. Caffeyw (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- * In this particular (stub) article, no obituary was used for a source, just 6 newspaper articles, one book, and five websites. Courtney Watson is alive as of July 2013.[1] FlugKerl (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - For some strange reason, "Caffeyw" decided to post the above, exact, same "delete" vote in 6 AfDs all over the course of 2 minutes time. Something odd seems to be up with this user IMHO. Guy1890 (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied. Now, everyone: stop copy-pasting your comments. Mysterious Whisper 12:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- * In this particular (stub) article, no obituary was used for a source, just 6 newspaper articles, one book, and five websites. Courtney Watson is alive as of July 2013.[1] FlugKerl (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Being a local office holder does not confer notability. Any hits are purely trivial in nature. ie listed as running for office, or listed as being the office holder. Nothing to show how they where notable. Caffeyw (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Please stop multiple voting in numerous AfDs. Guy1890 (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You complained that my "vote" earlier shouldn't count because it was copy/pasted. This despite the subject being similar (county executives in Maryland) and having the same issues (non-notability). It was requested I reply with a clear vote to overcome the problem some have with copy/paste. I've thus done as requested. I'd point out that nothing has been given to support keeping, so far the only issue has been the fact I copy/pasted. Caffeyw (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "It was requested I reply with a clear vote to overcome the problem some have with copy/paste. I've thus done as requested." No one has requested that you do anything of the kind. Please move on...your edits here are becoming borderline disruptive IMHO. I have no opinion on whether the article in question should be deleted or not. Guy1890 (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You complained that my "vote" earlier shouldn't count because it was copy/pasted. This despite the subject being similar (county executives in Maryland) and having the same issues (non-notability). It was requested I reply with a clear vote to overcome the problem some have with copy/paste. I've thus done as requested. I'd point out that nothing has been given to support keeping, so far the only issue has been the fact I copy/pasted. Caffeyw (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop multiple voting in numerous AfDs. Guy1890 (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2013 (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) 01:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Simply not notable enough and fails WP:POLITICIAN. She is one of 5 representatives, where are their articles. Very minor coverage outside council business. scope_creep talk 16:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete or merge per WP:BARE, WP:TNT, and WP:UPANDCOMING. I think this woman barely passes GNG. Normally, local politicians are just not notable, but they can be. There are a few potential sources that could be added to show notability, and in this case, she's been "in the news." However, the article is such a mess that it may be better to delete this, and to start later, when her notability may be more established. A temporary redirect to her town's article may also be an easy way to settle the issue, while saving the "history" of the article. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Johnson (musician)
- Sam Johnson (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an article for a non-notiable musician in and band of dubious noteriaty, it appears to just be fancruft. fails WP:NMUSIC CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed this fails WP:NMUSIC - the previous PROD had been removed by the article author. The band (Blame (band)) may be notable (questionable), but this article isn't. --Amkilpatrick (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keel I guess this musician deserves a space here considering he's in the band, however when I google'd him to find references it is hard to find since numerous people has the same name as his. Maybe some other editor who knows where they're looking could help and expand the article by looking for additional sources for atleast to keep the article. We should consider WP:BEFORE. Well, I'm no experienced editor, I'm just saying my opinion. :) SefBau : msg 07:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just being in a band doesn't make someone notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No sign of notability outside his band. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jennifer Blumin
- Jennifer Blumin (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)
Puff piece article about minor event planner that fails WP:BIO. Simply not notable enough for WP scope_creep (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This woman’s preservation of New York City’s historical architecture is noteworthy even if achieved by the arcane enterprises of a small business event planning operation, which is otherwise not noteworthy and where her opportunity to engage even at this is because of a privileged upper class upbringing. This article could easily be edited to remove any promotion of the event planning. A compromise would be to incubate the article until other Wikipedia editors have an opportunity to edit out any promotion of the underlying business. 64.134.102.201 (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Tammytoons[reply]
- Delete. Blumin is listed on page xvii of the book Power Sleep as one of a handful of research assistants, so her role in writing the book is not notable. Her career as a meeting planner is even less notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP. I found this picture of the book Power Sleep, Blumin's name is on front cover. http://www.visabooks.com/Power-Sleep-by-James-B-Maas-Megan-L-Wherry-Jennifer-A-Blumin-Barbara-R-Hogan-David-J-Axelrod-James-Maas/978-0-06-097760-3. I am from New York and she is a legitimate power player. She has the largest venues in the city and has worked with multiple not for profits and restored old buildings. WSJ has done a couple of pieces on her. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323528404578455130132125310.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444450004578000811589049782.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imurfunkeymonkey (talk • contribs) 21:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The book Power Sleep has Blumin's name on the cover along with the names of other contributing research assistants. Their names are very small while the name of James Maas is very large. Maas is the writer, the others are not co-writers but contributing writers. This is a much smaller role than co-writer.
- I am not the book industry, so take this with a grain of salt. I was disproving your assumption that she must had a small role because she was on page "xvii" with a "handful" of other assistants. I looked at the picture of the cover, it didn't seem like a handful of assistants on the cover. There is no basis for saying someone didn't have an important role based on title alone.
- Your link to "Setting Stages Fit for Bond" from WSJ April 2013 is good. There are three paragraphs devoted to Blumin. We need another source like that to satisfy WP:GNG. I could not view your second WSJ article link, so I have no idea how much coverage is dedicated to Blumin. Perhaps you can quote the article's relevant parts. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you need to be member of WSJ to read. Bloomberg was quoted on same issue.
Jennifer Blumin, president at the Skylight Group, which renovates industrial spaces for high-end events and photo shoots, said clients are drawn to an ambiance of New York's history they don't find in spaces such as Lincoln Center."It gives a little bit of a sense of timelessness," she said. "When you're showing next spring's collection six months before, there's still a connection to times past, and the history of New York. That's something that the tents at Lincoln Center will never be able to do." Mayor Michael Bloomberg praised both parts of his city, noting that Lincoln Center is a "fantastic home for Fashion Week." He also said: "Downtown has always been synonymous with cool, so it's no surprise that people are looking to those neighborhoods."
- Here is article on her bringing back an old BK landmark . http://50.56.218.160/archive/category.php?category_id=31&id=33143
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against a merge discussion taking place on the article talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
James Brighouse (musician)
- James Brighouse (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an article for a non-notiable musician in and band of dubious noteriaty, it appears to just be fancruft. fails WP:NMUSIC CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and cleanup- doesn't appear to be independently notable outside of Blame (band). I found one source for an earlier band he was in here, but that's not about him specifically, and I don't think it quite dips into the "part of two or more notable bands" criteria for which you get a free pass at WP:NMUSIC. Normally I'd say merge / redirect to the parent band but the "(musician)" on the end of the title means it's not a suitable search term. A "see also" in the more notable James Brighouse will also need amending. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing the above, I probably mean Merge rather than delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. No consensus for deletion and/or merger. Merge discussion can (perhaps sould) take place at article talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plummer Family Helluva Handball Bash
- Plummer Family Helluva Handball Bash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Family Helluva Handball Bash Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is movement handball tournament. It doesn't meet this criteria. In addition to the introduction, there is nothing else. Banhtrung1 (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Fairly minor event which has a strong and growing web presence. I think it is too young as a sporting event to pass WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 19.11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - Satisfies General Notability Guideline based on sources showing in the footnotes. I thought from the title this was gonna be some throwaway piece about a family handball party. It isn't. Carrite (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Carrite that this seems to meet GNG. Instead of deletion, perhaps a merger to Jake Plummer should be considered? Also, per this article they seem to have dropped the "Plummer Family" part of the title. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wreck-It Ralph. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Turbo Tastic
- Turbo Tastic (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 about a character from the movie Wreck-It Ralph appears to be a basic copy/paste job from one or more poorly-written Wikia.com articles. The article is full of unsourced and trivial facts, as well as personal interpretation and original research. Seems that a far-simpler character synopsis could be incorporated into the main Wreck-It-Ralph article without as much attention to Turbo Tastic's "eye bag" shade and King Candy's "notable red bow-tie". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Wreck-It Ralph. Mediran (t • c) 10:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the film article. Sheesh, they couldn't even get the name of the guy right? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 13:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please redirect. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nelson Mariano III
- Nelson Mariano III (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 somewhat contested on the talk page and I wasn't comfortable deleting it. Original rationale: "Does not appear to be meet Wikipedia's notable criteria of WP:GNG." Mackensen (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He is not a grandmaster and not even a master. He is not notable player for his age. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not adequately assert notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Ranked #8157 in the world. Not notable at all. Cobblet (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A CM at 23 is definitely not notable, particularly without a big tournament win. Brittle heaven (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Has not won a major tournament yet. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KlickEx
- KlickEx (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. Previously deleted by PROD by JamesBWatson for being non-notable/promo. Recreated by user request. CSD for it being promo declined, but then the admin removed most the article that was purely PR and left note company doesn't appear notable. Admin then stated found 1 reference, but upon reading it looks like it's a PR about a deal involving the company. *See the history of the article for those comments. Caffeyw (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably keep: The article now contains two newspaper articles that talk about it, one in quite a bit of detail (it's the subject of the article). The newspaper is the largest circulating newspaper in New Zealand, meaning (to me) that coverage there suggests that the corporation is important by New Zealand standards. I don't see any indication that that article is a press release (any more than any other newspaper article). I think that's enough to pass WP:CORP, but I can understand why someone would lean towards delete. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:NRVE and meeting WP:CORP, and expand over time and through regular editing. Multiple independent sources are available which speak toward this topic and its works,National Business Review (1) Stuff (1) New Zealand Herald (1) New Zealand Herald (2) New Zealand Herald (3) Scoop (1) Scoop (2) National Business Review (2) Fiji Times and more... even dry media articles describing the workings and plans of a newer company can have it meet WP:GNG.... and notable to New Zealand is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- The awards imply that it is likely to become notable, even if it is not yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- Please excuse the newbie; but here are some 'more' references....
Swift names KlickEx/Passport at top innovator of 2013 Idealog page24 - top ranked in Asia one of the founders has twice been recognised for KlickEx, as the winner of the New Zealand Hi-Tech Young Achiever of the Year (2012 High Tech 2012, High Tech 2013) - and the company won the Financial World Innovatoin awards in London [28] for building the 'world's "best payments initiative"' so the Royal Chartered Institute of Bankers says. KlickEx put PassportFX (a product) into the US in 2013, and US Bank Innovation Magazine imediately and named the US managing director one of the top executive innovators in banking #42, Bank Innovation Magazine 2013 - "executives shaping the future of banking"] - the company is also a presenter at SIBOS 2013 in Dubai and Finnovate Asia in Singapore in November.
- Keep -- My two cents is that these kinds of organisations/people are hard to impress - so something noteworthy WP:NRVE is likely. 77.49.222.50 (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Original Author (from 2010): Team - thanks for the clean up. The article well referenced and structured before the 2012 deletion spree - Can this be recovered? There was also KlickEx_Software which was more technical. The company is a utility function (neither NGO nor Industry Body); it's a clearing system that works to eliminate unregulated alternative payment systems - pre-dating bitcoin (and designed to replace other Hawala systems in the region for safety reasons, as AML regulations entered force).
- 2013 update - (KlickEx) was also listed as one of the Top 6 "Community Banking Initiatives" of 2013; and again as "the Best Payments Initiative of 2013" by the Royal Chartered Institute of Bankers, London for it's synthetic liquidity engine for lowering costs in low-volume currency pairs. This is the second time in 3 years it's been recognised. The wiki entry in 2012 got abusive - so the article lapsed until re-appearing as it is today. Thanks again Admins. Keep Belro629 (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Philippic
- Philippic (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)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article merely repeats what is said elsewhere in the encylopedia, and any cross-reference to Philippic can simply be linked to Wiktionary here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Even the current version of the article clearly transcends a dictionary definition. Several books by serious academics have been devoted to the speeches in which Demosthenes denounced Phillip II, and the term has later been applied to a certain attacking and denunciatory rhetorical technique, which has also been discussed in great detail in reliable sources, far beyond a dictionary definition. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is not a dictionary-style entry and, even if it were, it wouldn't be a reason to delete as one would expect this to be a blue link, leading to some exposition of the topic. Warden (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep tentatively as a particular theme or style or rhetoric. Needs vast improvement, obviously, but article is not a lexical entry. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- This is car more than a dictionary entry. I would like to see it expanded with something more on Demosthenes Philippics (with a "main" link) to articles on them. The textual citation "Ad Brut" needs expansion, and probably a link. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Kallman
- Michael Kallman (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)
Classic BLP1E, and largely unsourced at that. Alison ❤ 02:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)o[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A7 as received scrutiny for joking is not a claim to significance. LGA talkedits 04:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E. It is truly sad that this crappy little hit piece has remained here for seven years. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E....William 13:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. maybe salt? per WP:BLP1E. The article serves to disparage the subject and is a WP:Soapbox to rally off-wiki action and create publicity over the incident. There is nothing to see here and the article has no place on wikipedia. Regrettably, with all those news articles, I cannot honor the A7. Maybe someone bolder than I will get to it before I despeedy. Dlohcierekim 14:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deletion G7 — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masterclock
- Masterclock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article fails to state the significance of the company and is written like an advertisement. With only one third-party reference (which was added by me), there is very little coverage of this specific company, making it fail the general notability guideline. 155blue (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMS Health
- IMS Health (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)
G11 While I think probably passing notability, the page reads clearly as a promotional page. In fact a user from the company is the one that admits editing the page. Caffeyw (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As the nominator says this is a notable company, and the article is worded descriptively, not promotionally at all. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Instead of deleting an article for its content issues, we should probably tag and edit the article to improve the issues. If the company is notable, then by definition, a complete and well-written article can be written from reliable sources. Improving an article is always an better alternative than blowing it up. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Fairly well established company. I think it satisfies WP:ORG well enough to keep the article. It has a ton of references, all pretty decent. No reason to delete. scope_creep talk 17:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cybermed
- Cybermed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability. The article appears to be largely promotional and original research. I am One of Many (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Quick Google search shows ambiguous title and so few good hits over the first 50 returned links. The references in the article do not help in establishing notability with those provided either being general references that don't discuss the subject or self-published material. Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ambiguous title? Cybermed's homepage www.ondemand3d.com is the first thing that pops up on Google. Its the best-known brand of dental software in Asia. The reason for the few references is that Wikipedia has a lack of articles on digital dentistry. Things like 'surgical template', 'guided implant surgery', or 'surgery planning' and '3D image processing software' should already have pages. This is my first article on Wikipedia and I was planning to write one on 'guided implant surgery' after this. I can work to make changes if you tell me what's wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garmaa (talk • contribs) 10:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
* KeepOkay, I just checked out the first two references and I find they suddenly redirect somewhere else. I swear that when I was writing the article, the links were copy pasted exactly as they were and referenced in the article. I think the company might have been alerted that their old webpage was still up and running. I think that might be my fault as I was driving a lot of traffic there. But I do think that the article has enough 'respectable' or published references to account for it. I have a question. Is it okay to use Korean references? You will be able to make sure with Google Translate or even ask a Korean contributor. User:Garmaa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC) – You can only "vote" once. I am One of Many (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What about these sources and stories? Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that, didn't know that counted as a vote. I think I fixed the some of the problems with the references section. When doing a Google search, please search for Cybermed Inc. (not Cybermed) or by software names such as OnDemand3D and In2Guide. A search on Google Scholar comes up with 20, 30 pages of results. Please tell me if there are any more problems. Garmaa (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is truly truly excellent software, astounding really. I think because it's so well known in the dental world in Asia, makes it notable. There is a number of Google book entries, and large number of entries in various country specific Google sites. Seems to pass WP:ORG and WP:GNG. scope_creep talk 18:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Futtize
- Futtize (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 remotely notable enough for an article. Stage name has zero hits in news search, real name has nothing either. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt - This artist is unsigned, has no charting records, and received zero RS coverage. The previous AfD closed as delete. I see no indication that this musician meets the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC), revised 01:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It'd be nice if someone confirmed it here, but I asked an admin over IRC and this article is essentially a CSD G4 case. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt No evidence of attained individual notability for WP:NMUSIC. There is also a long-term AfC version which could go as CSD G13. AllyD (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Soft Redirect. As there is currently no entry for this word at Wiktionary, I'm deleting for now, but it can be restored as soon as there's an entry to point to. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ganjapreneur
- Ganjapreneur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Neologism. Yes, there is coverage, but this is, at best, a dicdef. Wiktionary, yes, Wikipedia, no. Fiddle Faddle 09:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- keep While I agree it is a neologism, it is one that describes a new and growing class of entrepreneur. The article goes beyond a dicdef in that it describes that new class of entrepreneur and the social milieu/phenomena/impact attending it. Dlohcierekim 14:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft redirect to Wiktionary per WP:NOTDICDEF. Right now this is too loosely defined, referring to virtually anyone who profits from anything related to cannabis. Given the pace of decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States (and in other jurisdictions), this could someday easily be a redirect to an article that mentions the term, perhaps a new article about the cannabis industry (Economics of legal cannabis?) or an existing article such as Drug liberalization#Economics. Gobōnobō + c 04:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft redirect It's certainly a valid term, appearing in a fairly large number of international papers. I agree with Gobōnobō + re: a future article. Within a year or two it will need a new article. scope_creep talk 18:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft redirect per above reasonings. Technical 13 (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's My Life (Leo Jee song)
- It's My Life (Leo Jee song) (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 song. Failed to place at National level for advancement to Eurovision. Part of promo of Leo Jee that seems to being done. Caffeyw (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The song and artist may not be notable on his own, but I think a redirect or merge to Eurovision Song Contest 2012 would work. 和DITOREtails 18:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- hello my friend i dont understand why this article must be delete?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest_2012 u can read about this song there ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexSpancer (talk • contribs) 16:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails practically every criterion at WP:NSONG. And a redirect wouldn't work because nobody will type "It's My Life (Leo Jee song)", so that's an implausibly redirect. If they want to search "It's My Life" and it's mentioned at the parent article, then it will be found. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Another self-commercializing nonsense by someone calling himself Leo Jee the article of which was deleted a week ago or so. GEORGIANJORJADZE 13:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Kendall
- Chris Kendall (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 user proposed deletion of this article for the following reason:
Seems to fail WP:N and WP:ENT. References are exclusively YouTube, Twitter and other non-notable sources. A Google News search for "chris kendall" crabstickz returns no results.
I'm inclined to agree with this rationale, but an IP anon removed the template, so procedural nom. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Technicaly we could extract a couple of lines from http://comedytvisdead.com/2013/08/28/review-ashens-and-the-quest-for-the-gamechild/ Geni (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable, the above website is more of a review on a youtube movie then an article about Chris Kendall. Caffeyw (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. Could also be redirected to List of YouTube personalities if deemed notable enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep talk 18:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with a side of salt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speiron
- Speiron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no indication of notability. sole RS mention is in passing in a time magazine puff piece (insufficient for GNG, as the article is not substantially about the product). Unable to establish WP:N elsewhere. Won an award (from new york festivals), but upon further investigation this does not appear to be a notable award. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it pertinent to point out that all of the significant edits to this page were carried out by SPAs, most of which appear to have also participated in the creation of articles about this company's olive oil (lambda, which has its own page) or about the "entrepeneur" behind this company (which has languished in AfC for some time as non-notable). since notability is not inherited, and i can see nothing about the company speiron itself (the time magazine article mention is clearly about the olive oil itself, not the company), i think (as the nominator) that it should probably be deleted. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 18:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete and Salt Advert article. Completely fails WP:ORG. scope_creep talk 18:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I found a few sources online, but can't be certain they are legit sources. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All i see there that could maybe be reliable sources are the Packaging Journal link and Journal du Net. Both of these are used in the Lambda (olive oil) article, also created by the same editor, and worked on almost solely by the same set of SPAs. They were close enough for notability for me to decide not to AfD the olive oil article, but they are both about the olive oil, and only mention Sperion in passing as the manufacturer. I would personally say that Sperion is not notable by itself, and does not deserve a separate article, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 19:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt; personally, I consider this G11,but since it's here, let's dispose of it here. I did decide to nominate the article on the product for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lambda (olive oil)--the references are the same, the promotionalism the same, and the notability very similar. Attempting to get multiple articles for something submarginal is as ure sign or promotionalism. The decision between a single article for a company and its principal product can be difficult (in general I prefer the company since it may have other products, unless a particular product is much better known) , but in this case it's very simple: neither warrant an article. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mayor of Auckland. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John Palino
- John Palino (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:POLITICIAN. This policy states "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion." Mattlore (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2013mayor (UTC)
- Redirect for now, to Mayor of Auckland where at least one candidate for 2013 is already mentioned, and then, to a NPOV article about the 2013 mayor's race, such as Auckland mayoral election, 2013, where all qualifying candidates can be discussed in an even-handed fashion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Role as a TV host is not notable per WP:ARTIST and WP:ENT. He has received a fair amount of political coverage but I wouldn't call it "significant", which is required by WP:POLITICIAN. Most media coverage is about the fact that he is running for mayor; there's little discussion about his background, policy and campaign. Adabow (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted so we can all go do something more useful. Mackensen (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of current UFL team rosters
- List of current UFL team rosters (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 entirely sure what this actually is ... PROD removed Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and smack the person who removed the PROD for the obviously false assertion that there is "useful info & history", because even a cursory look says there is not. Old versions of the article show this was a collection of templates that were deleted two years ago. This page is just debris that was forgotten when the templates were nuked. The league itself also folded in 2012, so not only is this page empty, it has no hope of ever being anything. Resolute 01:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, possibly even a speedy delete per A3. T'aint nothin' here. On the bright side, at least it's accurate. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Per 'Wikipedia isn't a collection of useless leftover junk'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Contact me or another admin if you believe the article should be userfied. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jagger lane
- Jagger lane (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. Doesn't look notable at all. Black Kite (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Black Kite (talk) What's not notable about it so I can fix it?? This is my first article that I've written and I've been having some difficulty getting it right. Clover6661 (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete In answer to Clover666's question, there are two issues here. One is that the article is blatantly POV - an encyclopedia's job is to give the facts, not tell us a story of how wonderful or awful someone is. The second issue is that all these opinions are given without reliable sources backing them up. It's not enough to have a list of sources - the sources need to be reliable (it looks like little to none of them are - if you have a question about this you should read up on reliable sourcing), and they actually need to back up the claims being made. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- well, I am searching for encyclopedic facts and reliable sources. I will get this problem solved. Clover6661 (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've moved a reliable reference from the unannotated reference list and also added two more references, one of which is from the event page on Fox13 news's website. I am currently looking up facts about him and adding them on there by the years that they occurred. Clover6661 (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe not yet, but I'm still looking up more reliable resources and facts so that it will be notable. Clover6661 (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ Amanda Yeager (18 July 2013). "Howard council members look for balance". The Baltimore Sun.