- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The consensus that developed in this discussion is that this page in its current state is not a hoax and is notable. The discussion as to under what title of the page should be or whether it should be merged elsewhere can continue on its talkpage. I would also like to add that this discussion could be used as a model on assessing an article and building consensus. J04n(talk page) 10:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
German Caribbean
- German Caribbean (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)
There are no sources about a "Deutsche Karibik". The article seems to be a hoax. --Otberg (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.The page creator has a history of hoax edits supported by non-existent references. They were very cleverly done, and would have been convincing to a casual observer. After I noted the fake references to his earlier edits, I confronted the editor and he seemed to turn over a new leaf and make what I deemed at the time to be constructive edits (the references themselves are real). Glancing at this again, however, I see how the references support more superfluous points. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Withholding judgment for the moment, pending additional information from Rjensen. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep following complete re-write, possibly re-name or merge if there is a better title or location for this new information. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withholding judgment for the moment, pending additional information from Rjensen. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete appears to be a hoax - I just checked the article from Geographical Review used as a citation for a claim comparing this to the German empire in the Pacific, and it doesn't mention any attempt to establish a presence in the Caribbean. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -
Delete- Concur with hoax assessment. It is very clever though, the article begins with a true statement "In the mid 1860s Prussian military leaders considered building a coal station in the Caribbean, ..." but it goes off into fantasy land after that. --Noleander (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- That material seems to have been added recently by an entirely different editor in good faith. I have asked him if this subject may be independently notable of the likely hoax material. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete even AGF regarding the recent material, the article seems a hoax. Any verifiable info can be used in articles on German colonization schemes.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is not a hoax. The idea was never a colony of settlers but rather a naval coaling station for use by the German fleet. I added new material including cites to two scholarly books. The Germans were interested but never accomplished anything. The US Navy was seriously worried that Germany would succeed. Actually Germany turned its attention instead to Mexico -- in the Caribbean of course--and that led to substantial german activity there (1911-17) and a German proposal for a military alliance in the Zimmermann Telegram of 1917. Rjensen (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rjensen: can you provide a quote from the new sources that specifically says that Germany planned to land settlers; and tried to build a naval facility on Klein Curaçao. I don't mind changing my !vote, but I'd like to see some specifics first. --Noleander (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To be more precise: I think it is clear that the sources say that Germany wanted a Caribbean presence; but the problem with the article is the detail about settlement etc that is not supported (yet) by sources. Also, what source says that this effort was called "German Caribbean"? --Noleander (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article tells us: In 1888 German naval engineers landed on Klein Curaçao, a small island southeast of Curaçao, to undertake the construction of a naval shipyard... This ist obviously nonsens. Please do not mix up this nonsens with other things, like general German interests in the Caribbean. A "German Caribbean" or "Deutsche Karibik" or some other kind of German Caribbean colony did not exist in this century. --Otberg (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict × 2) I think Noleander's concern over a "German Caribbean" neologism is significant, particularly considering User:Bermudanights's hoax article "Possession spillage". You could argue that "possession spillage" is a real phenomenon (things do fall out of your pockets while riding a roller coaster), but it was still a non-notable neologism that was made up and supported with fake references. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I find no evidence that there was ever a German landing in 1888. The little island was so small that a lighthouse is about all it could hold. So I deleted it. However, the German Navy did have a longstanding interest in the Caribbean. and it worsened relations with the US -- almost to the point of war in 1902 and actually to war (via Zimmermann telegram) in 1917. Rjensen (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rjensen: can you provide a quote from the new sources that specifically says that Germany planned to land settlers; and tried to build a naval facility on Klein Curaçao. I don't mind changing my !vote, but I'd like to see some specifics first. --Noleander (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There were multiple colonial ventures by German states in the Caribbean. For example, did you know that that in 1685, the Brandenburgisch-Africanische Compagnie took control of the slave trade on Saint Thomas, and for some time the largest slave auctions in the world were held there? We could perhaps merge this article with German colonization of the Americas. Warden (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, but we are talking about the article "German Caribbean" or "Deutsche Karibik" which never existed in real (is is a fakename). You should write a new article about German colonial interests in the Caribbean. But not in an article called "German Caribbean" which suggests there were any colony in real. --Otberg (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree... that is the point I was trying to make above. What source uses the phrase "German Caribbean" (which is a very specific proper name)? If no source uses it, then the article should be either deleted; or renamed; or merged into German colonization of the Americas? --Noleander (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article in question is about the proposition of establishing a German base in Curacao which is discussed in sources such as Die überseeische Stützpunktpolitik der preußisch-deutschen Kriegsmarine 1859-1883 and So kam das Meer zu uns: die preussisch-deutsche Kriegsmarine in Übersee 1822 bis 1914. This is not a hoax. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. It is our policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and so the exact phrase(s) used to lead readers to the topic is a matter of convenience, not definition. Warden (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What about a merger into German colonization of the Americas? Or, if stays as a dedicated article, how about changing title to Curacao German naval base? --Noleander (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There never was a colony or a naval base. What we have a re a variety of proposals in Berlin that never came to fruition. Washington and Berlin took them seriously, and they did threaten war in 1902. It does not fir well with German colonization of the Americas because a) that deals with very small colonies 200 years earlier b) in that article "German" means language--the nation of Germany did not exist.
- Okay, so Germany had plans to build a naval outpost (coaling station?) on a tiny island near Curacao, but they never came to fruition; and it was not related to colonization, so the merger into German colonization of the Americas is not right. I dunno .... mere plans that never came to fruition? I'm not sure this is notable enough for its own article. There must be some article on German military planning efforts around 1900 that this could be merged into. How about merging into Military history of Germany? --Noleander (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- is it notable enough? Well we have numerous German and American scholars writing about it and making the point that it became very important indeed to US naval policy. -- so much so that Roosevelt threatened war in 1902 if the Germans took control of a port in Venezuela. The Germans were rapidly building up their fleet, but the ships ran on coal and in a war with Britain the fleet would only operate near German controlled coaling stations. (Oil solved this problem much later because a ship could carry enough oil to go on long-range missions). The business about the little island is now also gone--that was the hoax part. Germany kept trying to get a station in different locations but failed each time for one reason or another (Bismarck said no, Netherlands would not sell, US said no, Mexico said no). With the hoax gone I don't see any problems. So let's keep it.Rjensen (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I guess I'm persuaded. One final issue: The article states "The German Caribbean (German: Deutsche Karibik) was an unsuccessful proposal undertaken by the German Navy (Reichsmarine) during the late nineteenth century to establish a coaling station the Caribbean..." Did we confirm that "Deutsche Karibik" is an official term (proper name) used by the Germans for this initiative? If there is no source that shows that the Germans used that particular phrase for their initiative, then it is not the correct name for this article; in that case it should be German coaling station in Caribbean or Caribbean coaling station for German navy or similar. --Noleander (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- is it notable enough? Well we have numerous German and American scholars writing about it and making the point that it became very important indeed to US naval policy. -- so much so that Roosevelt threatened war in 1902 if the Germans took control of a port in Venezuela. The Germans were rapidly building up their fleet, but the ships ran on coal and in a war with Britain the fleet would only operate near German controlled coaling stations. (Oil solved this problem much later because a ship could carry enough oil to go on long-range missions). The business about the little island is now also gone--that was the hoax part. Germany kept trying to get a station in different locations but failed each time for one reason or another (Bismarck said no, Netherlands would not sell, US said no, Mexico said no). With the hoax gone I don't see any problems. So let's keep it.Rjensen (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so Germany had plans to build a naval outpost (coaling station?) on a tiny island near Curacao, but they never came to fruition; and it was not related to colonization, so the merger into German colonization of the Americas is not right. I dunno .... mere plans that never came to fruition? I'm not sure this is notable enough for its own article. There must be some article on German military planning efforts around 1900 that this could be merged into. How about merging into Military history of Germany? --Noleander (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There never was a colony or a naval base. What we have a re a variety of proposals in Berlin that never came to fruition. Washington and Berlin took them seriously, and they did threaten war in 1902. It does not fir well with German colonization of the Americas because a) that deals with very small colonies 200 years earlier b) in that article "German" means language--the nation of Germany did not exist.
- What about a merger into German colonization of the Americas? Or, if stays as a dedicated article, how about changing title to Curacao German naval base? --Noleander (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Noleander raises a good point about the name. There were multiple similar projects over 40 years in Berlin and I doubt there ever was a single official German name, so Noleander is right that we should retitle it German coaling station in Caribbean (putting "German" first in title since were the actors and the Caribbean just the geography) Rjensen (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Deutsche Karibik" is no official term or proper name used by the Germans at any time. It is a fake name. --Otberg (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, the article should be renamed to German coaling station in Caribbean or merged into Military history of Germany. --Noleander (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Deutsche Karibik" is no official term or proper name used by the Germans at any time. It is a fake name. --Otberg (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! Haven't you learn anything from the Bicholim conflict? This is a fake, a hoax, a joke. The references are not citations and are not what they claim to be. Furthermore, none of the German wikipedians have ever heard about it, and I have doubts that the Dutch would believe that. What would it help to rename it or debate if it was a political or diplomatical part of history? It was not history at all, it was a joke. The author played well with some other informations about similar other German attempts o establish a naval base in the Carribean. However, the only story what seems to be similar to that fake was a note of the German admiral Reinhold von Werner about the useful annexion of Curacao (not Klein Curacao) in 1880 (not 1888). --Roksanna (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine. Alright. The fake is deleted. Finally. However, it is still No original research. Unlike German Middle Africa the term German Carribean (Deutsche Karibik) is not established in German history or German-speaking area, where does it come from? Was it a real plan, project or concept at all? Do you have any source for that problem? (And: the very small content is barely wort to carry such an article, but this is just a quality problem. There are much better examples of notes you could summarize in such article.) --Roksanna (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- as discussed above the current title is a problem. I agree that German coaling station in Caribbean would be a better title. The issue led to serious tensions between the US and Germany and has been discussed by several independent scholars (see the footnotes). There is no OR here and it's a legitimate topic. Rjensen (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, rename it and possibly enrich or improve the content. However, German coaling station in Caribbean sounds like there really was a station although all these activities and thoughts between 1870(!) and 1917 were attempts only. --Roksanna (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but I think the convention in WP is that titles do not have to contained "alleged" or "planned" or "purported" qualifiers. E.g. Manned mission to Mars. Adding "Planned" into the title is not a bad thing to do, but might make the title to unwieldy. --Noleander (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes. Of course, an article about a German or French invasion of Britain, for example, does not need to be named alleged invasion or planned invasion. Even if these invasions never became true, the plans and projects did really exist. However, a German coaling station in Carribean did not exist AND there never was a strict plan for it. The article could summarize all German thoughts about such a station, that would be fine and interesting, but it should be added that this never was reality and not even was a real plan. Name it Imperial German naval policy in Carribean maybe... Best regards --Roksanna (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a list of some possible titles:
- German diplomatic initiatives in Caribbean
- German military initiatives in the Caribbean
- German interest in the Caribbean
- German coaling station in Caribbean
- Nineteenth century German diplomatic initiatives in Caribbean
- German plans for military facilities in Caribbean
- ... other? ...
The difficulty in selecting a title should be a clue that perhaps the material should be merged. If it is this hard to find a title, that means Reliable Sources do not talk about it as a distinct topic so perhaps WP should not treat it as a distinct topic either. --Noleander (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but re-name - the title does not match the notable content. Bearian (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- there is nothing to merge it into. The coverage of Germany in the Imperial era is very weak. I do like German interest in the Caribbean -- which sums it up and includes mexico, which has major studies to bolster it. Rjensen (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 02:12, 26 February 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. J04n(talk page) 10:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jon_Bridgman
- Jon_Bridgman (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 individual fails to meet the notoriety requirement. Stlamanda (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Despite failing our notoriety requirement, this individual meets WP:AUTHOR as demonstrated from the reviews linked in the article's current version. Holdings for those two books are also significant; according to Worldcat, over 500 libraries for Revolt of the Hereros [1] and End of the holocaust [2]. RayTalk 19:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I will quibble with you that Worldcat does not list over 500 for either, but it does list over 400 for each. In any case, your point is well taken. It certainly meets the requirement of at least a dozen libraries as detailed in WP:AUTHOR. --Stlamanda (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I think he is notable as the author of the seminal The revolt of the Hereros and I have added refs of multiple independent reviews of this to the article that indicate this. Incidentally, though this need not help with this Afd, we also use his work in our article: Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:38, 23 February 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 Sayre, Pennsylvania#Horned giants. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 00:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Horned Skull of Pennsylvania
- Horned Skull of Pennsylvania (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 myth is widely reported on any number of conspiracy theory websites, but cannot be corroborated by any legitimate source. The fact that most sites report that the skulls were sent to the "American Investigating Museum of Philadelphia", an institution that has no existence other than in these myths, gives extra cause for skepticism, as does the fact that, although the skulls were reported stolen and never seen again, all sites have the same modern color photograph to show. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HOAX. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Redirect to Sayre, Pennsylvania#Horned_giants: I did a bit of Google research on this and discovered an intriguing account of how the urban legend got started. Ultimately though, it's a disproven WP:FRINGE claim that fails WP:GNG. --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I smell a hoax. I can haz snow? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Per Tokyogirl. Better outcome than deletion and the notability of the legend is at least established, per WP:FRINGE. Reversing !vote. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Given the number of sites that carry this story, I'm not entirely sure that it doesn't qualify as a notable hoax. That's why I brought it here for discussion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 04:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see your point, and I did see a large number of hits. But I have to wonder how we sift the reliable sources from the unreliable ones. I couldn't see a single one that would give me the warm and fuzzies. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: If one or two reliable sources can be found, would it be a better idea to create a small sub-section in the article for Sayre, Pennsylvania, since that's where it was supposedly found? Of course this would require at least 1-2 sources that are reliable. I'm thinking that if there's enough to show that it is at least taken somewhat seriously as a hoax but not enough for its own entry, this might be a good compromise. I'll see what I can find.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would be all for that, and a redirect. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I found a few relatively reputable-ish sources that comment upon the skull, which I'll charitably call an urban legend. Considering that the skeletons were conveniently "misplaced", I do think it's a hoax, but it's a notable enough one that it got mentioned in a few textbooks, including one academic textbook published through Scarecrow Press. I'm still finding more, but so far it looks like even if this isn't enough for an article, it should be mentioned in the page for the town. Real or not, it has gotten quite a bit of coverage for a hoax.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Sayre,_Pennsylvania#Horned_giants. I found just enough to show that it's worth noting in the general article for the town, but I don't really see enough to where this is a notable enough hoax/urban legend to where it merits an entry of its own. One of the books calls them "horned giants", so that's what I optioned to label the section as. I have no true objection against this article name redirecting there, as this seems to be an unofficial name for it. My only objection to labeling the section under "horned skull" is that this doesn't encompass the whole of the urban legend. I've also labeled it as an urban legend because while it's highly unlikely that this is anything other than a hoax, there's nothing to really prove or disprove the claims, so it seems to more fit an urban legend feel than anything else. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I was convinced by the redirect argument, so I changed my vote accordingly. I would note however that with regards to Sayre, Pennsylvania#Horned_giants, I do not regard Brad Steiger and Jim Marrs as "relatively reputable-ish sources," though the wide distribution their books receive are indicative of a certain level of popular interest in the urban legend. Interestingly though, upon doing some further research on clues posted in [3], I did discover reports of a skeleton of a seven foot tall skeleton found nearby (see [4] and [5]) along with a second discovery of human "bones covered with nearly a bushel of broken antlers of Virginia deer" [6]. These reports correlate partially with the sources you uncovered, and I can see how all this could get distorted through retelling into the urban legend. At the very least, the paper published in American Anthropologist ([7]) about the seven foot tall skeleton seems to directly relate and would make a good source for that part of the claim. --Mike Agricola (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... anything that we can add to the subsection? My first impulse is to add the book sources, but I don't want to write anything that could be seen as OR. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a sentence to Sayre,_Pennsylvania#Horned_giants noting that the official excavation reports written by Donehoo, Skinner, and Moorehead contained nothing substantiating the urban legend. However, I looked over the source for the discovery of the seven foot tall skeleton ([8]) more closely and it appears that it not only was part of a completely different excavation, but also it took place in a different town, beneath what is now the Spalding Memorial Library-Tioga Point Museum, so I didn't include it in the article about Sayre. Moreover the only source I could find connecting that discovery to this urban legend was the blog entry I mentioned earlier, a source which WP wouldn't regard as reliable. I should also note that Donehoo, Skinner, and Moorehead excavated around ~1916, not the 1880s as the article currently states, and it's doubtful that the "American Investigation Museum" even exists; I ran that phrase through Google and the only results it returned were about the horned skull! Basically the urban legend fails verification on multiple levels. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Tokyogirl79.--Staberinde (talk) 17:14, 24 February 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. Secret account 05:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jessica Meir
- Jessica Meir (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:ACADEMIC. Veryhuman (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy DeleteNotability not observed. She is an ordinary researcher, not the notable personality. Jussychoulex (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A speedy delete is inappropriate after an AfD of no consensus, no? Clearly there are some reasonable people who believe a keep vote can be sustained. Speedy is only for the clearest cases of no possible notability. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete h-index of 6 fails WP:Prof#C1. Too much puffery for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete for same reasons I submitted in prev AfD: young-in-career post-doc, avg research record, with all sources either having only trivial mention (1 of them), or not satisfying WP:RS at all (the rest of them). Creator indicated this was one of many articles s/he created on "aquanauts", but that aspect is not notable per se and there seems to be nothing else to justify keeping. Agricola44 (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep -- per the reasons that Agricola44 and I debated last AfD -- the Globe and Mail and other sources are independent and enough for GNG, though not for WP:PROF. But I also think that this second AfD is too soon even after a no consensus close (it'd definitely be too soon if the last result was keep or delete) -- there simply hasn't been enough time for a real consensus to emerge as opposed to the opinions of whoever happens to be reading AfD one week vs another. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A friendly reminder that the Globe and Mail article is actually about the group "Adventurers and Scientists for Conservation" and only mentions Meir peripherally. The PR-related NSF, Scripps, and NASA website material and her NASA homepage also do not satisfy what we conventionally consider WP:RS. There are several web-zine articles, but these likewise don't seem to be WP:RS either. For example, the Mother Goose article says it is "provided to LiveScience in partnership with the National Science Foundation", seemingly more NSF-contracted publicity rather than legitimate, independent coverage of Meir. I agree it is somewhat soon after the first AfD, but nom appears to have not been involved in the previous one. If article is kept, it is likely we'll all be here again in a few months when someone else wonders by and realizes this person isn't actually notable. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. Passes WP:BIO, which supersedes WP:ACADEMIC. As was said when this was at AfD two months ago, Meir has been written up in several popular science sources such as US News & World Report, ScienceNOW, ScienceNews, and LiveScience, establishing notability by meeting WP:BASIC. Arguments attacking the reliability of the sources in the article seem hyperbolic. The Globe & Mail piece devotes three paragraphs to Meir and she is on the board of the organization. It should be noted that a large chunk of this article was also recently removed. Gobōnobō + c 14:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguments affirming the reliability of all these sources seem hyperbolic**2 :) Most of the ones you mention are webzines/PR that do not satisfy WP:RS/WP:INDY. For example, you mentioned the LiveScience article – that is a PR-piece evidently written by an NSF employee to promote work that they themselves funded, cf. "This work, funded by a National Science Foundation International Research Fellowship Program grant..." The source is not independent, but rather has a vested interest in promoting Meir. I would say there are now enough keeps to result in at least a no-consensus-default-to-keep, so we'll all see each other a few months from now when some newcomer puts this up for AfD again:) best, Agricola44 (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Lest there be any misunderstanding about the "large chunk" that was removed, let me remind the panel that there were no nefarious activities here. There was broad acknowledgement in the original AfD that most of the article was WP:PUFF. I stated on talk my intention to clean this, then waited a month, then removed all text which was unsourced personal narrative/promotion/puff, including her future plans, her hobbies, undergrad projects, etc. (Again, documented on talk.) Does your statement suggest that this material should be restored? Agricola44 (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. As the article's creator, I was advised last time that I should feel free to vote "Keep", so... "Keep". BTW, I was quite open to the article being slimmed down, although I was a little startled by how drastic the compression was. Also, WRT Agricola44 referring to me as "s/he"... I'm a guy. :-) Gildir (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While the sources aren't overwhelming, I think the article's subject just meets WP:PROF. Miniapolis 16:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this is a very evenly divided debate so far and since there was almost uniform agreement in the previous AfD that she did not satisfy WP:PROF, would you mind elaborating? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Weak keep. I think she does not pass WP:PROF, but does pass WP:GNG on the basis of the popular-media publications about her work. (Incidentally, the bit about geese at the Johnson Space Center reminded me a bit of this artist, but I think it's completely unrelated.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - appears to pass GNG, but not PROF. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:25, 27 February 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 The Amnesic Incognito Live System. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incognito LiveCD
- Incognito LiveCD (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)
Nonnotable Linux distribution. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Amnesic Incognito Live System, which is this project's successor. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Amnesic Incognito Live System. Toffanin (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 20 February 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. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Warrior princess
- Warrior princess (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)
Disambiguation page that doesn't really disambiguate anything. The works listed on the page are partial title matches, with no indication that any of them would be known by the title "warrior princess" alone. What remains is a collocation of common nouns, like water drinker or gold dinner plate, and is not ambiguous merely because someone can be a princess, a warrior, or a possessor of these positions as overlapping characteristics. bd2412 T 21:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: gooogle search shows that "Warrior Princess" has actually become a stock character, unlike Water Drinker. Therefore it makes sence so have a disasmbiguation list of characters which are in fact officially called 'Warrior Princess'. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The titles are instances of natural disambiguation, not simple partial title matches. The phrase is an epitaph or subtitle and as such can be a separable title from the main title (and indeed is nearly synonymous with the Xena franchise in popular culture). I'm not sure why Woman warrior was removed from see also, as that is a near synonym. See also should perhaps also include List of female action heroes and List of women warriors in folklore. older ≠ wiser 21:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It appears to disambiguate between several warrior princess-related articles.King Jakob C2 22:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as disambiguation list of valid targets for the redirect, if there were only one such; since there are several, disambiguation is needed. If kept, move to Warrior Princess. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: disambiguates several uses of "Warrior Princess" and links as See Also to "Woman warrior", much of which was previously in an article at this title until a merge in 2009. PamD 15:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - dab pages are evaluated on the basis of reasonable usefulness, and this passes easily. Bearian (talk) 00:00, 26 February 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. J04n(talk page) 11:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Ward (designer)
- Daniel Ward (designer) (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 person, no evidence of notability, article is unreferenced containing only a link to the person's web page. BigPimpinBrah (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete no evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Search is complicated by the common name. I found advertising as Dan Ward but no coverage establishing notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - I was going to say, merge him to Alfred Dunhill because as a designer for the brand, he is notable enough for a mention there. Not sure a redirect is appropriate but definitely worth a mention in the Dunhill article. This Chinese article does qualify that factoid. [9] Design directors for such major brands should certainly be identified somewhere as this is something people want to know. I see he's also worked for Bally Shoe and Calvin Klein as director of design and merchandising, so he's not exactly a wet-behind-the-ears newbie, but someone who has had a 25 year career and played key roles with some high profile companies. There's no obvious single redirect target, but this is someone who I would consider to have had a notable career due to their key roles with three very high profile, internationally recognised brands. This is a tricky one. I'll have to poke around the Net a bit more, as there is certainly a lack of immediate sources. Mabalu (talk) 16:42, 20 February 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eldridge Hawkins, Jr.
- Eldridge Hawkins, Jr. (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 Politician. Fails Wikipedia:GNG and WP:Politician including coverage or notability outside of being Mayor of Orange, New Jersey. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment COI is never a valid reason for deleting an article and has no bearing on the notability or otherwise of the subject. Voceditenore (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, my comment above was in reference to the original version of the nomination rationale. Voceditenore (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Proof of the notability of the subject is contained within the article itself which contains several citations of the national US media attention generated by the subject's conflict with public employee unions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbaraff (talk • contribs) 11:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @User:Voceditenore ok I see your point but it still fails for notability under Wikipedia:GNG and WP:Politician. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep @User:TheGoofyGolfer The article clearly meets the standards for notability under Wikipedia:GNG and WP:Politician. The GNG states: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. The text of the article and its citations makes clear that the subject received significant coverage on reliable independent national and international sources including Fox Financial News, CNN and CNN International. As is documented in the article, the subject was interviewed multiple times on these television news channels regarding his experience and views on the role of public employee unions, a major issue in today's U.S. political dialogue. In addition, the text of the article and its citations makes clear that the subject received significant coverage on reliable independent major New York area daily newspaper sources including the Star-Ledger and the Courier-News. Further, an update to the article indicates that since leaving the office of Mayor, the subject has participated in widely broadcast panel discussions on reliable New York City television stations Fox5 and WWOR and radio station WGHT Hot 97.1 for his expertise and experience on the widely debated issue of school violence and gun control. The update documents that the subject received significant television and radio coverage for his controversial opinion that armed guards should be placed in schools and his advocacy of a moderate position on gun control. The article also meets the notability standard under WP:Politician. It clearly, as stated above meets two of the notability criteria, specifically: 2.Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. and 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". Fbaraff (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability outside being Mayor? There is sufficient 3rd party coverage of subject to establish barely notable as mayor. Dlohcierekim 18:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I think the nominator might strengthen his position by striking the COI part. The issue at hand is notability or lack there of of the subject. Dlohcierekim 18:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- request I would like to request that this AfD be extended beyond the 7 day period to get a better concensus because there really hasn't been any votes on this matter. Thank you in advance. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes Criteria 2 of WP:POLITICIAN: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" per this lengthy article in the New Jersey Star-Ledger (a statewide paper, not local to the town he was the mayor of); national coverage here, and here on CNN; and here on Fox News. There are also references to support the facts that he was the town's youngest ever mayor here and that he was selected by Ebony Magazine in 2009 as an “Outstanding Young American Leader here. Voceditenore (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 19 February 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) 20:50, 19 February 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: blatant hoax) by Yunshui (talk · contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDan61 (talk • contribs) 12:45, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
Dacta soos
- Dacta soos (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 for something made up one day. No indications anywhere that this "fictional character" has appeared anywhere other than the imagination of this page's author. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This article was nominated for deletion 8 minutes after its creation. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Although I'm usually hesitant in deleting articles nominated for deletion early and created by newer editors, this one is blatantly non-notable. It could have been speedied for G3, I guess. Zero hits on Google. There is simply no indication that this subject even exists. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unknown to the world. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete as non-notable junk. No need to wait seven days. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete As an obvious hoax. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete I've nominated for CSD. Mkdwtalk 09:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - It's a second attempt of blatant vandalism, see Dact_soos. Toffanin (talk) 09:32, 20 February 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. However, if anyone wants this article to be userfied into their userspace, I am willing to do so upon request at my user talk page. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Magnus Cedenblad
- Magnus Cedenblad (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)
Doesnt seem to pass WP:NMMA. GladiusHellfire (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - As he has a four-fight deal with the UFC. WP:COMMONSENSE says he will meet the three-fight minimum in the future. As there is a contract, it shouldn't fall under WP:CRYSTAL. Luchuslu (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep - Per Luchuslu. You can withdraw your nom if you want and there are not delete !votes. --LlamaAl (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is a valid point, but a fighter could still be cut from his contract. GladiusHellfire (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Gladius's comment IronKnuckle (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Admin note: The nominator has been CU confirmed as a sockpuppet of this account. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He hasn't fought in almost a year. Assuming he gets 2 more top tier fights is WP:CRYSTALBALL because contracts get changed all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.126.132.231 (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom commments. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with the previous delete comments. He doesn't meet WP:NMMA and assuming he will is WP:CRYSTALBALL. No objection to article re-creation if/when he meets WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fighters are routinely cut before their contract term is up if they lose a fight. See it all the time and this is not a crystal ball to meet WP:NMMA. Mkdwtalk 07:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO to assume that he will be cut is clearly WP:CRYSTALBALL. He's currently under contract, so it can be logically presumed through WP:COMMONSENSE he will pass WP:NMMA. If he gets cut before his third top-tier fight, renominate him and vote delete. Luchuslu (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're misinterpreting what I said. I am pointing out that fighters (in general) are routinely cut pre-mature of his fight. You changed my meaning to say he will be cut which is completely different and a counter-point to your crystalball saying he will meet WP:NMMA. There is a very strong difference. My argument is simply pointing out that that crystball is in effect because the only known thing right now is he does not meet the guideline. Any arguments for keep are based out of crystal because the outcome is never a guarantee even under contract. Mkdwtalk 20:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO to assume that he will be cut is clearly WP:CRYSTALBALL. He's currently under contract, so it can be logically presumed through WP:COMMONSENSE he will pass WP:NMMA. If he gets cut before his third top-tier fight, renominate him and vote delete. Luchuslu (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Admin note: The nominator of this article for deletion has been indefinitly blocked as a sockpuppet. - The Bushranger One ping only
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak Keep fails WP:NMMA but he was scheduled to fight in the UFC again before an injury so its unlikely that he would be cut from the UFC right away so keep the page for now if he gets cut before the three fight minimum renominate the page for deletion. Green Man 20 (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Green Man 20 has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of Entity of the Void. Papaursa (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming he will eventually meet the standards looks like a crystal ball to me. I have no problems with the article being recreated when he meets the criteria. With only one fight in the past 16 months, it looks like it may be awhile before he meets the criteria (which would require 2 more top tier fights).Mdtemp (talk) 20:00, 19 February 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) 19:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete With only one top tier fight he fails to meet WP:NMMA. The article can be recreated when he gets his third fight. Papaursa (talk) 23:24, 20 February 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. J04n(talk page) 11:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mansionization
- Mansionization (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 sure if this article is an attack/vandalism page towards those who might be richer hence no CSD tag. Just want others opinion for contrast? thesimsmania 19:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not willing to !vote yet. The page, (at this writing) is barely more than a dictionary definition. It was PROD'ed as such, but the author then expanded it (slightly). There is an article to be made here about the social and economic effects caused by this process in question, but it is not clear that the author has any intention to finish creating said article. I don't have the time or inclination to do so either. Unless someone is willing to rescue this article, I fear it is doomed for the circular file. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although it has the potential to be a good article, does it meet WP:CORP? I'm confused on this one thesimsmania 20:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The concept is notable in the field of land use planning, and it is simple to improve the article through normal editing. WP:CORP does not apply, as this is not an article about a company or an organization. The general notability guideline is the relevant guideline. The article must be watched so that it maintains the neutral point of viewCullen328 Let's discuss it 20:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - There are enough potentially good sources to build a decent article. See, for instance this and this. Plenty of book hits as well. What exactly is the delete rationale posted by the nominator? Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I discovered four books with "Mansionization" in the title. Two were published by university presses, and another was published by the Massachusetts Bar Association. Many other books deal with the concept in detail.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ç Google News and Books search show frequent use of the term. It's not well-written and it's arguably biased (presumably mansionization is good at least for the person in the mansion) but it's a notable topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I added 2 refs, and a bit more detail. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - Do not delete. Mansionization is a common, in-use word. There are many media reports of mansionization being discussed at town and county community meetings. There is no other word that conveys the meaning of both needless extravagance of space and building materials to expand a home square footage; and the surprise infringement upon the hapless community who does not wish it. There are many references to the word in use. The article simply needs to site s selection of the references in the article.Do not delete. Rstafursky (talk) 10:06, 25 February 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 Alexander, Count of Schönburg-Glauchau. J04n(talk page) 11:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Irina, Countess of Schönburg-Glauchau
- Irina, Countess of Schönburg-Glauchau (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)
Sourced by a mention in a photo caption roughly two years ago, unsourced before then, I'm unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this living Princess. Additional sources welcome, as always. j⚛e deckertalk 18:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Alexander, Count of Schönburg-Glauchau. Her husband seems to have some genuine notability as a writer, but her only claim to notability, above and beyond occasional passing mentions as a guest at social events, seems to consist of being rather more closely related to the British royal family and various claimants to German royal titles than her husband is - so this sometimes gets mentioned in articles on her husband. PWilkinson (talk) 00:55, 23 February 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. J04n(talk page) 15:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Skumin syndrome
- Skumin syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not sure about this article. I can't find any other references to "Skumin syndrome" or "Syndrome of Skumin" in the usual medical databases, nor any reliable sources that talk about "СИНДРОМ СКУМИНА" (mostly Wikipedia mirrors, it looks like). The other Russian article that mentions it (СИНДРОМ СКУМИНА КАК НОЗОЛОГИЧЕСКАЯ ФОРМА) is showing up in a lot of various Wikipedia articles but not in any reliable sources. The Lancet article doesn't use the term. The other references either don't appear to mention it or are primary sources. ... discospinster talk 18:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ah, I see it has been nominated for deletion before. I guess I should have checked that first, it would have saved me some time. ... discospinster talk 18:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I made the first nomination, and totally missed the part where it wasn't deleted, even though the consensus was delete. I'm not sure how that happened, but it seems like the prior consensus still stands? Dunno what the next step is. a13ean (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit: OK, I see what happened. It was deleted, but recreated in good faith as a translation from the French page by a user who probably missed the first article and AfD. I would suggest this user self-revert and go with WP:DELREVD if possible. a13ean (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hi, I'm that good faith user, thanks for the presumption of innocence =)
I really did a translation, and I'm no expert in this field. Just trusted French Wikipedia on that one, and had no idea that the page was deleted before.
Thinking about it, it is really "fishy". But, since I'm an amateur Wikipedian (took me a while to get here in the first place), can I delete it already, even if the notice on the page says that I should wait the result of this votation?
BTW, the affluent articles probably should be revised. If someone slipped this link in there, maybe some other dubious content made its way there too.Jack O'Neill (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no, you can't delete it. It takes an administrator to do that. At this point just wait out the process. Thanks for your willingness to re-evaluate this, after your hard work creating it in the first place. (Excellent translation, by the way - pleasure to see an article so well written one doesn't even realize it's a translation!) --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Reliable references in Russian language exist, even books. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's a book that Skumin himself wrote. It just shows that he's coined the term, not that it's widely accepted in the medical community. ... discospinster talk 23:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, not that this is relevant, but the page in Russian gives his middle name as Andreyevich, but the Google translate gives it as Yushchenko. (!) ... discospinster talk 23:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's a book that Skumin himself wrote. It just shows that he's coined the term, not that it's widely accepted in the medical community. ... discospinster talk 23:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The reasons presented at the first AfD (obscure "syndrome" not widely accepted) still seem to be valid. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR. No secondary sources prove it has been generally accepted. Bearian (talk) 00:03, 26 February 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 General store. J04n(talk page) 11:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tapri
- Tapri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article does not cite any source and is not significant. atnair (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 17:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article is about a name for a small grocery store in India. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete This is just a foreign word which literally means "stall"(see search result eg for "South India - Page 113"). And nothing to merge. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Of the sources found in Staszek Lem's search, the Hittite Etymological Dictionary entry is the one that sounds the most interesting. (SAL tapriyas INA tapriti ser marseszi nu taprisa mahhan suppiyahanzi: "if a girl of the tapri soils herself upon the tapri, [this is] how they clean the tapri".) Hints from Hittite Heloise, anyone? But if 'tapri' only means "stall", it doesn't really describe something unique enough to support an article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Merge It is more like a local dictionary word for a General store. It should be merged into General store. Amartyabag TALK2ME 15:37, 20 February 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. British Member of Parliament (see WP:POLITICIAN) (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 20:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
James Childs Gould
- James Childs Gould (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)
Subject does not meet WP:BIO guidelines. atnair (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Members of national parliaments are inherently notable: see WP:POLITICIAN #1. AllyD (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As AllyD correctly points out, consensus is that actual members of national and provincial legislative bodies are presumed to be notable, and the prospects for expansion of the article are excellent over time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Members of a national parliament pass WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per WP:POLITICIAN Enos733 (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:POLITICIAN #1 and possibly WP:GNG for business ventures. He appears also have been known as "J.C. Gould", which in conjunction with "steamship", turns up various hits for a shipping company known under various names that eventually tanked (e.g. "J.C. and W.T. Gould Shipping Co", "Gould Steamships and Industrials"; "JC Gould Steamship Co Ltd of Cardiff" is mentioned in Capt. John Treasure Jones). Good looking guy, by the way. Location (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, keep per WP:POLITICIAN, member of national legislature.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:43, 21 February 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. J04n(talk page) 11:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trappole
- Trappole (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)
Completely unreferenced article about a book which fails to meet the notability criteria. Indeed the article text itself asserts the book's non-significance. (A CSD category for books is really needed.) A Prod notice was removed by an IP so I am bringing it to AfD. AllyD (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per the original PROD rationale: fails WP:NBOOKS. A bio created for the author was deleted as well for failing WP:AUTHOR. We really need an A9 equivalent for books. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The book does exist - ISBN 9788856717990 - but there is no indication that it meets the standard of WP:Notability (books), and indeed the article more or less asserts that it does not. JohnCD (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An unreferenced article about a non-notable book. The article itself says that the book wasn't very successful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The author of this book used to have a page on WP too and it was recently deleted (see Corinna_Carbone). Trappole is an independent auto-produced book that fails to meet WP:NBOOK. Toffanin (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree with Toffanin, an awkard promo page.--Lal.sacienne (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Note that this comes from a student who I asked to improve Wikipedia as a class project. I believe it is her mother's novel, hence the quotations without references. The student did not intend a commercial purpose here. That said, this does fail to meet notability criteria. Thank you editors for taking the time to teach her this lesson! --User:JediLibrarian —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 20 February 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. J04n(talk page) 11:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Priya Ranjan Trivedi
- Priya Ranjan Trivedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I did not find the notability of the person. Writing some books does not make people notable. It seems that the page is created for self-promotion. Please take part in discussion and write your valuable comments Jussychoulex (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found little to no coverage in Gnews, a Gscholar h-index of 5, and in Worldcat there are about 70 books, but clicking around on the top 10 I found none held in more than 15 libraries or so (the or so is due to a peculiar issue I've recently noticed with Worldcat counts - it's different for me at home and at school). I conclude a general fail of WP:BIO, WP:PROF, and WP:AUTHOR. RayTalk 02:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Per Ray. I agree this person fails WP:BASIC criteria and higher alternatives reserved for WP:ACADEMICS. JFHJr (㊟) 19:59, 21 February 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. J04n(talk page) 11:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shri Kutty Hassanaru Kunju Soopi
- Shri Kutty Hassanaru Kunju Soopi (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:BIO notability not established atnair (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article states that he was a member of the Sree Moolam Popular Assembly. It is unclear from the article whether the Assembly should be considered a actual national and provincial legislature (the assembly appears to have limited legislative powers). If it is, then actual members of national and provincial legislative bodies are presumed to be notable. Enos733 (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Nothing independent of Wikipedia on Google. Even if a member of that assembly would be notable, http://www.keralaassembly.org, the only site referenced from that page, has no record of this person. --Stfg (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Stfg. No evidence of notability at all. Star767 (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR and WP:V. Bearian (talk) 00:04, 26 February 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. J04n(talk page) 11:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sundar J.M. Brown
- Sundar J.M. Brown (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 Brazilian Jiu Jitsu instructor. All references in this article are primary sources: the subject's own personal blog or profile at onthemat.com; a "personal interview" (apparently not published) by Betina Esguerra-Brown (possibly the subject's wife?); and entries at "rate my BJJ instructor". No indications of any actual notability or any significant independent coverage to be found. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete A7 does not indicate importance. The creator was in the helpdesk today asking about their AFC, and was advised that this article would not meet WP:MANOTE, so it seems they have tried to bypass the review process. --nonsense ferret 23:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The subject of this article does not meet the criteria listed in WP:MANOTE. As Nonsenseferret noted, we did inform the user of this yesterday. It appears they chose to ignore us. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's not just that he fails to meet WP:MANOTE. The article also has no independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - clearly not notable. The article also exists as an unsubmitted draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sundar J.M. Brown where it was created by 64.121.25.136 (talk · contribs). This article's creator has also edited that draft, and the IP has edited this article. Dougweller (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The recent vandalism of this page came from Mellon Bank. One more like that and I will likely block the IP and the article creator as well as the bank. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not meeting WP:MANOTE seems fairly rock solid with no other WP:SIGCOV for outside notability. Mkdwtalk 10:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails to meet the criteria in WP:MANOTE, and hasn't really gotten any significant coverage in WP:RS. ZappaOMati 17:37, 22 February 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. J04n(talk page) 11:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nirav Patel
- Nirav Patel (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)
autobiography.in my opinion i dont think this article needs to be on wikipedia. Davidjohn13 (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete.Jussychoulex (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep - This page is extremely important to the people of United Kingdom and the rest of the world as Nirav Patel has done so much in supporting the London 2012 Olympic Torch Relay. This page includes information which enables the county Kent and the rest of the world to be able to find out more information about this extraordinary person. EdwardGrangerWiki (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC) — EdwardGrangerWiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Struck sockpuppet !vote[reply]
* Keep - This page is about a boy aged 16 who has done done a lot for our local community and has made our country proud. Nirav is not just any torchbearer, but was one who really did so much for the UK. There were 8000 torchbearers but Nirav really was really outstanding for the county Kent. kellyf456 (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC) — kellyf456 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Struck sockpuppet !vote[reply]
- Speedy delete -Non-notable personality. Walking with torch does not make a person notable. Page developed for self promotion by Nbp777 (talk · contribs). Note the same page has been deleted earlier after deletion discussion, see [[10]]NehaIndia (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep - This page was deleted in 2007 which was before Nirav Patel carried the Olympic torch. This page should not be deleted. This page was deleted before for a completely different reason. It was deleted for a different person called Nirav Patel. By the way, this page is about a recognised person in Kent.Frankmartin2 (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC) — Frankmartin2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Struck sockpuppet !vote[reply]
* Keep - Those of you who have wanted the page Nirav Patel to be deleted should not request deletion if you don't know how important this person is. As I read this page, this person seems very important. I have contacted the Olympic committee and they want to keep this page about Nirav Patel as they say he is not only just an Olympic Torchbearer, but a really important torchbearer as he got his torch lit by the Olympic Lantern, there are other reasons as well. This page should stay on Wikipedia. Gordsnow (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC) — Gordsnow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Struck sockpuppet !vote[reply]
- what is the contribution of Nirav Patel in society. Give some authentic reference to show his notability.Jussychoulex (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Olympic committee say Nirav Patel is the youngest Scout leader in England. He does voluntary work to help imporove Scouting in the UK. Nirav has raised thousands of pounds for so many different charities and has helped so many young Cub scouts and elder Scouts to gain more knowledge of why scouting is so important to young people. The commitment Nirav has made to this organisation has helped so many young people in the UK to get essential scouting knowledge which they will need for future life. All this information was provided from the Olympic committee. Gordsnow (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Give authentic references. Do not say without references. Proof is required to show his notability. Jussychoulex (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first reference is from the Olympic committee website. It is a page about Nirav :http://www.london2012.com/torch-relay/torchbearers/torchbearers=nirav-patel-7603/ The second reference is from a nationwide radiostation website http://www.heart.co.uk/kent/events/olympic-torch-relay/olympic-torch-relay-july-18th/olympic-torch-relay-18th-july-9/ the third reference is from a county newspaper website http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/LIVE-Olympic-torch-Kent-Day-61-relay-London-2012/story-16553524-detail/story.html#axzz2LLnQgG00 the fourth reference is from another county newspaper website http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/home/2012/july/18/day_two_of_kents_torch.aspx Gordsnow (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)— Gordsnow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I have seen these references earlier at the end of the page. These are not-authentic references. Just show any weblink which show the notability of this person (except torch bearing: its not a notable work).Jussychoulex (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I myself have directly contacted the Olympic committee and they have said that this page is worthy of staying on Wikipedia as Nirav is one of very few torchbearers to get lit from the Olympic Lantern. He was an honourable torchbearer as he had his torch lit from the Olympic lantern. Gordsnow (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Olympic committee do not run Wikipedia, whether by attributable or non-attributed opinions. While the subject obviously found it memorable to be a torchbearer (number 21 on the 61st day if I read your sources correctly), that will not in itself establish notability according to Wikipedia criteria, nor will being a cub scout leader. A clearer demonstration of notability will be needed to meet WP:ANYBIO. AllyD (talk)
- They also said that Nirav will be presented the Queen's Scout Award from Queen Elizabeth II which is notable work as this award is not easy to get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordsnow (talk • contribs) 19:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your personal talk with Olympic committee does not not make him a notable person. We will support this page after he gets the Queen's Scout Award from Queen Elizabeth II,, not now. Its my request to not support the page of this non-notable person at present. Jussychoulex (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For those of you who may not be aware, Nirav does a lot of design work and and has been noted as an Arkwright Scholar. Being an Arkwright Schalar makes him one of the best design scholars in the UK. A reference to this is found in the Arkwright Scholar's Manual. Nirav was also chosen as a torchbearer because of his amazing ability in the world of Design and engineering. This makes him notable in the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyf456 (talk • contribs)
- As per the Wikipedia notability guidelines, Nirav Patel is not a notable person. This page should be deleted soon. Jussychoulex (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — I haven't found coverage in multiple reliable sources substantially about him. Discounting "coverage" by the Olympic Committee itself (non-third party), excessively local news reports that actually cover the torch relay, and a host of passing mentions, there's no indication of coverage to any encyclopedically meaningful extent. I also find no particular achievements that rise to the level of WP:ANYBIO. JFHJr (㊟) 21:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - a single-event person. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have struck four !votes by sockpuppets of the creator of the article. All are blocked, sockpuppet investigation here[11]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per earlier comments above, no evidence has been forthcoming that this person meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 11:26, 22 February 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. J04n(talk page) 11:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Narine Dovlatyan
- Narine Dovlatyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability? Only participant of some concerts and competition. Not significant.--188.115.246.142 (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close- Malformed nomination by an IP. "Note that if you are editing under an IP address because you have not yet created a user account, you will not be able to complete the AfD process, as anonymous contributors are currently unable to create new pages (as required by step 2 of "How to list pages for deletion," below). If this is the case, consider creating a user account before listing an article on AfD." Carrite (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Note - I merged the nomination from the log at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 19. See its history for all contributors and licensing attributions. A malformed or poorly formatted nomination is not a criterion for procedural close or speedy keep. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless... the IP was a sockpuppet of User:Don't Feed the Zords. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural Keep - Deletion nominations should be made by registered accounts. Carrite (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a misunderstanding, Carrite. IPs may nominate articles for deletion at AfD. They cannot do so directly as they do not have the ability to create the discussion page but registered editors can do this on the IP's behalf as Michaelzeng7 has done here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
Comment: Something odd is going on here, back to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Narine_Dovlatyan and Feb 18 edit summary "persistent attempts at deletion; see Ggg editor in history." Seems there's a case for notability here, and a quickdash claim she is not. She won Best New Artist at the Armenian National Music Awards? (source:[12]) I have a friend in Armenia, I'll get his input and share anything I hear.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Am updating my comment to keep, found another source confirming her best new artist win.[13] My Armenian friend (who is not a pop-singer fan kind of guy) said "she is a known entity here" and sent me that link.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first nomination was made by a banned sock puppet, so it qualified for speedy keep. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The sourcing in the article is weak. The Bravo source is probably OK but the others are a blog and two YouTube videos. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A search for her name in the Armenian language "Նարինե Դովլաթյանը" suggests that there are sources available, such as these [14], [15], [16] , [17], [18]. I do not speak Armenian and it is difficult for me to assess these sources but on the basis that it seems sources are available, and to avoid systematic bias, I'll !vote weak keep. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but where in this source said that she has won a prize?And besides, this ″ceremony″ is not official and ″prizes″ at this ceremony still do not make an artist significant for the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.115.243.117 (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Young performer Narine Dovlatyan won the award for Breakthrough Artist of the Year..." --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 188, its not a great argument to claim sources didn't say she won (when they are *right there*), and then admit she won by claiming the wins are not "official". What is your beef?--Milowent • hasspoken 13:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to say that ceremony itself is not significant and the winning in nomination is not an argument of significanse.--188.115.246.26 (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Тhe only argument that you cite is just one victory оr nomination in not very significant ceremony.--188.115.246.26 (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:MUSICBIO states: "A musician or ensemble ... may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria: ... Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." It is a valid argument to question the significance of the award that this musician won. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But usually, the national music awards for a particular nation should be considered significant. And it is difficult to assess notability on English Wikipedia due to systematic bias. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 188, its not a great argument to claim sources didn't say she won (when they are *right there*), and then admit she won by claiming the wins are not "official". What is your beef?--Milowent • hasspoken 13:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Young performer Narine Dovlatyan won the award for Breakthrough Artist of the Year..." --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per above. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:22, 24 February 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 Delete. Because of low community participation treat the nomination as an expired proposed deletion, with the understanding that anyone who contests the deletion may request undeletion for any reason J04n(talk page) 11:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pawan Kumar Bharti
- Pawan Kumar Bharti (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)
Vanity page of non-notable Gurupawanbharti (talk · contribs). After going through WP:BEFORE, I concluded this person's impact in academia as a writer is negligible, far short of a notable WP:ACADEMIC. A Google Books search returns his name as the editor of an eyebrow-raising 8+ publications in 2013 alone, all through Discovery Publishing House; they don't appear to be seminal works or prominent at all in academia. I get nothing but zero when it comes to his poetry and WP:CREATIVE writing. JFHJr (㊟) 16:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. This page is created for self-promotion by Gurupawanbharti (talk · contribs). Notability not observed. I request to administrator to delete this page soon.Jussychoulex (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 20 February 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. Even after looking at Colapeninsula list of sources consensus agrees that it falls a bit short of GNG, willing to userfy though. Secret account 05:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dark pattern
- Dark pattern (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 whose point-of-origin is the grad student author's website. As far as I can ascertain all in-context references to notion trace back to promotion of this term. There are as one might expect a large number of false hits for things like camouflage, but no legitimate book hits whatsoever. Mangoe (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Article's author hasn't responded to the suggestion that notability be supported by reliable sources, rather than sites with which he's connected [19], which underscores the impression that this was developed with promotional intent. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. 17:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The actual subject of the article appears to be deceptive user interfaces. Some of the links contain interesting musings, but none would appear to be a reliable source. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a promotion of the site because the site does not sell but inform about an important subject. Originally the site was a wiki with the same content: a library of patterns. The definition of "dark pattern" is important because they are among many commercial webpages. It is not published in any book but the term starts being known in many usability and design magazines. Please, reconsider the deletion, because we might have to create the page again. Best, --Marcmiquel (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming good faith, and that the article is not intended to promote your and associated websites, there's been no evidence that this meets guidelines at WP:NOTABILITY. In order to meet notability requirements it will be necessary to provide reliable sources, WP:RELIABLE, as I've explained at the COI noticeboard discussion. Merely saying 'it's important' will do nothing. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this seems to be an honest but misguided attempt to publicise a personal point of view and website via a Wikipedia article. In the absence of reliable independent sources, deletion looks the only option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are in-depth independent sources out there:
- CMO site senior editor piece
- article at webdesign tuts Journalistic site
- Both of these are somewhere in between blog and news article. I don't know if either could be considered reliable sources. But the dark patterns site has already made a bit of a splash. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, where there has not been enough time for reliable secondary sources to write on this concept. But it could become a meme in time and if deleted, article re-creation is reasonable when reliable sources become available. --Mark viking (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean you are going to delete it now? Can't you keep it with the "signs" for a while until other sources become available? I think it is reasonable because I am aware of the movement it's coming.--Marcmiquel (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You can ask for it to be moved to your user space ("userfy") so you can work on it when sources become available. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfying is a good idea. Two things nobody's told the author yet: 1. The AfD discussion usually lasts a week, at which time an administrator decides whether to keep or delete the article, and 2. It's not for us to determine whether a subject's notability is imminent, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. 99.156.66.72 (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also hasten to point out that our articles on user interface, interaction design, and interface design could stand improvement. A researcher who's studying deceptive user interfaces might have assembled some verifiable information to contribute on the subjects. Even if this neologism is not yet ready for an encyclopedia article, we have several that relate to the underlying subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfying is a good idea. Two things nobody's told the author yet: 1. The AfD discussion usually lasts a week, at which time an administrator decides whether to keep or delete the article, and 2. It's not for us to determine whether a subject's notability is imminent, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. 99.156.66.72 (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Probable keep (although it's not clear whether the article should be about the concept or the website). The darkpatterns.org "on the news" page[20] cites quite a bit of coverage. The following looks like RS: Independent (UK)[21], Engadget[22], Metro (UK)[23], brief Wired post[24] This might be RS: Search Engine Journal[25] There's a couple more I've not checked out. This article could be expanded and given some reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:00, 20 February 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 via A7. Speedy deleted via A7 by User:INeverCry, "Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". (Non-admin closure.) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jake Cinoa
- Jake Cinoa (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)
Subject fails notability guidelines. Jake Cinoa is often added to Good Luck Charlie as a cast member but, in the 6-7 months this has been happening, there hasn't been a single, credible source added that confirms that Cinoa is a cast member. The article even has a note regarding this that is always ignored.[26][27] The baby (Cinoa is less than 12 months old) does not play a significant role in the series, it's virtually a prop and even if the baby was Cinoa (again, this is not verified ) he fails WP:NACTOR, in much the same way that a cat that has appeared on the series does. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC) AussieLegend (✉) 15:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - zero web, news and book hits beyond self-published stuff. Article's creator has disrupted the page by repeatedly removing a {{blp prod}} notice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, close to zero reliable sources to justify existence of the article. GrayFullbuster (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No reliable source supports that an actor of this name even exists, let alone has any credits in a current TV series. Definitely not credited in TV series mentioned in article. Current info on web originated from a TV show Wikia. Possibly a web hoax. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: He is only mentioned in two episodes of Good Luck Charlie at IMDb. Even if this is correct, it is not a significant role and not enough to establish notability. Cst17 (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And the IMDb information is wrong. He is not credited in the episodes listed there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: BLP article has zero sources to verify this person actually exists and the article also fails notability. Webclient101talk 00:01, 20 February 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. Freshacconci reevaluation of the sources Yngvadottir gave, wasn't rebutted and consensus shows she doesn't meet the criteria for ARTIST or GNG yet Secret account 05:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth Kinahan
- Elizabeth Kinahan (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:ARTIST. No real substantive coverage here. A handful of mentions in a local newspaper does not make one notable. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An artist working locally, which is fine, but no evidence (either in the article or found via Google, Highbeam & Questia) that the subject meets the WP:ARTIST criteria. AllyD (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is essentially a resume and what is there does not satisfy WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG at this time. freshacconci talktalk 17:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Even with the sources added after I !voted, I don't see this passing GNG or ARTIST. The only sources that seem to be beyond the trivial are the couple of Durango Herald articles. However, on their own, those brief mentions are not enough to establish notability. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON and I have no prejudice against rewriting this article in a few years if there's more substantial coverage. freshacconci talktalk 20:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't DeleteThis is a profile of an important artist in her field. There are sources from multiple credible news outlets, both in her home town and elsewhere. The entry may need to be improved upon, but it's worthy of inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdebalt (talk • contribs) 19:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Extensive local coverage I believe makes her meet the general notability guideline. I've cleaned up the article, used the listed news articles to add information and to reference things, and added a reference from before she moved to Colorado. Note also the additional local press coverage listed, which does not appear to be online but should be taken into account. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 20 February 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. Secret account 05:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Crowtree Leisure Centre
- Crowtree Leisure Centre (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 sign of notability and the place sounds just about closed anyway Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 15:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's notable for the events it has hosted and for the controversy over its closure. Peter James (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED - just because the Prince of Wales 'opened' it, does not infer its notability. No other evidence of passing WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:GNG. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:38, 27 February 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. Could have been relisted for further debate, but this is mostly an CSD A7 here. Secret account 05:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ariel Levinson-Waldman
- Ariel Levinson-Waldman (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, doesn't appear to be notable by any other criteria. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable attorney working for a government agency. No significant coverage of him in reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:GNG, no significant sources found. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:40, 27 February 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. Secret account 06:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fondation René Touraine
- Fondation René Touraine (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)
Insufficient third-party sources to establish notability. Novangelis (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been deleted twice before for this reason.Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of third-party sources are needed? Thank you for your answer. Alizean (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2013
- Independent sources (plural) which examine the organization in some depth are required to establish notability. See WP:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria.Novangelis (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:CORP for lack of independent coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:CORP Tiggerjay (talk) 05:41, 27 February 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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 00:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of accidents and disasters by death toll
- List of accidents and disasters by death toll (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)
Useless, unmaintainable WP:LISTCRUFT. According to the name of this article, it is intended to list every single accident in the history of mankind which resulted in at least one fatality. By any conceivable standard, this would include an incredibly high number. If applicable, the content might be split up into several articles about a narrower subject (for example aviation accidents which resulted in at least 50 fatalities), though on the other hand, such information seems already to exist, typically located at the respective article about a certain kind of accident. FoxyOrange (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I disagree with deletion. I think it'd be better, on the list that include many disasters, to say something like "List of (type of disaster) with more than (number) casualties:" before the list. There is something like that on rail disasters, but it appears not to be being respected. But I disagree with deletion; this list can be useful (I've used it sometimes), maybe it simply doesn't need to have accidents with very few fatalities, but I see no reason for it to be deleted. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Wanna talk? See my efforts? 17:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Perhaps remove "disasters" with only a handful of deaths. The fact that someone might add a car wreck or lion attack which killed one or a handful of people is no reason to delete a quite encyclopedic compilation of the worst accidents. Certainly there have been many disasters and accidents (as distinguished from war deaths, hurricanes etc.) which have individually gained significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. There has also been adequate amounts and quality of coverage of categories of disasters. Edison (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 22:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It just needs some cleanup. Animal attacks don't belong here, so I've merged them to Man-eater, while the floods are a partial duplication of another list and has been deleted. I'm also pretty sure that Aloha Airlines Flight 243 is not the 177th most deadly air accident with one fatality. If it becomes too large, it can always be split off into sublists later. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree it needs some clarity and cleanup, but this list is very useful. Maybe splitting it into sublists with a page listing all those would be better. I would be happy to assist with managing this list now I am aware there is a problem. It's way tto handy as a starting point for reading on disasters. Jinnythesquinny (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Its a useful list. There is no valid reason given to delete it. These events all get coverage. And obviously, by rule of simple common sense, we aren't listing every single thing that had just one person die from it. The talk page of the article can be used to determine whether something belongs on the list or not. Dream Focus 13:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmmmmmm. I'm just looking it over again with a more critical eye. It's a bit confusing that the list numbers are sequential even if two or more incidents are listed for that death toll. Maybe a table would be a better layout? Jinnythesquinny (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jinny, I saw a guy doing that (I watch the page). It seemed like, in their opinion, all disasters with the same death toll should be put together. They didn't post that idea on the talk page, to be discussed, as they should. I disagreed, 'cause, obviously, the number would then lead to misinterpretation, but I didn't feel in a mood to undo it (I think at the time, I hadn't yet known the "undo" possibility, so I thought I had to do it manually!) nor to talk to them, but the guy obviously didn't think of the number list problem. I can search that revision for you, if you desire so... -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Wanna talk? See my efforts? 18:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We have many lists which, by their nature, have a long tail such as list of rivers, list of writers, list of alloys, list of games, &c. Obviously what we do in such case is concentrate upon the most notable examples. If there's no obvious or exact cutoff point then this is no reason to delete the most important part of such lists - the head. Warden (talk) 21:34, 20 February 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. Secret account 05:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jade Acidre
- Jade Acidre (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:BASIC - I cannot find any reliable sources discussing the subject in any depth. SmartSE (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I don't see sourcing that meets WP:GNG. I would have argued for a merge/redirect/mention if we had an article at Alliance of Filipino Mountaineers. But we don't, and I don't see much sourcing on that organization either. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no significant coverage found from non-primary reliable sources where the subject is the primary subject of the content of the source to indicate that the subject is notable as indicated by WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Neither him nor his organization appear to be the subject of reliable coverage (honestly, I've never heard of either the AFM or the PNMS before this AfD). The fact that the official website is a Weebly page (self-published) means this article is likely to be gone after a landslide or an avalanche. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, This person is known in the Philippines as founder of Philippine National Mountaineering Society or PNMS. Although this page is not properly written, i suggest that this page be edited or marked as incomplete. The subject is also known in the business atmosphere in the Philippines having campaigned for green building design and disaster resiliency in house design.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcphilippines (talk • contribs) — Arcphilippines (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. and Rename Ruth the Betrayer, although participation in this discussion was low and the 'delete' opinions outnumbered the 'keep', PWilkinson has found a better search term and his rationale was not refuted. J04n(talk page) 10:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ruth Traill
- Ruth Traill (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)
There have been doubts about this article since it was created; the earliest versions seem to have been researched out of the British Library acquisitions list or something, and it's only in some of the most recent versions that it is sourced to something that resembles a secondary source. Presently it references a Times Literary Supplement article that is hidden behind a paywall; however I have also found a letter to the NYT from the person who wrote the TLS article. After that things get very problematic: almost every other repetition of this claim is in a blog or is a copy of our article, and it seems entirely possible that most if not all of those blog claims trace back to us as well. I'm not convinced that the author of our article isn't the author of the TLS/NYT article and letter. Legitimate GBook hits are all on the book itself. I should note that the article title is wrong: there is a "Ruth Traill" who appears to be a real person unrelated to the book, but the character in the book uses only one L in the last name. I'm extremely reluctant to have an article whose only notability claim arises out of a somewhat passing assertion in a book review. Mangoe (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. The sources may not be independent, and notability does not appear to be satisfied. A claim of something being "first" is not sufficient for inclusion absent adequate coverage by reliable and independent secondary sources. Edison (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but rename to Ruth the Betrayer (the title of the book she appears in). The nominator's suspicions about the article seem to be largely right - but with a slight twist. So far as I can see, what looks to have happened is that the author of some books on Victorian social history got involved with a Wikipedia Editathon at the British Library while researching for her next book. As a Wikipedia editor, she was a complete newbie, and it looks as if she created the article directly from her research notes. However, that next book has now been published by HarperCollins, and looks (given the publisher, reviews in major British newspapers and her previous publication record) like a reasonably reliable source - and I have revised a couple of citations in the article to refer to it. Other apparently reliable sources can be identified (and do need to be included in the article by someone with access to them) by searching on the title of the book (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), particularly on GBooks (past the first page), rather than the character - even if, unfortunately, the most promising ones seem to be either on snippet view or no preview at all (though the available snippet from The encyclopedia of fantastic victoriana suggests a substantial and contrasting treatment of the subject. PWilkinson (talk) 13:00, 23 February 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 USERFY. I am moving the page to Nunnsofunky's userspace. I also want to applaud the participants of this discussion for their civility and helpfulness towards a new comer and Nunnsofunky's good natured attitude towards understanding our processes. J04n(talk page) 10:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Folly Wildlife Rescue Trust
- Folly Wildlife Rescue Trust (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)
Recommend deletion due to lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. None of the citations offered actually provide information about the organization, but rather offer brief comments by representatives of the organization about various wild animals. We need to have significant coverage about the organization in order to establish notability. Cindy(talk to me) 21:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy. I was asked to come in and look for sources, but unfortunately there just aren't any out there that focus on the organization. I found brief, trivial mentions of it in relation to other things, but nothing that would count as in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Since the original article creator looks to be completely willing to continue working on it, I think it would be better to move this into their userspace. (WP:USERFY) There is a COI here, but nothing that I'd be terribly worried about at this point in time. They've shown that they're willing to learn and work with others, so I think this is a good faith type situation. I would recommend that they get someone from a WikiProject such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights or Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals to help them look for sources and work on the article until it passes notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your help and advice, Tokyogirl179. Would something like this be acceptable as a source? - http://www.indexmagazine.co.uk/article.php?id=532 - It is a local press article from 2012 and gives an overview of the Trust, where it came from, where it is now and what it does. Similarly, this one from the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/southeast/series11/week1_hedgehogs.shtml Thank you.
- I've also been looking at other charity sites for ideas and I can't really see how their references are so much different to that of the Folly article. Nunnsofunky (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If I may butt in - it depends what you hope to source with it, but IMHO, it seems like a passable reference to use. I'd suggest you go ahead and do it, and see what other editors say about it. Be careful when comparing to other articles' sources, keeping in mind that the sources will come under extra scrutiny during an Afd process. It is acceptable to reference self published sources in certain circumstances (see WP:SELFPUB), but what needs to be demonstrated here is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cheers. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi AdventurousSquirrel. Thanks for the advice. I have removed my reference to the other charity - I didn't give any thought to their also being put under scrutiny. :( I have added the BBC News and Index Magazine references to the Folly article, so we'll see if these pass the test. Who ultimately decides on whether an article is deleted or not, though? If some editors say "delete" and others say "don't", who then has the final say? Thanks! Nunnsofunky (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to delete the articles for deletion status box for this topic. A-I do not know how. B-I'm not sure if I should do that at this point.C-This is a great topic/page in my opinion with photos worthy of "photo of the week", so I definitely think this one is a "keeper"24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To respond to you both: an explanation of the AfD process can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Under normal circumstances, an administrator will close the discussion once consensus has been reached by editors contributing to the discussion using Wikipedia policy-based arguments, (and/or common sense). AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to delete the articles for deletion status box for this topic. A-I do not know how. B-I'm not sure if I should do that at this point.C-This is a great topic/page in my opinion with photos worthy of "photo of the week", so I definitely think this one is a "keeper"24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi AdventurousSquirrel. Thanks for the advice. I have removed my reference to the other charity - I didn't give any thought to their also being put under scrutiny. :( I have added the BBC News and Index Magazine references to the Folly article, so we'll see if these pass the test. Who ultimately decides on whether an article is deleted or not, though? If some editors say "delete" and others say "don't", who then has the final say? Thanks! Nunnsofunky (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If I may butt in - it depends what you hope to source with it, but IMHO, it seems like a passable reference to use. I'd suggest you go ahead and do it, and see what other editors say about it. Be careful when comparing to other articles' sources, keeping in mind that the sources will come under extra scrutiny during an Afd process. It is acceptable to reference self published sources in certain circumstances (see WP:SELFPUB), but what needs to be demonstrated here is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cheers. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also been looking at other charity sites for ideas and I can't really see how their references are so much different to that of the Folly article. Nunnsofunky (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your help and advice, Tokyogirl179. Would something like this be acceptable as a source? - http://www.indexmagazine.co.uk/article.php?id=532 - It is a local press article from 2012 and gives an overview of the Trust, where it came from, where it is now and what it does. Similarly, this one from the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/southeast/series11/week1_hedgehogs.shtml Thank you.
- Thanks to everyone who has offered help, support and advice. I have extended the article, added an info box and further references, plus included some photographs. I hope this goes some way to helping it qualify as a permanent entry in Wikipedia. Nunnsofunky (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep due to significant improvements to the article in the past week. I hope the new editor will go on to write on many topics here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Once I've got the hang of this, I'll definitely write some more articles. :) Nunnsofunky (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep due to expansion of the article and the inclusion of what I believe to be suitable references proving notability, added since this AfD was raised. Nunnsofunky (talk) 08:05, 19 February 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, J04n(talk page) 13:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this has been re-listed, and the article has expanded significantly in my opinion, I'm going to ask "Keep"-again but for a different reason this time. My first reason had to do with the work of the Trust, which is interesting.Now that the article has expanded, I can see more uses for the article including some historical interest for the area, and geographical/location interest as well.24.0.133.234 (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It matters little toward notability that improvements and/or expansion has been made, or additional content has been added to this article. Notability for organizations must be established in accordance with the guidelines at WP:ORG or WP:GNG. At this point, very little information has been offered that equates to significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Sources provided are limited to local coverage (see WP:LOCAL). While evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. There's nothing to indicate how the organization is significant. At this point, we have a noble cause to rescue and rehabilitate animals by an organization that presents an educational program in local schools and community groups, while also participating in a local Christmas fair. We also have a couple of notable patrons, including an assertion of a financial donation made by Paul McCartney. Wikipedia is not here to promote the existence of an organization or tell the world about an organization's noble cause. Nothing much more is offered here. Sources offered are primarily local coverage, brief mentions, coverage and/or announcements about the organization by affiliated orgs and associates, primary sources, a blog, and numerous articles (sources) about endangered animals served by the organization. The best we have is a public interest article in a local magazine and a local public interest piece in the BBC (see WP:LOCAL). The depth of coverage about this organization simply is not there. An actual review of the sources reveals that the depth of coverage about this organization is minimal and in accordance with WP:ORG, notability has not yet been established (see WP:ORGDEPTH). It may be best to userfy this article, in order to provide the article's creator with the opportunity to continue working on this article until such time as notability may be established in accordance with the guidelines. Cindy(talk to me) 21:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy also agree with userfy at the momement. Almost all the sources appear to be local news coverage, akin to what my local newspaper would do for our local animal shelter. Not notable beyond my immediate area, so not worthy for inclusion. — raekyt 13:48, 20 February 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. Rewrite seems to satisfy concerns...for what it's worth, the nom is also a confirmed sock (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 00:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed criticality
- Mixed criticality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is a dead end and an orphan and cites no references, and language might be confusing... Ajayupai95 (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Where do I start? No context, not clear what this even all about, no claim of notability, no sources, no wikilinks anywhere else. JIP | Talk 12:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- an atrocious mess, if this subject is notable, which it may be, then it needs redoing from scratch. Also, where was the article creator for 4 years? Kinda weird that they'd jump back into editing after that time with a brand-new article, although it's not surprising the result was a mess. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I've written a new 'Principles' paragraph and added a few of the many available references. Would not object if anyone wants to remove that list of EU projects, or find sources for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep An excellent rewrite by Chiswick Chap has shown that there are reliable sources for this topic and a search of Google scholar for "Mixed criticality" shows that there are dozens more peer-reviewed articles on this topic. The topic seems highly notable, the article now makes sense and gives an indication of importance--there is no reason to delete this article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - now it's been rewritten to a degree that the old article WAS essentially deleted, I'm satisfied that this is notable. Good job Chiswick Chap! Lukeno94 (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 20 February 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Elvis Kabashi
- Elvis Kabashi (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 contested by IP, no rationale given. This is a non-notable youth player, article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails NFOOTBALL; not a notable football player. A quick Google search revealed only stat sites. Vacation9 12:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom, appears to only have one unused Serie A sub appearance. Fenix down (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom as he has not played in a fully professional league, at senior international level, or been the subject of non-trivial coverage from multiple independent sources, failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. C679 20:20, 25 February 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. Secret account 06:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SQuORE
- SQuORE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable third party sources, only primary sources. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 10:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm the author of this web page. Thank you for your interest in my prose. Let me elaborate more on this:
- As a matter of fact I'm working with the team developing SQuORE; nevertheless I aim to be as objective as one can be for wikipedia -- no bullshit. Your feedback and comments are much appreciated.
- As for the primary sources, I've replaced the links by third-party documents (But ICSSEA has not yet published articles presented in 2012, by the way). I'll add more secondary sources soon.
Boris Baldassari (Talk) 13:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any third-party documents; all I see is a link to the ICSSEA 2012 conference home page. Are there any specific papers from the proceedings which were written by authors unconnected with SQuORE? If so, please add references to them. It doesn't matter if the proceedings aren't available online yet. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed the first reference to point to the RTS official website and added another link to the schneider electric official website. For ICSSEA unfortunately I just have to wait for the proceedings. I also added two external (3rd-party) references (mesures and programmez). However the journal articles are written in french, don't know if foreign references are ok -- both are well-known and established french journals. I should get new references soon which I will add as soon as possible. Is the current article good enough now to wait for them? Thanks, Boris Baldassari (Talk) 10:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The press release from Schneider Electric is not a reliable source because Schneider and SQuORING have a business relationship; the announcement is simply a means of promoting each other's products and services. The French articles seem to be OK (and no, there's no problem using non-English references) at first glance—I'm not familiar with those journals so I'm not sure if they're just regurgitating official press releases as many publications do. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for now. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed the first reference to point to the RTS official website and added another link to the schneider electric official website. For ICSSEA unfortunately I just have to wait for the proceedings. I also added two external (3rd-party) references (mesures and programmez). However the journal articles are written in french, don't know if foreign references are ok -- both are well-known and established french journals. I should get new references soon which I will add as soon as possible. Is the current article good enough now to wait for them? Thanks, Boris Baldassari (Talk) 10:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep due to apparently reliable coverage in French tech journals. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 20 February 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 Shiro (restaurant). Stifle (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kei Pilz
- Kei Pilz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't pass WP:BIO. The references in the article only have passing mentions of the subject, and I couldn't find anything online. I don't think that her former position as a head chef of a Michelin-starred restaurant falls under any of the criteria at WP:BIO either. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: there is a related AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiro (restaurant). — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Restaurant and keep Restaurant, seems to have sufficient local oddity value / small business sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the Shiro restaurant article. Fails WP:Bio. Snappy (talk) 17:28, 21 February 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 given that the related AFD closed as merge to here, it is reasonable to allow the article a period to see how it is developed. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shiro (restaurant)
- Shiro (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't think this subject passes WP:CORP. The references in the article don't seem to have substantial coverage of the subject, and I can't find any mention of the subject in the PhD thesis linked from the article. I found a few mentions in travel guides online, but I don't consider this enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: there is a related AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kei Pilz. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose (as author) Michelin starred restaurant for five years in a row The Banner talk 10:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The information in the PhD can be found on page 345 ("Figure 17.5: Michelin Stars and Red M’s for rest of Ireland including N. Ireland") and page 348 ("Figure 17.7: Stars Awarded by Egon Ronay for Republic of Ireland 1975-1989"). Please note that the PhD consists of three parts. The information referenced is in part two but there is no direct link available (as far as I know). The Banner talk 20:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (but merge the bio) I think there's extra value here given the PhD and oddity and small business aspect of it, Daytrips Ireland: 50 one day adventures by car, rail or bus Page 159 Patricia Tunison Preston - 1997 "Shiro (Ahakista). The secluded Sheep's Head Peninsula is an unlikely place to find world-class Japanese cuisine, but this 12-seat restaurant falls into that category. Run by Kei and Werner Pilz, it offers an array of authentic Japanese .." In ictu oculi (talk) 04:02, 20 February 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 under criteria G12. InShaneee (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Willow Creek SA
- Willow Creek SA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Can't find any WP:RS. Also a number of copyright issues Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 09:26, 19 February 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 on Richard Genellefor delete the rest. Secret account 06:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Bollner
- Michael Bollner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested Proposed deletion saying this individual fails WP:NACTOR, which is true being that he only acted once, did not contribute to the entertainment world in any way nor win any awards or recognition for his acting, lacks a significant fan base, and the accounting firm he is now running does not look notable either. The editor who removed the PROD gave an extremely weak rationale for doing that. To say that a one-time actor is notable just because the film he/she acted in was super popular violates WP:NOTINHERITED and the idea of people having "possible interest" in what these former child actors did after quitting is pure WP:FANCRUFT. Neither circumstance affects our guidelines for determining whether or not an actor is notable to have an article here. I am nominating the following related pages because both are also one-time actors who fail WP:NACTOR as they lack a significant fan base, made no contributions to the acting industry in any way, and PROD templates for both articles were removed without providing a reason.
- Richard Genelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Jung Ayul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Genelle's only notable role was Ernie in Power Rangers while Jung only had two minor roles before her untimely death (the sentence at the start of the article saying she was "best known for her role in the soap opera TV Novel: Dear Love" is a complete overstatement). While her suicide was tragic, it fails WP:EVENT being that it had no constant, long-term or worldwide coverage and not likely impact in the entertainment world in a significant way. Any media attention basically died down within days of her death. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - so are you proposing to selectively merge the content on Bollner and other Wonka child actors into the film article and redirect Michael Bollner? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer - No, there is really no point in that. The notability of each child actor is not the same. Julie Dawn Cole and Denise Nickerson have done numerous other notable film roles while Peter Ostrum has made other contributions that merit an article. Paris Themmen, however, seems to not be very notable either, but I won't nominate him for AfD until after I learn more about him. As for your question on my talk page, I don't see the problem with bundling these actors because they have two things in common: 1) They all fail WP:NACTOR in every way, 2) A proposed deletion template was removed either without a reason, or very weak one. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a way to separate a bundled AfD once it has been created, so if at least one of the article is not deleted after the AfD closes, I will simply renominate it/them for deletion at a later time unless notability can be established. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely there is a way. Just pull the AfD tags from Genelle and Ayul. Neither of them are going to pass AfD - Ayul has literally 100s of Korean print sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You really shouldn't be bundling three unrelated actors into one nomination. That being said:
- Delete Bollner. Fails NACTOR with a minor role in a major film, and there's nothing else.
- Weak keep Genelle. I'm not familiar with the Power Rangers, but a longtime supporting role in a popular series seems (barely) sufficient for me.
- Delete Ayul. Fails NACTOR and her suicide hasn't, as far as I can tell, had any long lasting significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay
- Delete Bollner. but save ref to bottom of Wonka film article.
- Weak keep Richard Genelle. inevitable, popular series
- Keep Jung Ayul significant discussion and heart-wringing in Korean press (see Korean article), some of refs on the more serious/permanent side. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 10 February 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, MBisanz talk 00:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I greatly dislike bundled BLP AFDs, specially as in this case we have three different individuals who share nothing but that they acted. That said...
- Article #1: Redirect Michael Bollner to Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, the film for which he received any sort of sourcable recognition. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Article #2: Weak Keep Richard Genellefor his multiple notable projects. Yes... in all of them he played "Ernie"... but he is verifiable as having been 123 episodes total in two different Power Rangers series, and verifiable as having taken his character to two different Power Rangers films. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Article #3: Delete Jung Ayul as being a "newbie actress" who did not really give herself a chance to build a career that would meet WP:ENT. Her press coverage is for her untimely demise and we are not a memorial. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. IronKnuckle (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)confirmed sock puppeteer[reply]- Which one... or all three? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All of em. IronKnuckle (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... Bollner had a role in one quite notable film. Even if failing WP:ENT and not being notable enough for a separate article, there is enough sourcability of that role to merit sending readers to the one place where it makes sense to have his name mentioned. And Genelle has enough in notable productions to meet WP:ENT. Thank you for responding. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All of em. IronKnuckle (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which one... or all three? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:08, 14 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:57, 19 February 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, and no delete !votes are existent. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 18:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nicholas Wald
- Nicholas Wald (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 hits on Google News to establish WP:N, and I couldnt find any WP:RS hits on Google about the man himself (rather than his research) to establish notability either. A BBC article about some of his research on age as an indicator of mortality or something, but that was it. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am genuinely sorry if I am being thick but where, please, can I read up on how notability must be established for "the man himself (rather than his research)"? I'm baffled by this - he is famous for his research, as are other researchers - how does that fail WP:N? Is it like he would only be N if he also had a big collection of budgies, or had played the sax solo on "Baker Street"? I'm sorry, I'm really not deliberately trying to be stupid but I'm a bit baffled by this. If someone is a painter do we say they can't only be notable for their paintings? Apologies - it is obviously well-known to the nominator but I'd be really grateful for a steer on policy - it's not an area that I know well and I find this very surprising. Thanks! LBN (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Truly bizarre "reasoning" offered for deletion. Of his co-authored paper, a then-British Medical Journal editor said it was "possibly 'more than 50 years since we published something as important'". [28] There's also "Birth defect test guru knighted", an entirely separate basis for notability. UseTheCommandLine needs to read WP:Notability (academics). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I've been digging through contract pharma research shill articles for the last month and am perhaps a bit quick on the draw. Apologies. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, no harm done. In fact, his article could use a bit of beefing up, something I'll try to get to tomorrow. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, both. Yes, that article could definitely use a birthday; plus I didn't know where to find WP:Notability (academics) and now do (aargh, experienced editor on Ignorance Parade); and this is a neat and very reasonable resolution all round. Thank you both for the civilized approach. Cheers LBN (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, no harm done. In fact, his article could use a bit of beefing up, something I'll try to get to tomorrow. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I've been digging through contract pharma research shill articles for the last month and am perhaps a bit quick on the draw. Apologies. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn by nominator -- "Please be more careful in wielding the delete stick" lesson learned -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Being knighted is considered notable in and of itself. Quis separabit? 15:34, 19 February 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 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings. J04n(talk page) 11:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prasad Shrikant Purohit
- Prasad Shrikant Purohit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As per WP:CRIME A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. The details of this person can be added in the article 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings sarvajna (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:CRIME is not applicable in this case, because the subject is not just a "connected" figure in a trial/crime case but rather a chief suspect on whom charges have been levelled, who is arrested and is pending a trial decision. There are plenty of WP:RS discussing this person so WP:GNG is also established. Mar4d (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes he is a chief suspect, but again he is just notable for his alleged involvement in one terror case, also there has been no conviction. If at all he is proved innocent he will be pushed to oblivion. Till then we can have his details at 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings and after conviction we can have a seperate page --sarvajna (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per note in wp:CRIME: "Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." (Emphasis in original) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On WP:CRIME, the following precedes the note you've quoted above: The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
- Again, I'm just quoting policy. It would be important to differentiate between a person who is just "connected" with an event and a person who is a chief suspect of an event though (which the subject of this article is). In terms of the subject of this article, there is wide coverage of the event in reliable sources and there is prominent attention on the individual's particular role in the event. Mar4d (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Merge - redirect - per Yogesh's claims.
The article says, "Lt. Col. Shrikant Prasad Purohit is an Indian Army officer who is accused of charges of terrorism, as the suspected chief architect of the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings" —— I would also like to ask Mar4d where does it say that Purohit is the "chief architect"/"chief suspect"? Until and unless I am met with a satisfactory response and with a source saying such a thing, I am definitely in favour of deletion per WP:PUFFERY, WP:MASK and WP:POV. This is also based on a POV since all the charges are alleged only. Also: US has approached the UN to get a certain Asif Kasmani declared an international terrorist. The reasons cited by US to get Kasmani, a Pakistani national, declared an international terrorist are his involvement in the Samjhauta Express blasts....Kasmani is considered to be the link between Laskar-e-Toiba and Al Qaida. ....This had given Pakistan a handle, claiming that terror events are routinely blamed on it while the "Hindu" angle was ignored.(emphases are my own) I think Mar4d let his POV cloud his judgement. Mr T(Talk?) 11:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As MRT says, the article is not stating the person to be the chief as a fact, so it is NPOV :) - furthermore, it is only covering what the person has been notably accused by RS. This is not a mere connection to the crime, so WP:CRIME does not apply. In anycase, 'delete' is not the right option. If at all the article is to be removed for another reason, merging would be the right decision. Censorship is not the way to go. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For clarity's sake I am going to quote the very first line of Wikipedia:CRIME, "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." (my emphases) How is it not applicable? Wikipedia is not a vote. Mr T(Talk?) 16:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the article is not stating the person to be the chief as a fact, so it is NPOV
- Well the existence of the article is itself based on POV that allegations are true and enough. That's what WP:CRIME is telling us unless he is convicted. Mr T(Talk?) 16:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- I've no idea why you've added "not a vote" template here... because there's a whole lot of points I've raised. And I will not endlessly discuss what I already explained about WP:CRIME that you just reasked - there's no point in asking exactly the same thing again after I just explained it. An "officer who is accused of charges".. the article is not assuming anything.. existence of article...? ...what I said about censorship. And I guess the closer will get both our points without us having to repeatedly say no to each other over and over. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This man is not notable except for one event and the article is talking about allegations of being connected to a crime. It is as clear as black and white.
BTW Hitherto, I didn't add a {{not a vote}} template. I am in no mood to argue basic policies and guidelines with you. I added the image of Not a vote because it is not a vote. Commenting solely to increase vote-count is not going to be conducive.
Consensus doesn't have to be unanimous. Mr T(Talk?) 13:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This man is not notable except for one event and the article is talking about allegations of being connected to a crime. It is as clear as black and white.
- I've no idea why you've added "not a vote" template here... because there's a whole lot of points I've raised. And I will not endlessly discuss what I already explained about WP:CRIME that you just reasked - there's no point in asking exactly the same thing again after I just explained it. An "officer who is accused of charges".. the article is not assuming anything.. existence of article...? ...what I said about censorship. And I guess the closer will get both our points without us having to repeatedly say no to each other over and over. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this article. SMSLet's talk 17:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Summarize, Merge, & Redirect to 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings; subject is primarily knew to the subject's alleged connection to a event. The event is a crime, and the subject of this AfD is alleged to be a perpetrator of the criminal event. Therefore, as the subject is not notable independent of this event, and is not notable only for his military career per WP:SOLDIER, the article should be summarized, merged to the event, and a redirect left in its place.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Summarize, Merge, & Redirect to 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings. If he is convicted then the article has a purpose.Pectoretalk 15:49, 26 February 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. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 00:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
USS SC-715
- USS SC-715 (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 significance - what makes this vessel notable enough to have a page in an encyclopedia? Gbawden (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (vehicles) is only an essay (and apparently a ship is a vehicle) but it doesn't offer any reason for this to be notable: large ships may be notable, small vessels generally not. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC}
- That was fast.... These ships are the size of the submarines they were used against. Not sure what the requirement is for notability... They had crew of 30-35 and operated as convoy escorts as well as littoral defense ships. They are also the last series of wooden ships used by the US navy. Hackmare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackmare (talk • contribs) 10:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Commissioned vessels of a national military force are notable, per longstanding WP:CONSENSUS and precedent at AfD, and this was a commissioned vessel of the United States Navy. NavSource is considered a reliable source, I believe, and the Coast Guard certainly is. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 21:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. All commissioned ships are noteable. Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per Bushranger's well stated case. EricSerge (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Commissioned vessels are notable. Manxruler (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Bushranger. More sources would be lovely, sure, but the case for notability is clear. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She's been named Cape Pine for over 60 years, is still named that, and still in service, so the article is at the wrong title. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep commisioned ship as explained by The Bushranger.--Staberinde (talk) 12:00, 21 February 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. Secret account 06:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Greater Good (comedy group)
- The Greater Good (comedy group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable comedy group that has no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to cite. Article is promotional created by single purpose account User:Preski42. Group has no hits on Google News archives and fails to meet WP:GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; the subject of the article has received a few passing mentions in reliable sources, however none of those mentions are considerable, and if taken in total do not add up to significant coverage of the subject in multiple non-primary reliable sources. Therefore, the subject fails WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This group has a ways to go before they become notable. --MelanieN (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:46, 27 February 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. Secret account 06:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Embassy of Burkina Faso, Ottawa
- Embassy of Burkina Faso, Ottawa (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)
embassies are not inherently notable. I could find no indepth coverage except confirming the embassy's existence. there needs to be significant coverage of activities of the embassy and/or the building it's located in. LibStar (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because...I mean, is there anybody that would actually defend the notability of such a page? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:43, 24 February 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. Could have been a G11 speedy also obvious promotional article. Secret account 06:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remote Lands
- Remote Lands (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)
Suspected walled garden of spam. I'm doubtful that this company satisfies WP:CORP. It's a travel company operating at the high end, and although there have been one or two write-ups about their trips in lifestyle sections (complete with contact details), the article itself was created by a single purpose account, reads like advertising – drops a lot of names, some because of successful product placement with journals and some from the suppliers they use. References are sparse and mostly trivial mentions. Please see related AfD on its founder Catherine Heald Ohconfucius ping / poke 04:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:CORP Tiggerjay (talk) 05:47, 27 February 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. Secret account 06:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Catherine Heald
- Catherine Heald (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 appears to have been created by single purpose account with the sole intention of giving publicity to a corporate executive whose notability seems to float just below the waterline according to my reading of the policies. The articles cited are either very trivial mentions, or ar otherwise penned by the subject. There appears to be precious little about the subject in biographical terms, and certainly none that can be verified through reliable sources. Ohconfucius ping / poke 04:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:BIO ukexpat (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - does not meet WP:BIO Tiggerjay (talk) 05:48, 27 February 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. Secret account 06:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DrEd
- DrEd (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)
history of almost entirely ip edits is a bit suspicious. There is one article in Der Speigel that mentions it, but I can't read german. I was unable to find non-promotional non-press-release sources to establish WP:N on google or google news. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:CORP for lack of sufficient coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. The article in Der Spiegel is indeed significant coverage, and Der Spiegel is a reliable source, but one such article is not enough. The article supplies no others, and I was unable to find any coverage at all in Google News Archive. (The title DrEd is hard to search - I kept getting links to the Dred Scott decision - but adding modifiers such as "London" or "internet healthcare" did not provide any sources either.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the sources aren't reliable enough and I see this is an attempt to get free publicity in Wikipedia, also I'm not sure the business is real at all 90.203.183.85 (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, DrEd is a real business and I have used them before. I came on here to find out more about online doctors and it's kind of worrying to find some Americans have deleted an article on a prominent business in topical European business area. DrEd is on German TV quite often as what they do is not allowed in Germany yet they can practice it from the EU. If you guys took about one more minute, you would have found this. https://www.dred.com/de/Deutsche-aerzte-stellen-Diagnosen-uebers-Internet.html https://www.dred.com/de/Ferndiagnose-von-der-Insel.html https://www.dred.com/de/Wie-sinnvoll-ist-eine-Arztpraxis-im-Internet.html https://www.dred.com/de/Online-Praxis-Behandlung-ohne-Arzt-Besuch.html All major outlets, so is it wise to put the article back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.2.90 (talk) 00:04, 20 April 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ellie Cachette
- Ellie Cachette (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)
Promotional article on a non-notable subject. Subject has not received mentions in multiple third party news articles. Subject was interviewed in a Forbes blog, however that's not exactly a third-party source. Most of the article is unsourced and personal in nature which indicates the article was written by someone with a close connection. Gems include: "In her free time, she is a competitive sailor and member of the St. Francis Yacht Club." Delete. CitizenNeutral (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom – I agree that the two main citations are less than satisfactory as reliable sources for bios. CEO of a startup trying to gain notoriety. Created by single purpose account. Watch out for that walled garden in the making, and delete this quickly, before an article on ConsumerBell appears! ;-) Ohconfucius ping / poke 04:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I thought the Forbes article might save her, but it is not an actual article. It is a submission from an unpaid "contributor". Forbes even put a disclaimer at the botton. This is a vanity article of an up and coming, but WP:TOOSOON entrepreneur.--Nixie9✉ 16:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources; hence, it fails WP:V. dci | TALK 17:24, 26 February 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deepak Jaikishan
- Deepak Jaikishan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
delete, this was previously deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepak Jaikishan via a deletion discussion. The entire article reads as a promotional political coatrack. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- even if he is notable, the article would require an entire re-write to be brought close to anything encyclopedic. starting fresh from an NPOV manner would likely be the best option anyway. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. This page is created for self-promotion. This page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepak Jaikishan previously deleted. I request to administrator to delete this page soon. Jussychoulex (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It should've been an Obvious G4 but the admin reviewing declined thus forcing this farceHell In A Bucket (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing farcical about discussing again an article about someone who has attracted lots of coverage in reliable sources since the last AfD. Of course the article needs cleaning up for neutrality, but it's quite possible that this additional coverage lifts the subject over the notability bar. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It should've been an Obvious G4 but the admin reviewing declined thus forcing this farceHell In A Bucket (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Coatrack or not, this seems to be a WP:BLP1E, since as far as I can tell he's not notable for anything else, and he would fail WP:POLITICIAN since he's not an elected official (as far as I can see?). The bio seems to have been created specifically to regurgitate rumors and scandals. Whatever has happened since the last AFD seems to be more of the same. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't tell if the article is WP:PROMO or WP:ATTACK. In either case, there is no WP:RS to establish notability per the usual BLP standards. Qworty (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral: there are sources but I'm, at this point, not terribly into running them all through a translator to see what they actually state and verify each source is reliable. My gut tells me this is a poorly veiled attack page so it may be best to wipe the slate clean and start again. But there are sources which suggests it would meet GNG. Insomesia (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the BLP issues involve not only the subject but other living people as well. Are any of them proven as opposed to simply reported on? I don't think so. It's all, he said, they said. Nothing to see here, move along. Yworo (talk) 03:45, 25 February 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. J04n(talk page) 14:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prathik (actor)
- Prathik (actor) (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)
Poorly sourced BLP of a seemingly non-notable actor. All of the references are either self-published, unrelated to the subject or simply fake. Unable to find any reliable sources, but someone familiar with Indian media might be able to. Fails WP:NACTOR. - MrX 02:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE-This may be an autobiography.non notable person.Davidjohn13 (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and is likely an autobiography. Safiel (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 20 February 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. J04n(talk page) 14:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pinnatta
- Pinnatta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company with no reliable sources. Article is promotional in nature. I removed a hefty bit of unsourced promotional content after being unable to find any reliable sources. Basically, a small venture funded company with very little press coverage and no inherent notability. CitizenNeutral (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The software fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE. No in depth coverage in any reliable sources that I could find. If the most notable thing about this software is that the company that created it secured venture capital, then the software is probably just not that special. - MrX 02:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I am not able to find a TechCrunch's article about the start-up or a review of Pinnatta mobile application, hence this software lacks notability and media coverage as per WP:NSOFTWARE. Toffanin (talk) 10:39, 20 February 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. J04n(talk page) 14:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commtel Networks
- Commtel Networks (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)
Year-old notability tag on advert article. I did some cleanup before looking and seeing few results in a Google News search. CorporateM (Talk) 02:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:ORG. The only in depth source article I could find was in the The Hindu - Business Line and it seems very promotional (as opposed to journalistic). The only notable item I was able to find was Commtel Networks' poor Web of Trust rating. - MrX 03:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per Mr. Even the single link from The Hindu is an interview.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 20 February 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of guests and residents of the Astor House Hotel (Shanghai)
- List of guests and residents of the Astor House Hotel (Shanghai) (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 very odd list; I would expect a list of guest of a hotel, no matter how famous, to be quite indiscriminate. In any case, there is no source given for the the study of "guests and residents of the Astor House Hotel" as a distinct subject - and why should it be? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 02:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 02:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 02:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete what an indiscriminate list. what next List of guests of the White House? LibStar (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The hotel's notability is obviously proven, but this list serves absolutely no purpose at all. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:01, 24 February 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. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Death of Shane Todd
- Death of Shane Todd (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)
Tragic but fails WP:VICTIM. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL also apply.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ...William 01:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ...William 01:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC) ...William 01:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As of now I haven't finished writing the article, so maybe the notability isn't obvious yet. But this is not a victim memorial. It's not even a biography, so WP:VICTIM and WP:NOTMEMORIAL don't apply. It's an article about an event, and the event is far more significant than a passing news item. The notability comes from the fact that this case involves evidence about a possible homicide cover-up, an already controversial Chinese telecom company's possible acquisition of dual-use American technologies with significant military applications, as well as serious allegations of misconduct by Singapore authorities. It has received pretty significant news coverage.
- The more relevant notability guideline is WP:CRIME, not WP:VICTIM. WP:CRIME states that crimes that are breaking news items are likely to be deleted, but this is not a breaking news item. The death was seven months ago. The investigation--and the blowback in Singapore--is recent. TheBlueCanoe 01:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; changed to Keep. If anything, the incident has instigated controversies involving entities more important than those typically involved in similar ones. A quick search of Google News shows this. IMO, if this has stirred up enough controversy and trouble (beyond the scope of a typical incident of this nature), an article may be appropriate. dci | TALK 02:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This death involves a possible confluence of PRC military espionage, USA national security, and subornation of Singapore's police and judiciary by the PRC. This article is about a possibly politically motivated possible murder with international implications. For that reason it's topical and deserves to stay. Tapered (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This topic intrigues me and is the subject of more than sufficient coverage to meet all applicable guidelines. Andrew327 06:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article is about a suspicious death of a US citizen employed in a Singaporean research institue involved in a joint project with a Chinese technology company. This suspicious death has been widely reported and investigated by reputable international media and now involves the Singaporian and US authorities, while the victim's family is asking for a more thorough and transparent investigation of the suspicious death of their son, based on various troubling facts which contradict the initial report provided by the Singapore police. Llouest
- Keep but cleanup Notable enough to pass WP:GNG, but requires cleanup. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. International controversy now covered in dozens of sources. Many internal and external links can and should be added. BlueOceanStrategy (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC) — BlueOceanStrategy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (refactored)[reply]
- Keep This does not appear to be a run-of-the-mill death and has enough international coverage to meet the guideline specifications at WP:VICTIM. By the way, WP:CRIME links to the same place and there is not difference between the two. Mkdwtalk 20:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article implicates national defense, foreign policy, human rights, possible international criminal enterprise, espionage, and the federal witness murder statute and is imminently newsworthy. Plus, if Todd was murdered the deletion of this article would play right into the hands of his murderers. ~~Family Friend~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vreelacj (talk • contribs) 23:05, 25 February 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. J04n(talk page) 14:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Murder of Edwin Thomas
- Murder of Edwin Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
as per WP:VICTIM. tragic death but don't see the long term notability of it. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No long-term notability and WP:NOTNEWS too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - tragic, but I can't see any long-term effect. It appears to have WP:COATRACK issues as well; more of the article is about persons involved later on, than about the killing itself. Bearian (talk) 00:09, 26 February 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Complete Set Character
- Complete Set Character (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 with no sources and no information included such that sources can be found. Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as probable original research. I couldn't find reliable sources online that would indicate this passes WP:GNG. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't find any sources to support this, and I really can't make any sense of it. It sounds like it's describing consonants, but then says that a letter is not a vowel because it sounds like "A" in "Adam". But this was created by a young kid who doesn't really have much command of English, so I don't think there's much chance of there being any value in it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Very nearly a G1 or A1 speedy candidate. I'm at a loss to even make sense out of the contradictory descriptions in this substub, and there aren't any reliable sources that might shine light on what was intended here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can make no sense of this article and the "sounds like" doesn't look as if it uses the wikipedia phonetic system (which I also don't understand, but at least I recognise it). -- SGBailey (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just doesn't make sense, and I can't locate any sources that user the term "complete set character" to describe... well, whatever the hell this is supposed to be describing. Yunshui 雲水 13:18, 22 February 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. Consensus after revamp and relist including nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 20:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mumpsimus
- Mumpsimus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I proposed deletion on 1 February. My rationale was, "The article consists of a definition, etymology, and short set of examples. Per WP:NOTDICDEF such dictionary-style content is better suited to Wiktionary. It is already there, at wikt:mumpsimus." Prod was removed on 11 February by DGG, who noted, "there seems to be not dictionary content here, prod declined."
I stand by the prod rationale. I will go further to note that there are six sources cited: Two are dictionary definitions of 'mumpsimus', one is a dictionary definition of 'eggcorn', one is an example of a malapropism, and two are examples of mondegreen. Despite this article's unsourced and tenuous assertions, there is no necessary connection between eggcorn, malapropism, or mondegreen and mumpsimus. The former are types of errors; the latter refers to persisting in an error after it has been pointed out.
I submit that the article is a dictionary definition, and that at least with the information and sources currently available, it is unlikely to become anything more. A Google search, for example, turns up dictionary definitions and a few language-related blog posts (plus blogs called "The Mumpsimus" and "Mumpsimus blog"), but little substantive content that is not about the word as such. Cnilep (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as DicDef, per nominator. I scanned about the top 70 hits off Google and there are lots and lots of dictionary definitions of a swell word, but no apparent indications of scholarly or pop culture concern outside of that. It is unlikely that an encyclopedic article can ever be created on the topic.Striking in light of excellent work done. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Delete. Looks like someone is trying to promote a new umbrella term for "eggcorn, malapropism, spoonerism and neologism". —Tamfang (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems notable to me per extensive coverage in non dictionary books.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Keep Dr.B asked me to look at this, for I deprodded it. Before his additions, I was in considerable doubt about whether it was a neologism. But he's done enough to show that it is an established concept, though really just based on a probably mythical story. I agreewith the nom that the examples that make p the second part of the article are irrelevant content here. DGG ( talk ) 15:15, 18 February 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: There is an interesting history to this word, as shown by the number of books that discuss not just what it means but where it came from and how it has been used by different authors. An unusual and notable cant word. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Great expansion.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, Dr. B, you've been around long enough to know that you can't vote twice. Anyway, I also say Keep after the work done. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion was relisted which means the keep vote is needed again.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY. I was on the fence before, but the expansion clinches it. The current sources in the article seem to be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw the nomination, with thanks to Aymatth2 and Dr. Blofeld for significant additions and improvements. Cnilep (talk) 04:37, 20 February 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. J04n(talk page) 14:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pattabhishekam
- Pattabhishekam (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 how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. Gbawden (talk) 07:03, 12 February 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Comment. It will be difficult to find significant online coverage for this 1999 movie. Since it was a hit movie as claimed here, here and here, I am sure, print sources should be available in Malayalam. Salih (talk) 06:16, 24 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per the liks given by Salih - the article desperatly need to be expanded beyond "X is Y", but WP:NOTCLEANUP. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:36, 26 February 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Red Salute (film)
- Red Salute (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. Gbawden (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm finding some sources. It looks like IndiaGlitz fell all over themselves to report about it and I did finally find an article by The Hindu about it. I'm still searching, but it's somewhat hard going since there is the more famous Stanwyck film that pops up with some false positives.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:12, 13 February 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Keep Released film that received coverage. Meets WP:NF. We do not expect that a seven-year-old Malayalam would remain in the headlines or have the same sort of coverage as major American studio releases of any era. Kudos to Tokyogir79 for the efforts. THAT's how we build an encyclopedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per significant coverage. NickCochrane (talk) 17:00, 23 February 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eva Moskowitz
- Eva Moskowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This person is not notable. The article relies on primary sources and has original research. It reads like an advertisement and does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards. --☥NEO (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 12. Snotbot t • c » 09:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm probably the most frequent editor of the article and recommend we keep it. I just counted 20 secondary sources and I didn't finish counting. There are primary sources, but they are allowed if used with care (mainly not using them for more than they say), and they are carefully used, with a preference for secondary sources where available. She was elected a member of the City Council, where she chaired the committee on education and conducted hearings, now runs over a dozen charter schools, publicly has personal views on education, wrote a book, coauthored another book, and wrote a scholarly article, all of which are the subjects of secondary sources cited in the article, and she did more. I don't think there's any original research. Controversies are covered. I doubt anyone writing an advertisement for her would have written it like this article. The additional statement in the AfD that the article "does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards" is not specific enough for an answer. None of the complaints in the AfD nomination were pending on the article's Talk page when I read the nomination and started drafting this reply; one has appeared there in the last half-hour or so and I will respond to it shortly. Please post specifics on the talk page so they can be accommodated or responded to, such as where you believe there is any item of original research, any wrongful sourcing, any advertisement-like style, or any failure to "meet Wikipedia's quality standards". I try to check my watchlist 2-3 times a week and have kept up with past Talk page discussions. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC) (Corrected to include new Talk page item: 17:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)) (Corrected tense: 17:39, 13 February 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have heavy concerns regarding WP:BOMBARDMENT and WP:PRIMARY. While the use of primary sources is allowed, the notability of a subject is determined from coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of that subject. If the primary source information is stripped, what is left to determine notability? Regarding the claims to notability, being a member of New York City Council is insufficient to pass WP:POLITICIAN. I would like to see more feedback from other editors, but I am inclined to recommend a redirect with limited merge to Success Academy Charter Schools (which has similar sourcing issues). Location (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Moskowitz is controversial and has been for years and so are the schools she runs, and posters on the Moskowitz talk page have raised her being controversial as an issue. As a result, I've made coverage of her work more extensive and sourced it to a greater degree than occurs in many other articles. Secondary sources cited include Class Warfare: Inside the Fight to Fix America's Schools by Steven Brill, Cheating Our Kids: How Politics and Greed Ruin Education by Joe Williams, Sisterhood, Interrupted: From Radical Women to Grrls Gone Wild by Deborah Siegel, N.Y. Times, the Daily News, The Wall Street Journal (probably online ed.), Wall Street Journal Report on CNBC, N.Y. Observer, Talk of the Nation (National Public Radio), The Chief: Civil Service Leader: The Civil Employees' Weekly, Crain's New York Business, WABC-TV, The Village Voice, N.Y. Amsterdam News, The Culvert Chronicles, The N.Y. Jewish Week (Manhattan ed.), New York magazine, The Atlantic, West Side Spirit, Our Town, South Brooklyn Post, SchoolBook (produced by N.Y. Times & WNYC), Gothamist, National Review, Capital Tonight on YNN, Politicker, Capital New York, Education News Colorado, and Newsmax.TV; for some of these, multiple articles were cited, and this does not include any primary sources in the same publications. Some, such as the N.Y. Times, Wall Street Journal, National Public Radio, The Atlantic, National Review, and 2 or 3 of the books, have national readerships. In no case did the same story appear in multiple publications that I then cited as multiple sources; I cited an underlying story only once unless different sources had different information. I've been selective with sources, as in not relying on the N.Y. Post because of its journalistic standards. While there are a lot of referents, that's because Moskowitz did a lot that was reported in secondary sources, but no statement is supported by more than 3 referents, Wikipedia's usual maximum, and, even so, only 2 statements are supported by 3 referents each. No citation is for a trivial statement. They are not used for synthesis of conclusions unsupported by sources. Thus, no bombardment is present, and generally the same is true of the Success Academy Charter Schools article. Primary sources generally are used where secondary sources were unavailable and not where secondary sources are available, also true of the schools article.
- Her work in electoral political office on schools was described in the book Cheating Our Kids and she was criticized for her work in office in another book, The Scandal of Reform, albeit briefly in the latter, both cited in the article. There probably are more secondary sources that can be found on Moskowitz; for example, I think as a councilmember she arranged for a public noncharter high school to be opened in a neighborhood lacking one (I have to check that but it's probably true), but I mainly reworked the article from the state it was in. I now have some substantial N.Y. Times articles from her political time and plan to look for more, which I plan to incorporate into the article over the next week or so if they add new information (they probably do). That should meet the notability standard for politicians.
- I've begun looking for a photo of her; apparently, only one free image exists (although I haven't found it at the domain credited by a newspaper) and, if I can't get that one, I may get one under the fair use doctrine. I have not rushed to add content because it already has more content than many similar articles on politicians, and she has done more than hold office, but when I find more I add it, both positive and negative. Merging into the Success Academy Charter Schools article would soon mean cutting content (to prevent coatracking) when both she and the schools are already controversial generators of content, risking that criticisms would become dominant (because editors have wanted more criticisms than are already in the personal article, some of which were moved to the schools article as relevant) while what gets criticized would then get short shrift, causing a nonneutral imbalance. Her schools attract applicants for teaching positions from, apparently, around the nation in large numbers, so it's likely Wikipedia's readers of the school and Moskowitz articles are spread around the U.S., albeit not evenly. On the talk page, I've invited edits and discussions, but not much has been forthcoming lately, so it appears that I have not missed any significant sources that any other editors know about.
- I'm open to suggestions. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC) (Clarified a sentence: 16:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- A feature article in the N.Y. Times was about Moskowitz and is now included in support of new content in the Wikipedia article. Mayoral Ambitions and Sharp Elbows; Councilwoman Spars Way Into a Position of Influence, by Winnie Hu, April 29, 2004, was about Moskowitz throughout. Thus, the notability standard for politicians has been met. I have more Times articles to read and on which to decide whether to cite and should get to them within about a week. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep But oh goodness, clean it up. Any New York City councilmember is going to have coverage up to here. Just click on that Google News link and keep on raeding. RayTalk 01:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, although being a member of the New York City Council does not automatically make the subject notable per WP:GNG, the subject has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources including the New York Times and elsewhere where the source has the subject has the primary sumject of the source. Therefore, the subject clearly passes WP:GNG, and this might fall under WP:BEFORE. That being said, the article needs work, and relies to heavily upon primary sources; but AfD is not a substitute for cleanup.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. It turns out there is an acceptable non promotional version in the history from 2010, and i have improved the article by reverting to it. (It will need a certain amount of updating) The subject is certainly notable, and there are sufficient sources, but I see the revert as the only alternative to deleting and starting over from scratch. AfD is in practice both an effective motivation for cleanup , and, as a last resort, a way of achieving it. It can also be used for a poor article with content so unacceptable that it is better removed from the history. But the manner of writing and sourcing this article is so hopelessly unacceptable that drastic action might be justified. If I had not already commented on the editor's work on a related article, i would even have considered G11. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. I'm not really sold on keeping councilmember articles, unless the guidelines entitle all such people to their own articles. –BuickCenturyDriver 04:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not defending the article on that basis, but her work as an author and an educator. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- She has indicated a probability (secondarily sourced) of running for Mayor in 2017, as was stated in the article, so her history in office is relevant. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not defending the article on that basis, but her work as an author and an educator. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (not a weak keep, but maybe a little bit quivering) per DGG's salvage suggestion and per RightCowLeftCoast. City council members may not be automatically notable, but that doesn't make them automatically non-notable either; she passes GNG on the basis of substantial coverage of her activities both as a political figure and as an educator/author. While I understand the merge suggestion, ultimately I think that may be confusing, and her notability does seem to go well beyond the Success Academy. This article will require close watching from neutral editors to avoid a repeat of the WP:BOMBARDMENT problem correctly noted by Location; a prior draft of this article had one of the highest footnote-to-words-of-text ratios I've seen in a long article, but it was extremely difficult to separate the useful independent sources from the promotional chaff. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:49, 25 February 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 DELETE. Because of low community participation in this discussion treat the nomination as an expired proposed deletion, with the understanding that anyone who contests the deletion may request undeletion for any reason J04n(talk page) 14:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Betty Nixon
- Betty Nixon (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)
Subject appears to have helped found a small museum and not much else, article also quotes *very* heavily from the main source SimonLyall (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm trying to establish notability (not with huge success at the moment). But if it is deleted, I would suggest a redirect to Mid-America All-Indian Center which mentions her briefly and gives a little info on her. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:35, 13 February 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete regrettably does not seem to pass WP:GNG or any other measure I can find. --Paul McDonald (talk) 04:25, 20 February 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, Mediran (t • c) 10:51, 26 February 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 Saussurea. J04n(talk page) 14:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Lian Hua
- Snow Lian Hua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I guess it is a herb, but the translation is so bad that I hardly have a clue what the meaning of this article is. Looks beyond rescue The Banner talk 17:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sentences you look translation so bad? can edit again. And these were kind of flower come with herbs also had other than herb. Actually now got sell in market can mix with foods to cook for healthy. Very rare traditional medicine. K.b.cheng (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I had already edited to improve this article grammar. I guess reader can understand meaning and words inside this article. So you can check again one more time. If no problem then can cancel nominate deletion and remove deletion template. K.b.cheng (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Saussurea did a little digging, and it appears that this article seems to be about the plant Saussurea Involucrata, a flower within the genus Saussurea. Searching for Saussurea involucrata redirects to Saussurea. Since the article in question does not have external references, it does not establish the Notability of this specific species. However, if User:K.b.cheng or someone else can find some references, perhaps this plant deserves its own article. Howicus (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ya, you are right, this flower need own article so it's named article "Snow Lian Hua". Actually not totally same with Saussurea Involucrata, this one the most better, rare, famous was called "Tianshan Saussurea Involucrata" and still got many types almost same as this species. For my survey from internet this kind of flower got one type not for people to try eat and utilize, that's very important information about this species. Also got include new types of this species that people use to make as cooking recipe, this kind of cooking recipe sell in market was very interesting and healthy good for human body. Reader must know this flower species called Saussurea Involucrata got many types, chemical will determine herb inside and also got not good plant hormones that have poison. Anyway, i perhaps can quickly delete Template:Herb of Snow Lian Hua. Next time i can create another template, request to delete this template, because i not really agree with said Herb another time should choose better title to create next template. K.b.cheng (talk) 00:04, 13 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question for K.b.cheng: Is Snow Lian Hua another name for the Snow Lotus (genus Saussurea), or does it refer to one particular species? Currently Snow lotus redirects to Saussurea. This item suggests that the name Snow lotus refers to the genus and includes multiple species. This item from NPR also says that there are multiple species of snow lotus, with S. laniceps being the most prized. The Snow lotus is certainly notable, and the Saussurea article needs expansion. But if Snow Lian Hua is a synonym for Snow lotus, we don't need two articles. And if it refers to one species only, that needs to be made clear. You mentioned S. involucrata above; is that the only thing this article is about, or are you also talking about S. laniceps and others? Saussurea laniceps already has a Wikipedia article; Saussurea involucrata redirects to Saussurea but could be expanded into an article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, these was Snow Lotus. Saussurea has many type of flowers, i not really sure this Snow Lotus same flower species of Saussurea laniceps or not. Just can confirm with you this flower was Saussurea and also called as Snow Lotus.
- About delete this article depend on administrator, i don't have any command for this article to do submit deletion. K.b.cheng (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or possibly Redirect to Saussurea. I personally prefer delete, since Snow lotus, a more likely search term, is already here as a redirect. If this is about a species we don't know which one so we can't write a proper article, and if it is about the genus any confirmed information should be at the existing genus article. As for the article in its current state, most of the information is unconfirmed - which we really can't tolerate in an article that gives medical advice. There is also a big problem with WP:NOTHOWTO. --MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Based on this, I believe this is the same plant as Saussurea laniceps. If so, merge at that title? --B2C 01:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Lotus (or Xue Lian Hua in Pinyin, not sure how the author choose a mixed translation) seems to be a Chinese (Not sure if it has Tibetan origin) way to catalog some Saussurea species (Saussurea laniceps Hand.-Mazz, Saussurea involucrata Kar. et Kir, Saussurea medusa Maxim) etc. The term definitely meets notability as there are a lot of research papers trying to explain its popularity in Chinese medicine via chemical analysis [30]. --Skyfiler (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not totally same So can delete this article first. Next time maybe i try to create another one. K.b.cheng (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Look like should delete this article if already enough voted. K.b.cheng (talk) 16:20, 25 February 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quran and Medicine
- Quran and Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective database (see this edit for information on current coverage). No independent sources. Article created by the journal's production manager. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Article creation way too soon. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:47, 12 February 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete.All the due respect for its subject, but the magasine itself do not seem so relevant.--Lal.sacienne (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This brand-new journal has a ways to go before it gains notability as Wikipedia defines it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the only sources seem to be the journal's own web page and the page of a government body with some relation to the journal. Notability has not been established and, given the young nature of this journal, likely can't be established. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:36, 24 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Balispirit Festival
- Balispirit Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article doesn't appear to satisfy the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. GemBlog (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:59, 30 January 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, The Bushranger One ping only 00:39, 5 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 00:49, 12 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. coverage is not indepth merely confirms existence. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 19 February 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 The Electric Company (2009 TV series)#Songs. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Electric Company Songs
- The Electric Company Songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable, unsourced list of songs from The Electric Company. Fails WP:WHIM. - MrX 23:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - duplicates the list at The Electric Company (2009 TV series)#Songs, separate list/article does not seem necessary. Gong show 06:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect exact (though not as well formated) duplicate of existing section in the main article. No indication that this could be expanded. RadioFan (talk) 04:22, 17 February 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per RadioFan, and it would be nice if someone could explain the latter part of this run-on sentence: The Electric Company Songs are a List of the 2009 Songs from The Electric Company,some of Them have a Limit of Some Singers. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:15, 19 February 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. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Darron Gee
- Darron Gee (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)
Never play for or managed a league football club Telfordbuck (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) as well as WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notable football manager, got promoted and took his team to the FA Trophy final. Jonesy702 (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Whilst article is well sourced, agree with GS that there is no real significant coverage. Although there is BBC news articles, these are very brief and outline only basic facts rather than providing in depth information. In some instances, mention of Gee is tangential to the source's actual subject. Fenix down (talk) 09:18, 16 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: [31] is a newspaper source substantially about the subject. Multiple references to BBC coverage. This is just in the article. Without looking at sources beyond what is in the article, notability seems established. Unclear from other deletes if the commenters looked externally to see if media coverage existed and instead are relying purely on what is found in the article to say coach fails WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 27 citations! I think that's enough to just pass WP:GNG! And he has been assistant manager too some league clubs, doesn't that also pass WP:NFOOTBALL? Govvy (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No it does not, as NFOOTY clearly only mentions managers, not assistant managers. As has been noted above as well, this is not an AfD based on the number of citations in the article, but the significance of them. they are almost all tiny little articles which essentially state only one or two facts. Significant coverage as required by GNG does not exist as far as I can see. One local newspaper source and a handful of BBC news articles which essentially state either "he joined this club" or "he left this club" with no other detail do not equate to substantial coverage. Fenix down (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - bearing in mind WP:BOMBARDMENT, it appears to my eye that the WP:GNG is satisfied. If the GNG is passed, WP:NFOOTY is irrelevant. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:31, 26 February 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 Ned Lamont. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lamont Digital Systems
- Lamont Digital Systems (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 reads like an advertisement, and roughly a fourth of it is focused on its founders run for Senate; and to wrap it up it doesn't support its significance. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 06:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Ned_Lamont#Background - Google News found nothing recent and Google News archives mostly found minor mentions through Ned Lamont (some of the first results are payment required so I wouldn't know if they are mentioned more than the one time) here, here, here, here, here (this particular one is from a reliable source NY Times but it's still brief), here, here, here, here and here. I also found a Hartford Courant news article here written by Ned Lamont himself and only mentions the company once at the bottom. I also found an article for a 2010 acquisition here. In 2003, it seems they received attention for signing a deal with Sprint, with some press releases here and here (fourth result from the top) and one non-press release here. This, out of all the previous links, actually talks a little bit about the company and so do articles here (mentions some of their clients and payment rates) and here and here (a lawsuit from a former employee who accused them of racial discrimination). I also found two articles here and here which mention they have made millions of dollars and yet they're still minor mentions. The third page and fourth page of results don't seem to be much different from the minor mentions and other same stuff like the 2003 Sprint deal. Although this mentions Ned Lamont's former employer before founding Lamont Digital Systems, it's still not enough. The lack of significant coverage could be due to their "niche" clients of colleges but I would have still expected something. Additionally, it seems Ned Lamont himself is best known for the Senate race and other recent political races rather than his business history. I'm reluctant to continue searching because I think I would've found something significant after all of those brief mentions and it would probably be a waste of time. SwisterTwister talk 20:39, 7 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 12:16, 12 February 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as suggested. SwisterTwister asked me to comment. I find I agree with her. The company is known only in connect with Lamont's political campaign--the most helpful article that indicates this is one I do not think she mentioned, from the trade publication B&C [32] which seems a reliable source not given to promotionalism (I intend to keep it in mind for further problems in this area of business), which specifically discussing the notability of the firm "...Lamont is... not well-known in the industry. ... That’s because Lamont Digital Systems is known to cable wonks as a “private” system. Private cable operators serve pockets of private dwellings, typically large apartment complexes or subdivisions—in effect, skimming the cream from local cable systems, which view operators like Lamont as pariahs....Colleges are Lamont Digital’s niche. Its Campus Televideo unit serves 130 colleges, with 175,000 subscribers in dorm rooms, classrooms, offices and videoconferencing facilities. ... Lamont Digital is not as valuable as a conventional cable operator...industry executives estimate Lamont Digital’s worth at $60 million. According to federal disclosure reports, Lamont’s personal stake is worth less than $5 million." I think that settles it. His role in it nevertheless became an issue in the campaign, and the article on him is the place to cover it. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 19 February 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. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Jaeger
- Robert Jaeger (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 BLP with no available, proper sourcing CorporateM (Talk) 22:13, 12 February 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 19 February 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) 02:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a non notable BLP with no reliable third party sources. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:36, 20 February 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 Israeli-occupied territories. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Administered territories
- Administered territories (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)
POV fork of Israeli-occupied territories. What is the evidence that this is the term used to designate these territories in the discourse of international law? The generally accepted term is occupied territories. Dlv999 (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It does seem to be a POVFORK. There's really nothing of value worth merging into the main article. - MrX 00:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Israeli-occupied territories as duplicate/WP:POVFORK. Google suggests it's a name that is sometimes used in Israeli sources for the Palestinian territories etc, but if the same thing is called multiple names it still only gets one Wikipedia article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Israeli-occupied territories. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:24, 14 February 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 Procedural close. No rationale for deletion given, AfD is not the venue for a merge discussion. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dark Fiber Community
- Dark Fiber Community (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)
Suggest merge with the article on Allied Fiber CorporateM (Talk) 22:25, 12 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural close - no rationale for deletion given, AfD is not the venue for a merge discussion. Shouldn't have been relisted. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:25, 19 February 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 Ewelina Lisowska. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 00:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ewelina Lisowska's Discography
- Ewelina Lisowska's Discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced article about a (self-published recordings?) discography. Provides no further context beyond a mere listing of titles. Fails notability per WP:NALBUMS. - MrX 22:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Ewelina Lisowska without prejudice to deleting that article if being a polish xfactor semifinalist is the full extent of her fame ---- nonsense ferret 02:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 10 February 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, J04n(talk page) 19:25, 12 February 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Artist and albums do not meet WP:NALBUM. The article has plenty of space, discography pages are supposed to be a sub-article if too long. I agree that the main artist article is in strong contention for XfD, but that's for another time and not the focus of this AfD. Mkdwtalk 18:10, 25 February 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.