Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 21: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> |
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring characters in the Tomb Raider game series}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Wilkins}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Wilkins}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilda Khalife}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilda Khalife}} |
Revision as of 06:24, 21 January 2010
< 20 January | 22 January > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging into an existing or as-yet-uncreated article seems to be a viable option, but there's not a consensus for a specific merge target and the discussion on that can continue on the article talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Recurring characters in the Tomb Raider game series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- speedy delete andyzweb (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Taelus (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to List of Tomb Raider characters or similar, per generally accepted naming. See Lists of Nintendo characters. I know, I shouldn't use the other stuff exists argument, but I see no reason to delete this article. Ivanvector (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I notified an editor who is currently improving articles in the "Tomb Raider" area. If they are willing to clean-up the article, then we should keep it. Perhaps WikiProject Videogames may also help, they were previously notified of this AfD. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note there is an older article (by a year, according to edit history) called Tomb Raider characters. 70.29.211.138 (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I contested the prod there and will initiate discussions on a potential merge/page move at the relevant WikiProject. (Unless this is deleted in which case there is nothing to merge.) --Taelus (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relevant discussion can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Tomb_Raider_Characters.2C_two_pages_to_be_merged_possibly., hope this helps. --Taelus (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I contested the prod there and will initiate discussions on a potential merge/page move at the relevant WikiProject. (Unless this is deleted in which case there is nothing to merge.) --Taelus (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Merge with Tomb Raider characters into a new article List of Tomb Raider Characters. Also nominator did not specifically mention why it fails WP:NOTPLOT and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Simply listing them is not grounds for nomination. Why does it fail? No rationale given for the failings, no legs to stand on. --Teancum (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I recopy the text of PLOT or GUIDE, what's the point of having shortcuts? The sections are either plot-only descriptions, or guides to how to reach interaction points with the characters or what action to use for an outcome plus a plot description. Now... that looks like I copied the shortcuts I listed as reasons for deletion... which seems a rather pointless exercise in excessive verbage and duplication. 70.29.211.138 (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is that you need to explain which criteria it fails in either of those. There are multiple reasons for failure. See WP:ATA -- an example from that page is as follows ---- Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: Contains speculation not attributed to any sources" or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article. --Teancum (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as plot-only fancruft and game guide information with no basis in the real world. I would also support the deletion of Tomb Raider characters. I'm not discounting the possibility of a complete rewrite at Characters of Tomb Raider but as they are now, neither character article is encyclopedic and thus would not be conducive to merging. The characters would be better off summarized at their respecive game articles.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep, which is the default whenever the WP:ITSCRUFT non-argument enters a discussion. Anyway, keep as well due to no actual reason presented as to why this verifiable and notable content concerning characters from an astonishingly important game series that has spawned two mainstream movies and even an amusment park ride must urgently be protected from the public eye. The article passes WP:LISTS by being a discriminate listing that provide a navigational/table of contents function as well. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notablility has not been established here. There's only one third party reference, and that's to the IMDB, which is not considered a reliable source. Notability for the series does not mean immediate notability for secondary characters. If the secondary characters cannot stand on their own as notable, the article cannot stand. While I'd much prefer cleanup and sourcing per the WP:VG guidelines, I don't see how these characters could ever stand solely on their own with reliable, third party sources. A few might, but on the whole they couldn't. As far as passing WP:LISTS, the guideline has this to say: Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others. The Tomb Raider character list as it stands is not encyclopedic, being merely a re-hash of the plot in relation to the characters. That coupled with notability issues makes this a tough one to support. One article for all major sub-characters that's sourced well with reliable, third party sources I can support, but I found no sources that could be used to help this article. --Teancum (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep one way or another, bullying a merge is unhelpful. Find ways to serve our readers. Obviously a character list is acceptable, what remains is one or two and if split, how? Seems the current split is causing more problems than solving. I certainly could be wrong. I would expect major and minor characters so "recurring" jars a bit although there may be good reasons for it. As always with a list, expand the lede to spell out the nuances and significance so the rest of us can read that and move on. -- Banjeboi 15:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We really should just have this discussion once, instead of repeating it time and again. Keep for the same reasons all the other AFD about list of game characters was kept. They are notable fictional characters, who are found in multiple notable works, and often get plenty of coverage, as much as a real person would, in game review shows, magazine articles, and whatnot. And by Keep I mean to keep the entire article, not "prune" 90% of it, or try to replace it with a redirect(as has happened elsewhere time and again). Dream Focus 15:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Long running fictional series. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Tomb Raider characters. Pare down drastically, and remove the copyviolating images. Abductive (reasoning) 11:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. consensus is that the article is sourcable, however sourcing concerns have not been addressed. This may be undeleted (by me or any admin) if someone is willing to properly source it {sofixit} Scott Mac (Doc) 21:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Wilkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
BLP of non notable writer. ViridaeTalk 06:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Publisher and writer. Plenty of news sources including the radio interview in the article. [1]. WP:BEFORE would probably have been a good idea here. Hobit (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So fix it. ViridaeTalk 07:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Plenty of reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hilda Khalife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable entertainer. ViridaeTalk 06:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She's quite notable as a TV presenter and host of Star Academy Arab World See [2] as a source solely about her. Hobit (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just being "recognizeable" doesn't make you notable. I don't see evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is an article solely about her not significant coverage? Hobit (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is a very credible claim to notability backed up by sources, though it could do with more reliable sources. I'm all in favour of deletion of poorly referenced BLPs but we need to be careful with babies and bathwater. HJMitchell You rang? 18:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability in the Arab world is notability for en.Wikipedia. And being aware of how some names become Anglicized, I note that she is also sourcable as "Hilda Khalifeh", with note of her work in Afrik [3], and a bit more coverage in Waleg [4], something called Wikeez [5]... and she even has a fan club [6]. Finding western sources for Arabic notables is difficult... but we have enough to show we're aware the systemic bias can be countered. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per MQS. Guettarda (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 21:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul Johnston (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable, unreferenced biography of a local politician(wrong article) academic. ViridaeTalk 06:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not a politician to start. Highly published academic. Too far out of my field to know if he's highly cited, but he's certainly prolific in peer-reviewed journals. Hobit (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't know much about this subject, so I remain neutral here, just a remark about the comment posted by Hobit just above: publishing is what academics do. If those publications go unremarked (as most actually do), that does not establish notability. So the fact that this person has published in and of itself does not make him notable (and it isn't that much either, my current postdoc has as many publications as he). What is needed to establish notability is evidence that his publications have impacted/influenced others. --Crusio (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True, which is why I'm unable to evaluate his impact. I _think_ this guy has about 40-60 publications, but I'm really not sure as the name is too common. If you've got a post-doc with that many, the economy must be worse than I thought... In any case, there are reviews of his books [7] and the like. I don't know how to compute an "h index" for such a common name, but [8] indicates he's got at least one book with a large number of cites. Hobit (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even when the economy was better... I had 43 publications when I got my first faculty position... (Anyway, I was referring to the number of publications listed in the article). The book has 150 cites (according to Google Scholar, which I find notoriously unreliable, but at least it's an approximation). That's nice, but one book with that number of cites is not enough to establish notability, I think. You yourself say that you're "unable to evaluate his impact", so I wondered why you vote "keep", is all. --Crusio (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I'll go with "I'm unable to be sure" in this field. In my field (computer engineering) I'd call it a clear keep. I'm trying to be clear that I'm willing to be wrong on this one but my limited knowledge of the topic puts him in the notable category. And people publish that many papers in neuroscience? Note to self: don't change fields. Hobit (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lack of references that demonstrate notability that has been established by reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Added some more info and biog and Book and link to Book Review (Msrasnw (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep His book has been widely reviewed in peer reviewed acadmic journals and has been widely cited and used. This alone seems enough to pass our test of notability (Msrasnw (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete - Academic with no significant 3rd party coverage. EeepEeep (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, one book, otherwise I don't see anything to pass WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 22:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I can see that this article is one that might with effort be saved. He is not just an academic, so someone needs to look into the union organizer part of his career as well as other aspects. Unfortunately I do have the time or knowledge to try to save it. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Such a common name that it is hard to be clear about what on the web is his. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Weak delete per WP:BIO1E. The reviews for it make a plausible case that we could have an article about his book, but that's the only thing that seems notable here. It doesn't seem that he passes WP:PROF for anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 05:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yair Nitzani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Now slightly (but poorly) sourced. Entertainer with no apparent notability. ViridaeTalk 06:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources in the article are enough to show notability. For example [9] is solely about the topic in a major newspaper. Hobit (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Virtually unknown in the 'English' world but notable known person in Israel. HE WP article is more developed, article is a few years old with edits and uncontested. --Shuki (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow/Speedy Keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FarPoint Media Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacking reliable sources. Has questionable notability. Written like an advertisement. andyzweb (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support deletion (unless article substantially improved). There is also the fearless Michael R. Mennenga whose article is even flimsier. Occuli (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Slice of SciFi, their lone semi-notable creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Arenlor (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A near unanimous keep after the article was sourced and improved during the listing period (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sitti Navarro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. BLP has been without references since Nov 2006 Non-notable pop star. ViridaeTalk 06:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per the nominator andyzweb (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep meets WP:MUSIC darn easily. Major label (Warner), Platinum and Gold albums in home country. Also would seem to meet WP:N [10]. Hobit (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nothing to suggest WP:BEFORE was followed here, and sources have been added by another editor. After a little editing appears to be clearly notable.--Michig (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I just added some references. FYI, she is often credited as just Sitti in the Philippines (for those who want to do some google search). --Bluemask (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Addition of sources proves notability. --seav (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Unreferenced BLP, prod was removed and no references added. Not notable academic puff piece. ViridaeTalk 06:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of this article does not meet WP:PROF.This article does indeed seem like WP:PUFF; the subject supposedly has made "significant contributions" to the industry, but that is not backed up by reliable sources.In fact, this BLP is unreferenced except for the subject's MIT faculty bio.As a side note, the subject apparently runs a hotel out of a castle he owns and has taken the title of "baron"; I don't think that establishes notabilityeither. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Strong keep First it's not unreferenced. Secondly meets WP:PROF#5. Hobit (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In what respect does he meet WP:PROF #5? I came to the opposite conclusion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He's a named professor with an endowed chair. I believe that does it. Also [11] is very strong indeed. Hobit (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good points. I'm revising my opinion to keep based on the references added and because WP:PROF is met. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He's a named professor with an endowed chair. I believe that does it. Also [11] is very strong indeed. Hobit (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In what respect does he meet WP:PROF #5? I came to the opposite conclusion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If I have counted correctly the subject has an h index of 29; a clear keep on WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I disagree. (not necessarily with you maths). h-index doesn't give inherant notability. ViridaeTalk 10:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You've got to be kidding: a named chair at MIT, no less, and highly cited (per Xxanthippe). Meets WP:PROF twice over. --Crusio (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article was AfD'd because it's an unsourced BLP. This is no kidding, this is serious stuff, exactly what will happen to 50,000+ articles if a renegade gang of editors get their way, see Wikipedia talk:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs and Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. He has authored or coauthored 250 books; Not notable academic puff piece. Bah, lousy nomination, but instructive nevertheless. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep A Google News search more than confirms notability: [12]. Warrah (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball keep. Clear pass of WP:PROF #1, #4, and (most obviously) #5. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete The article, Stuart Madnick, is more than likely an autobio (being created by Smadnick (talk · contribs)), entirely unsourced and sounds promotional("prolific writer", "significant contributions", yet even the only primary source he provided didn't mention "significant contributions"). Given that it has not improved since its creation (in 2006), and it sounds so much like a resume that it would need a complete overhaul to become encyclopedic, I'm with deleting it without prejudice to further recreation. (Please consider this seriously. If it weren't such an autobio, I might as well already had this AfD NACed as snow keep.) Blodance the Seeker 17:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, the guy most have some time on his hands. When he isn't keeping his castle or tending to his two professorships he's wikifiddling. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable professor, MIT is quite an important academic institution. Referencing is not currently ideal but it clearly isn't unreferenced. ϢereSpielChequers 18:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy procedural keep (by an admin, please) - this looks like a case of WP:SNOW. Given his position he's presumptively notable under WP:PROF, and if there's still a lack of sourcing I'll just go ahead and add one so the original complaint is moot. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done! While y'all were fighting here and at Arbcom, Giftlite, Hipocrite, and I fixed the sourcing / notability problem. I'll probably take a few more passes at it and the article still needs a lot of work but this page isn't a great place to get that done. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Almost as though a test case were desired where the person is notable sans contention. Collect (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Nominators should follow WP:BEFORE before nominating an article for AfD, otherwise the time of other editors may be wasted. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced contested PROD. Prod, which called for sources or deletion, was removed and no refs added. Not notable or barely notable academic. Academics publish a lot. That doesn't increase their notability. ViridaeTalk 06:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep meets WP:N by a wide margin [13]. Hobit (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A former university president who has received at least two honorary doctorates, and probably four. Please, please remember WP:BEFORE. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:PROF #6 and possibly also #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for reasons above. An ill-researched nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep Refs added. Clearly notable for his "cultural industries" works. Not even a close call here. Collect (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Irisonline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seemingly not-notable online game. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this online game. Joe Chill (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 21:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Batty Langley and his Masonic Connections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Synthesis and original research issues aside, this is an unnecessary content fork of Batty Langley ~DC Talk To Me 05:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge a paragraph or two into Batty Langley, per WP:CFORK, WP:SYNTH, and possible WP:OR, as stated above. How anyone could think the alleged freemasonry of this garden designer is a proper topic for a standalone article escapes me. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT#ESSAY. Merge first sentence of intro to Batty Langley. MuffledThud (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ... well, everything mentioned above. Courtesy blank as possibly contentious? Ivanvector (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, but a courtesy blank is not needed because he's long dead. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I mean to disagree with you, but are you saying that biographies about the deceased can never be contentious? Ivanvector (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am saying that it is per se not libelous, no real harm is being done, and there is no reason to be courteous, to a man dead for centuries. The general rule is to keep footprints -- records of past changes. "Contentious" has no meaning in Wikipedia. See WP:5P. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I used the wrong word then, I meant to use the word that meant potentially libelous. Anyway, I think you'll agree with me that our little side discussion has no impact on this AfD? Consensus here is pretty clear. Ivanvector (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am saying that it is per se not libelous, no real harm is being done, and there is no reason to be courteous, to a man dead for centuries. The general rule is to keep footprints -- records of past changes. "Contentious" has no meaning in Wikipedia. See WP:5P. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I mean to disagree with you, but are you saying that biographies about the deceased can never be contentious? Ivanvector (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, bad faith AFD started by sockpuppet of banned user. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Thomas (composer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject has received no significant awards for his "work," and neither has he been written about in reputable publications. There is a reason this article has no sources--its because no sources exist. Don't let his being a classical composer blind you to the reality that this man is not-notable. This article demonstrates that the subject's level of achievement and recognition is that of your average "Myspace" garage band. Politoman (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This AfD will have to await input from musicians, but I find the offensive tone of the nomination to be inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards. The nominator started editing on WP two days ago. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 21:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pwang War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hi, I think that that this article may be nonsense, or be titled incorrectly. A google search for "Pwang War" turns up no relevant results; I suspect that if this war were notable enough to be covered in a general history of East Asia (the reference cited), there should be at least some result for the article name on google. A search for "Treaty of Geeba," which ended the war according to the article, also turns up no results. When I search the terms "Pwang" and "Geeba" in "East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History" on Google Books, I also find no results. So, I suggest deleting this article, unless someone can come up with a source for this information. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Running through a history archive I have access to I still can't find anything. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Extensive search in various Chinese sources failed to find even the slightest indication that this war did took place(nor any Sino-mongolian war took place in 1455, not even the General Wong mentioned). This is highly likely to be a hoax. Blodance the Seeker 07:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Most of the names don't make any sense, let alone appear in the purported reference. "Geeba" (pinyin "jiba") actually seems to be a vulgar word in Chinese. --Latebird (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is a slang term for "penis", pretty much like the term "cock" in English. Blodance the Seeker 02:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - looks like a hoax to me. Yaan (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete based on my own searches and Blodance's comments above, this passes the WP:DUCK test for a hoax. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Overwhelming evidence presented that this doesn't exist. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No region specified, "Leevitain" sounds rather biblical than Mongolian. Did somebody look up the alleged source, by the way? G Purevdorj (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Books allows limited searches. I tried, but nothing. --Auric (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Decline WP:CSD#A7, that doesn't apply to made-up "days", but on this particular "day" it's SNOWing. JohnCD (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ariel Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable holiday. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete I hate to say this. (It's a bad reason) but per nom. Fails WP:GNG NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - Wikipedia is not for something made up one day. EeepEeep (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It might not be made up, but a holiday invented by the staff of a non-notable newspaper is not notable. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable and WP:MADEUP. IAR to speedy delete may be appropriate as well, but at this point WP:SNOW works just as well. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everybody. If someone created this article in hopes of convincing people to give them gifts on this holiday, they made a mistake in scheduling the holiday in October. This article will be lucky to last until January 28, much less October. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:HOAX, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:IINFO, WP:SNOW, etc, etc.See below. Ivanvector (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Speedy delete even if it takes the mighty WP:IAR to make it happen. Pitiful vanity article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, per all of the above and not even a straight-faced attempt to assert notability. There should be a speedy category for things like this. TJRC (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per CSD A7. I thought the tag was declined by an administrator, but when I went looking for the explanation, I realized it was the page creator that removed the tag, without due process. Hence my change of !vote. Ivanvector (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. –MuZemike 09:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Future of GTA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Unreferenced, unencyclopedic speculation, original research. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:Essay, WP:SYNTHESIS NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Speculative. In the past I've argued that we should apply Wikipedia:Notability (films) to games or come up with a new set of guidelines specifically for games. Specifically relevant here: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." For games I would actually propose a higher standard, as in production games are frequently delayed and/or canceled (see Duke Nukem Forever). EeepEeep (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This article does have references and I think it is highly due that this subject has its own page. --Jonnyzoo 93 (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CRYSTAL andyzweb (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and by appropriate extension from WP:HAMMERTIME. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete we are not a crystal ball. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 07:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A little cited speculation is OK in general in existing articles when talking about the next game in the series. But an article all on its own crosses the line into WP:CRYSTAL. - X201 (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete - Looking into the future blindly is not encyclopedic. If something hasn't been confirmed, no article is needed. If it has and there are reliable sources and significant coverage to back it up, then it should have inclusion. --Teancum (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 16:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CBALL --Yowuza yadderhouse | meh 17:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 17:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: futuristic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmclaughlin9 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as, generally speaking, it is not within the scope of an encyclopedia to speculate on possible future events. Kill it before we get a wave of hundreds of "Future of..." articles on various subjects. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it may be of note to mention the article creator's malicious edits here, here, and here. --Teancum (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - and also here EeepEeep (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No notability here until a future game gains significant coverage, in which case it can have its own article anyway. This is redundant. --Taelus (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTALL. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - The article has many references and sources to back it up which means it should stay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.143.226 (talk • contribs) — 124.181.143.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- There are only three references, and only one is reliable. --Teancum (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 03:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SPEEDY DELETE violates WP:CRYSTAL --mhking (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, as per WP:CRYSTAL and even without that it needs a complete rewrite - after the game's announced. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Toby Rogers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previous editor drastically cut the article down; I restored some of its content (really, the guy's claim to fame) and added a reference (all I could find, that is; see this search), but it's not enough to keep it. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This author does not appear to rise above the general notability guideline or any other relevant guideline I can think of that might apply. JBsupreme (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per JBsupreme. I was just going to say non-notable. ViridaeTalk
- Delete Does not pass WPAUTHOR. Hipocrite (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/Redirect already completed with no objection for several days. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rosalind Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is a claim to notability here (a prod was removed), but this unreferenced BLP is destined to remain unreferenced--look, for instance, at the results of this Google search--and that's for her claim to fame, her role in Pobol Y Cwm. I found her resume, here, but even that doesn't suggest she's WP-worthy. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The credentials seem to add up to notability. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What credentials, precisely? Drmies (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, wait--as "references" you added a bio from the college she attended, which confirms her height and hair color, and you added the above-linked resume (from her agent, no less) to verify the rest? That doesn't even begin to satisfy WP:N, even if such wildly non-reliable sources were in fact reliable. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, completely non-notable. ViridaeTalk 05:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Completely non notable? And you think Brooke Brodack is? Youtube celebrities compared to classically trained actresses. Mmmm. Why, because she is Welsh? She has appeared in notable series and aan advert for the National Assembly for Wales in Wales, (if she was a nobody why would she have been selected?) In fact, Pobol y Cwm is listed as one of the major soaps in the UK and the biggest in the welsh language, produced by the BBC so in my humble opinion an actress who has starred in a notable series for years for the BBC, one of the world's most respected broadcasting institutions is clearly notable. It is no different to covering say a telenovela actress from South America or an Irish TV actress or something. Reliable sources exist, but they do not seem to be in abundance. I am surprised there are not more sources about her online actually. If we must delete, delete but as an actress from Wales she would seem to meet requirements. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless someone can find additional reliable sources that demonstrate her notability. The given references certainly do not demonstrate notability, and I can't find anything substantial via a Google search. So perhaps she is notable, but verifiability is the issue? PDCook (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. A thought occurred to me. Perhaps we should merge some of the Pobl actor stubs into the series article and give a brief description of each actor. Some of the actors are only noted for appearing in the series so that would be best. I would have no issues with redirecting into this article unless the actor has a substantial filmography and number of sources to make it an adequate seperate article. Any thoughts Dr. Mies? Dr. Blofeld White cat
week Keep ormerge per Dr. Blofeld. Of a certainly she's verifiable (http://www.cinelgabran.co.uk/web/CV%27s/Actress_English/CV%20Rosalind%20Richards.pdf). The question is if she's notable. Given the language issues involved, I'm going with "probably". Hobit (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- But Hobit, that's from her management company. It's my job not to believe those kinds of things. I'm certainly amenable, by the way, to Ernst's suggestion. See below: Drmies (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just did some seriously looking and I agree. If she did play the character on the show I'm having a hard time proving it. A merge might well be reasonable, but I don't see a stand-alone article. Hobit (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But Hobit, that's from her management company. It's my job not to believe those kinds of things. I'm certainly amenable, by the way, to Ernst's suggestion. See below: Drmies (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dr. Blofeld, if you care to merge this one to the show, and any of the others that are as yet unsourced and are similar to this, I'll gladly withdraw the AfD and we'll leave a nice redirect, since I have no intention of sending Ms. Richards into oblivion. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree Hobit and Drmies, I was surprised there is not much about her online. Tomorrow then I'll merge a few Pobl bios into the main article. Dr. Blofeld White cat 23:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 23:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- UVa Online Judge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not seeing independent coverage of this software, just because it exists and has its own website isn't grounds for inclusion. MBisanz talk 03:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a stub, but it has two independent 3rd party sources cited already. Add more sources and content, don't delete it. LotLE×talk 05:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This would appear to be an academic product that has a variety of Scholar hits that would appear to be significant and pertinent. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above and per also numerous book sources. --Cyclopiatalk 16:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Promotional stub. Academic works are not notable in and of themselves, see Wikipedia:Notability (academics); no evidence of significant impact or 3rd party coverage. EeepEeep (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you linking a guideline for academic people in an article describing essentially software? And, ehm, we have linked significant 3rd party coverage above? --Cyclopiatalk 21:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no guidelines for academic software, but the guidelines for academics are closely related and provide a useful reference for accessing notability. Academic publications do not constitute significant 3rd party coverage. EeepEeep (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:N, academic publications do constitute significant 3rd party coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no guidelines for academic software, but the guidelines for academics are closely related and provide a useful reference for accessing notability. Academic publications do not constitute significant 3rd party coverage. EeepEeep (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N does not say academic publications are notable. The issue is that academic communities are highly focused and closed to the outside world - you could be the top person in your field but completely unknown.
- Does this topic have any significant coverage outside of the small community in which it is used? None of the references you listed show significant 3rd party coverage - they are just papers written by academics in the field. Where is the evidence of impact and coverage outside of the field? A google search just yields UVa and ACM related links. No coverage by mainstream press.
- It could be a section on ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest if appropriate, but it's not notable enough to have it's own article. EeepEeep (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having no impact outside of its field doesn't equal non-notability per WP:N or anything else. WP:N says that it accepts reliable sources which they are. Smerdis tried to put that bias opinion in a software proposed guideline, but everyone except him turned it down. Joe Chill (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like you're missing the point of my objections, but we'll see how the deletion discussion shakes out. You might want to take a look at this other current academic deletion discussion. EeepEeep (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not missing the point. I see the same comments from Miami and Smerdis, and their bias opinions never win in software AfDs. What really makes no sense from you is linking to academic people. How do you expect software to meet criteria for biographies? Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nowhere it is needed, for notability, coverage "outside the field". Quite the opposite: one of the best advantages of an encyclopedia is to give information to the public also of things that are usually known only within a field (provided sources exist somewhere). I'd say it is hard to find something more WP:RS than scientific academic press, and therefore academic papers about a subject are a strong indication of notability -probably one of the strongest possible. Your request of "mainstream press" coverage is nonsense: what's the point in requiring (probably) bad sources when you have (most probably) good ones? --Cyclopiatalk 23:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since you're focused on a minor issue that's tangential to my main argument, I'd say you're missing the point. And the rest of your comments make no sense. Who's Miami? Smerdis supports keeping this article. What makes their views biased? Are there specific other software AfDs that establish relevant precedents we should consider?
- I merely suggested that Wikipedia:Notability (academics) could be a useful starting point for establishing notability in a related area that lacks its own notability guidelines. If publishing a large number of papers in academic journals doesn't establish significant notability to be included in wikipedia, why would a system that's only mentioned in a few papers be notable? Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, so we shouldn't be listing information that's only mentioned in or of interest to a scientific journal.
- I don't find any of the references compelling; they merely mention that the system exists without establishing impact or importance, see Existence ≠ Notability. That's my opinion, you're entitled to disagree. EeepEeep (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If publishing a large number of papers in academic journals doesn't establish significant notability to be included in wikipedia, why would a system that's only mentioned in a few papers be notable? - Because you're missing the entire point of WP:N. If author X publishes 100 papers, but there is no source whatsoever on X, X is not notable, primarily because it is not verifiable: there is nothing about X that can be reliably written. If however there are 5 papers all together talking about object Y, this satisfies WP:GNG: there are several third-party sources covering the subject. Also, you have to explain me what has to do WP:NOTPAPER with scientific journals. Please, read policies and guidelines before citing them. --Cyclopiatalk 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's your opinion, the notability guideline disagrees. At the moment, WP:ACADEMIC is irrelevant to software. Smerdis appears to have changed his opinions since Wikipedia:Software notability failed. Joe Chill (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, sorry, that should be WP:NOT PAPERS. I really don't see how this topic has significant coverage. Again, my opinion, and I'm allowed to express it. Clearly not everything that's mentioned in a handful of academic papers is notable, and nothing in WP:N contradicts that. I've done significant research and published in the field of CS Education but have never heard of this system. On the other hand, I can name several academics who have published large numbers of papers, are frequently cited by other academics, are considered highly influential leaders in their field, and have received significant amounts of coverage in the mainstream press but don't have wikipedia pages. EeepEeep (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And if you don't see how WP:ACADEMIC is a useful starting point then I'm at a loss. It's clearly the closest related topic. Wikipedia has few hard-and-fast rules, but we need some guidelines here.EeepEeep (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But in fact we have the guidelines we need: WP:GNG. --Cyclopiatalk 23:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, didn't see the part above in your comment. WP:NOTPAPERS is a guideline about style, not about content. And yes, everything that's mentioned in a handful of academic papers is notable by definition, per WP:GNG. The rest of your comment is satisfactorily answered by WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. --Cyclopiatalk 23:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like you're missing the point of my objections, but we'll see how the deletion discussion shakes out. You might want to take a look at this other current academic deletion discussion. EeepEeep (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having no impact outside of its field doesn't equal non-notability per WP:N or anything else. WP:N says that it accepts reliable sources which they are. Smerdis tried to put that bias opinion in a software proposed guideline, but everyone except him turned it down. Joe Chill (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What I mean is that there is no mention of software on the guideline so it is irrelevant. Joe Chill (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe, you'll notice I only said that WP:ACADEMIC is a useful starting point for establishing notability of other academic related topics. If software were specifically mentioned, it wouldn't be a starting point, it would be an established guideline. I'm merely suggesting applicability in the absence of an established guideline. If we just apply WP:GNG, this topic fails. EeepEeep (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If we apply it, it doesn't fail. Joe Chill (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, bear in mind that guidelines like WP:ACADEMIC (which putative relevance here is surrealistic, but oh well) never override WP:GNG. That is, if a subject doesn't pass a guideline but passes WP:GNG, the subject is notable. Other guidelines are to complement GNG, not to substitute it. --Cyclopiatalk 00:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I never suggested WP:ACADEMIC should override WP:GNG. I merely mentioned it as a point of reference for discussing a related topic that falls into some grey areas of WP:GNG. If WP:GNG were cut-and-dried in every case the guidelines would never have been created in the first place. Your opinions don't overrule mine; the whole point of an AfD discussion is to give multiple editors a chance to express their opinions. You feel this topic is notable and gave your reasons, I don't and gave my reasons. EeepEeep (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, bear in mind that guidelines like WP:ACADEMIC (which putative relevance here is surrealistic, but oh well) never override WP:GNG. That is, if a subject doesn't pass a guideline but passes WP:GNG, the subject is notable. Other guidelines are to complement GNG, not to substitute it. --Cyclopiatalk 00:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If we apply it, it doesn't fail. Joe Chill (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe, you'll notice I only said that WP:ACADEMIC is a useful starting point for establishing notability of other academic related topics. If software were specifically mentioned, it wouldn't be a starting point, it would be an established guideline. I'm merely suggesting applicability in the absence of an established guideline. If we just apply WP:GNG, this topic fails. EeepEeep (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What I mean is that there is no mention of software on the guideline so it is irrelevant. Joe Chill (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Off the top of my head, I would have said delete because most grading software isn't notable. But this seems to have some coverage in academic papers and a book on preparing for ACM contests [19] (some of this text appears to have been recycled in other papers by the same authors) [20] (contest prep book) [21] (round-up of on-line judges on p. 7). So, it is more notable than the average grading software. Also, a distinction must be made between academic software written to illustrate some idea, and software used in academia. This falls roughly in the latter category, so it needs to be treated as any other software, and it has independent secondary coverage WP:GNG which is not just due dilligence in reporting related work in academic papers. Pcap ping 22:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 23:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Internet Movie Cars Database (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The only sources are from 2006 when the site was founded, with no substantial coverage afterward. A brief flurry of coverage from around the foundation does not translate to full blown notability if the site never got any coverage from third party sources after its foundation. Prod declined with a proposed merge to IMDb simply because it shares a founder was inspired by IMDb -- not a good idea in my opinion given the tenuous connection. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The sites don't share a founder. Rather, the merge requester said that the founders of this database were inspired by IMDb. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which would make the connection all the more tenuous and the merge all the less plausible. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- There were plenty of links that could be used as third party sources, until the Nominee removed them. ----DanTD (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete basically, nobody cares about this stuff (I sincerely hope...) so it's not notable. Chutznik (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 17:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:WEB. Being "inspired" by something notable does not equal notability. Alexa rank is a really unimpressive 61,130. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:WEB. The name really rolls right off the tongue, doesn't it. JBsupreme (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This site passes WB:WEB IMO because it does have substantive coverage, delete votes should be made on the basis of WP:NOT#NEWS. Polarpanda (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A near unanimous consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another Gospel (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable enough to merit its own article; also violates WP:NPOV to a possibly irredeemable extent Richwales (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Required reading at Regent College. Used as a reference at University of Pennsylvania. I will do some research on the subject, and work to further improve the article. AfD is not cleanup nor should AfD be a place to bring an article to cleanup claimed POV concerns. Cirt (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability requirements for books. I question NPOV claim. Are you referring to the article (don't see it) or the book itself? Turgan Talk 03:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep: Changing to speedy keep as nominator has shown no reason for deleion other than a dislike for the subject of the article, not an issue with the article itself worthy of deletion. Turgan Talk 23:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I'm not convinced yet regarding the notability; just because two universities have courses using this book doesn't seem enough. My main concern regarding WP:NPOV is that the book is a vehicle for advancing a specific version of the Christian faith, delivering negative value judgments on numerous other faiths with which "mainstream Christianity" disagrees. If this article is salvageable, I would propose it would need to discuss the background of the author's religious views, why the author's beliefs impel him to write negatively about what he considers to be "cults", outside critical reaction to the book, etc. That would seem to point toward expanding the subject to the point that this book would be more appropriately included in Wikipedia as a source in articles about evangelical Christianity, rather than being a separate article. Richwales (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Richwales (talk · contribs) - Your nomination itself is considered a "delete" - there is no need for you to make a duplicate "delete", with bolded formatting. Cirt (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, my error, no intent to confuse. I've removed the bolded "delete" tag on my comment above. I still stand by the content of what I said, though. Richwales (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How about a speedy keep and a month's worth of bacon for Cirt for their good work on the article? Bacon to be supplied by the nominator, of course. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep how is this non-notable and POV? NPOV means to describe things as they are, without the influence of editorial POV - the same way we write articles about Nazism. If the subject is biased, it is okay to describe it in its original way - we are certainly not going to merge Nazism into Political ideology, are we? Blodance the Seeker 07:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhhh, are you saying that this book's treatment of Mormons, Christian Scientists, etc. is unbiased because they really are cults? Richwales (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's treatment of the book is unbiased. Whether the book itself is biased isn't relevant, otherwise Mein Kampf would be a redlink. WP:NPOV applies to articles, not the subjects of articles. Holly25 (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but you still don't get the point. The book may be biased. The article is not. And even if the subject of the article(i.e. the book) is biased, it doesn't automatically make the article "biased". For example, Nazism again(for a lack of better example I can think of, sorry if not appropriate) - Let's say Hitler claimed that "Aryan is the best race in the world", and now we are trying to put this into an article - in describing it, we can simply say "Hitler claims that Aryan is the best race in the world" - this is not biased. If you try to either support (e.g. saying "Aryan is the best race in the world" without attributing to him) or deny (e.g. "Hitler said that Aryan is the best race in the world, yet another nonsense") his claim, that would make the article biased. Hope the matter is clear now :) Cheers, Blodance the Seeker 16:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At the very least, the article (in its current form) is heavily biased because it doesn't provide any clue to the reader regarding the POV nature of the book or of its thesis (namely, the tacit assumption that evangelical Christianity is true and authentic, and that other religions — even other Christian churches which diverge from the "mainstream" — are "cults" which believe and preach "another gospel"). An unbiased article would need to acknowledge the non-neutral POV of the author, the POV nature of the publisher (Zondervan), deal much more neutrally with comments like "biblical critique of the cults", address the POV nature of the book's title, etc., etc. Even if this issue can be adequately handled via a major cleanup of the existing page, I'm still not really convinced that there is a good enough argument to make this book notable and worthy of its own article (as opposed to dealing with it and similar so-called "anti-cult" or "anti-counterfeit" writings as a subsection of a more general article on evangelical or fundamentalist Protestantism). Richwales (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just had a read through and the article in its current form nowhere uses the word "cult" to describe these groups except in direct quotes: even the intro adds terms such as "new religious movement" in order to avoid lumping in the following list of groups under the "cult" banner; "groups" is the term used from then on. It's perfectly neutral.
- An article doesn't have to include criticisms of the subject in order to be neutral, unless those criticisms can be properly sourced and their insertion doesn't give undue weight to fringe views. What would not be neutral is if someone decides the work in question is biased and arranges the article to "show" the bias, when no such allegations of bias are represented in the secondary literature. The way to add criticisms to the article is to first locate some good sources for that criticism. Holly25 (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At the very least, the article (in its current form) is heavily biased because it doesn't provide any clue to the reader regarding the POV nature of the book or of its thesis (namely, the tacit assumption that evangelical Christianity is true and authentic, and that other religions — even other Christian churches which diverge from the "mainstream" — are "cults" which believe and preach "another gospel"). An unbiased article would need to acknowledge the non-neutral POV of the author, the POV nature of the publisher (Zondervan), deal much more neutrally with comments like "biblical critique of the cults", address the POV nature of the book's title, etc., etc. Even if this issue can be adequately handled via a major cleanup of the existing page, I'm still not really convinced that there is a good enough argument to make this book notable and worthy of its own article (as opposed to dealing with it and similar so-called "anti-cult" or "anti-counterfeit" writings as a subsection of a more general article on evangelical or fundamentalist Protestantism). Richwales (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The following excerpt from the back cover (as found in the book's page on Amazon.com) seems, to me, to clearly illustrate the view of the author in this book: Ruth Tucker’s overview illumines the personalities whose alleged revelations spawned historical heresies in all the major cults in the United States. She highlights important controversies within each movement as it aims for religious respectability. She pinpoints how the doctrines and practices of a dozen contemporary groups—as well as the New Age Movement—deviate from orthodox Christianity and shows how to reach out to cult members. At the very least, the current article fails WP:NPOV because it fails to even try to acknowledge the POV of the book. Also, I question the citing of this book being required reading at Regent College as being supportive of its notability, given the evangelical Protestant bias of Regent College. So I still believe this book fails the notability test — though I'm willing to concede that it may be possible to salvage its lack of NPOV via a major rewrite that does not tacitly accept a mainstream Protestant viewpoint. Richwales (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Richwales (talk · contribs) - Perhaps you should take some time to read the above comments by Blodance and Holly25. Cirt (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I did read these comments — and I disagree with them — but in the interests of accomplishing something useful here, I'll tentatively agree to drop the NPOV element of my complaint in this forum, pending a good-faith effort (which I'm willing to participate in) to rectify the serious POV problems which I remain convinced exist in the current page. I still believe a page on this specific individual book is inappropriate for lack of notability, and I still favour its deletion on that basis (and/or the incorporation of its contents into a more general treatment of polemical literature within the evangelical Protestant community). Richwales (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, seems like a bit of overusage of the bolded Note formatting, over and over again... In any event, this can be discussed further at the article's talk page, but it still seems like Richwales (talk · contribs) has failed to point out any specific issues with the article itself (as opposed to his WP:IDONTLIKEIT concerns with the book). Cirt (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With all possible respect here, I feel my concerns go beyond "I just don't like it". I will admit that I don't particularly like this book — as you can see from my user page, I'm LDS (Mormon), and this book directly attacks my set of beliefs — but I'm not going to object to an article about this or other polemic literature as long as the material is treated in a dispassionate, objective fashion that doesn't promote or put down any particular version of faith. In any case, though — as I said — I'm willing to drop this part of my objection to the page's existence in hopes of being able to make the page better. Richwales (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the "subject of instruction at multiple ... post-graduate programs" clause at WP:BK, and the references made to it in other works. Alleged lack of NPOV isn't a deletion issue. Holly25 (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Several points.
- I was unable just now to confirm that Another Gospel is in fact being "used as a reference at the University of Pennsylvania". The online material I could find for the cited Penn course doesn't appear to mention this book. A more comprehensive source (e.g., a complete reading list for the course?) would probably help here.
- The online material for the course at Regent College does list Another Gospel — but it's buried near the end of a reading list of over 100 books — not what I would consider to fall into the category of "independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science" (note 5 at WP:BK).
- If I wanted to be picky (which I really won't in this situation, but whatever), I could point out that Penn is in the USA, and Regent College is in Canada, so these two examples aren't enough to satisfy the "in any particular country" part of the cited condition at WP:BK. I would propose that the best answer to this objection would be to find more programs which make genuine, substantive use of Another Gospel.
- I'm concerned that the other works cited as referring to Another Gospel may not represent exposure to a "general audience". Most of the cited works come from evangelical Protestant publishers (such as Zondervan, Moody, and Intervarsity). This isn't as bad as a fringe blog basing its claim to notability on links from other fringe blogs, but I think a conclusion of notability here ought to involve nontrivial citings of Another Gospel in a wider range of publications.
- Richwales (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There might not be an online reference for the UPenn course, but offline sources are perfectly acceptable (they just take more work to check).
- The "independent works... sufficiently significant" note is used to disqualify textbooks and books written specifically for the course. "Major works" are given as examples, not as requirements.
- The "any particular country" part is, as I read it, meant to be inclusive: we can't discount courses in obscure countries out of geographical snobbery. I don't think it means "they all have to be in the same country", I don't see what sense that would make.
- I'm not sure that "general exposure" is the right standard to use here: it's definitely a specialist work, so we look to how it's cited within that specialist area. I see a reference from a university press (Sydney) and use in two mainstream university courses alongside the cites in books from evangelical publishers. The Christian Research Journal review puts the book at the top of its field, and although I'm sure you'll point out problems with their neutrality, their parent organization seems to have played a big role in the "Christian countercult movement", so their endorsement does carry weight when we're considering the work's significance within that specialist field. Holly25 (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You can't get any info if you try to click the link University of Pennsylvania... it brings you to the WP article of Penn. Noted the "RELS133"? Try search "Penn RELS133" - it's a course number. I think the creator meant to say that the book is mentioned in the course content - the link I found was dead, though, so it shall prolly get removed for unverifiable. But even if the ref is removed, it is still a widely cited work and seems to have enough notability for inclusion. For the content of the article, as long as they are properly attributed, they are fine, no real need to portrait the author and/or publisher. Check Mein Kampf - we dont really need to say "a book by Adolf Hitler, the Nazi leader and the most evil mass murderer in human history". Some of the "POV" you mentioned was not even included in the article - how in the world can they make the article POV if they are not even in the article? I'm getting puzzled... Sorry, I don't mean to be all "I R TEH JASTIS", but this seems to me to be getting more and more like a blatant case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT... Blodance the Seeker 01:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Offline sources are fine, as long as they've been published in some form. Just a pain to check, especially if the only copies are in Pennsylvania... Holly25 (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If you look at WP:BK, it lists 5 criteria for book notability, only one has to be met to establish notability, and this book meets at least two (#1 and #4). I haven't independently verified those claims, but unless proven false, this book is notable. As for the POV problems, I agree that the book is probably POV, but the article is not. If anyone thinks the article has problems, those can be fixed without deleting. – jaksmata 14:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notable book from Zondervan. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 21:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Polo Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:NOTABLE, no appropriate CSD category. Frmatt (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CSD G12: Copyvio - see the text accompanying the first ghit, even has the same spelling mistakes. Ivanvector (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dinner and a Movie (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about an unreleased album. As per WP:CRYSTAL. Frmatt (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pn: and perhaps adding a cited mention on the artists article would be more appropriate andyzweb (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We are seeing more and more AfD's for upcoming albums by notable artists, proposed for deletion just because there are not yet numerous sources available. Sometime in 2009 the old Template: future album was discontinued (see admin discussions here and here). I think a re-enstatement of that template would solve some problems if WP editors continue to create articles for near-future albums, but I guess that should be discussed elsewhere. As for the album in the present discussion, if we delete the article now it will just be re-created in a couple of months. Also, I'm not sure if citing WP:CRYSTAL is appropriate if the article has reliable sources, and I would find at least one of the sources in this article to be so. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Of the independent sources, only the MurderDog interview gives the album more than a cursory mention. HipHopDX and BallerStatus report the deal between Tech N9ne and Brotha Lynch Hung, and BallerStatus further quotes Lynch's Twitter page which says that this album will be his first release under the new agreement, but neither of these discuss the album per se, and so don't help establish its notability. Yappy2bhere (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Billy Amato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fairly complex, questionable hoax. It would appear as if someone is attempting to re-write the history of Studio 54 with NO sources, references or corroborating evidence. In addition, the editor responsible has refused all communication, even after being blocked. "Billy Smith" in the Studio 54 article was changed to Billy Amato a few days ago. For the full timeline, please see the following links:
- recent attempted edits on article Studio 54
- edits performed under named account now blocked
- edits of user under anonymous account (same grammatical mistakes in information)
- same information added by another blocked anonymous account (grammatical mistakes and all)
There is a claim of a legal name change, for which there are no sources provided. If it is determined this information is NOT correct, this article should be deleted as a hoax. Several other similar articles attempting to introduce this information have already been deleted, including Billy Smith, Studio 54 and Billy Smith/Amato, Studio 54.OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found this - Being born 1945, in 1957 he should be like 12, exactly the age for graduating from an elementary school. Considering there is unlikely to be two people who both had two surnames "Smith" and "Amato", I think they are the same person. Thus, the legal name change is true. Blodance (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This also. 6 years passed and he graduates from high school. I think we can now at least say that there was a person named Billy Amato aka Billy Smith indeed. Blodance (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And this is his own website. He says he was "Being born and raised in Pelham Manor, New York", matching the classmate records I linked above. He also mentioned Studio 54. So, no, the article is not a hoax, as far as I can see. But I failed to establish his notability, as such, I'm going Weak Delete on this article, for failing WP:BIO. Blodance (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Last time I checked, Classmates.com was not a WP:RS. All legal name changes must be published, except in cases of domestic violence, so there should be a source for this information. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not familiar with the situation in the US - no such requirements here. (I've !voted delete anyway, but I must say that I'm pretty convienced that they are the same person, even if the source is not reliable.) Are there any exceptions? Blodance the Seeker 09:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are more than likely exceptions to this rule (domestic violence, witness protection), and the subject in question may have "informally" changed his name. The problem extends beyond the notability per WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC of Billy Amato and the "alleged" name change. If the subject "Billy Smith", "Billy Smith Amato" or Billy Amato himself is editing the article (and vandalizing my userpage), we have a WP:COI. If it is not, then where is the authoring editor getting this information? There are no sources to establish notability of anything. If it is available to the general public, why can't it be produced? In addition, the existing information about Studio 54 mentions a "Billy Smith" which is a pretty common name. My concern was the production of 1) a reliable source establishing the name change from "Billy Smith" to "Billy Amato" and/or notability independent of it, as "Billy Amato"; 2) a reliable source proving Billy Amato "launched the career of Madonna" and 3) attempting to get the author of this article to communicate with the community about where this information is originating, in a way other than vandalizing my userpage and the Studio 54 article and talk page. From my perspective... beginning with the changes to the Studio 54 article, moving to the deleted articles (referenced in nomination above), and the 2 user accounts (the author, and then after being blocked, an anonymous account) being used to attempt to change who the founders of the club were, and who launched the career of Madonna (both accounts are now blocked for persistent disruptive editing), we are dealing with a persistent and concentrated hoax effort. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think its Amato himself... it could be a friend of him, but if it was himself, I think he would have mentioned the name change on his personal website. In any case, let's
pwndelete this article, unless notability is proven. Blodance the Seeker 11:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think its Amato himself... it could be a friend of him, but if it was himself, I think he would have mentioned the name change on his personal website. In any case, let's
- There are more than likely exceptions to this rule (domestic violence, witness protection), and the subject in question may have "informally" changed his name. The problem extends beyond the notability per WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC of Billy Amato and the "alleged" name change. If the subject "Billy Smith", "Billy Smith Amato" or Billy Amato himself is editing the article (and vandalizing my userpage), we have a WP:COI. If it is not, then where is the authoring editor getting this information? There are no sources to establish notability of anything. If it is available to the general public, why can't it be produced? In addition, the existing information about Studio 54 mentions a "Billy Smith" which is a pretty common name. My concern was the production of 1) a reliable source establishing the name change from "Billy Smith" to "Billy Amato" and/or notability independent of it, as "Billy Amato"; 2) a reliable source proving Billy Amato "launched the career of Madonna" and 3) attempting to get the author of this article to communicate with the community about where this information is originating, in a way other than vandalizing my userpage and the Studio 54 article and talk page. From my perspective... beginning with the changes to the Studio 54 article, moving to the deleted articles (referenced in nomination above), and the 2 user accounts (the author, and then after being blocked, an anonymous account) being used to attempt to change who the founders of the club were, and who launched the career of Madonna (both accounts are now blocked for persistent disruptive editing), we are dealing with a persistent and concentrated hoax effort. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not familiar with the situation in the US - no such requirements here. (I've !voted delete anyway, but I must say that I'm pretty convienced that they are the same person, even if the source is not reliable.) Are there any exceptions? Blodance the Seeker 09:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Last time I checked, Classmates.com was not a WP:RS. All legal name changes must be published, except in cases of domestic violence, so there should be a source for this information. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And this is his own website. He says he was "Being born and raised in Pelham Manor, New York", matching the classmate records I linked above. He also mentioned Studio 54. So, no, the article is not a hoax, as far as I can see. But I failed to establish his notability, as such, I'm going Weak Delete on this article, for failing WP:BIO. Blodance (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Ok guys - i am Billy Amato, i change my name back to my family name back in 1985 when i was still at Studio 54. Yes it was Billy Smith. Because names are very much a part of your heritage and family name change is very common in the USA. my web site is www.BillyAmato.com. Go to it, It is all true and I am now 65yo born in 1945. Also the infomation you have on the Studio 54 page is so wrong, well 96% of it is. I happen to be (was) Steve Rubell best friend and buddy since 1974. I lived with him and party with him durning the summers of Fire Island, NY during all of the Studio 54 days 1977-82 than we moved to East Hampton 83-85 - if you have a qustions e-mail me. Also we did launched the career of Madonna at Studio 54. There is a great story about that night when Steve Rubell walk in from the back door on west 53 Street with his friends - but that's another story i have in my book to be coming out the end of next year, I have over 1500 stories about Studio 54. - Your more than welcome to e-mail be at Billy@BillyAmato.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.17.196 (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 majority of the deletion !votes were based on the speculation in the earlier version. Removing the speculation would seem to address those concerns. For future reference, it might be better to try and address a content issue on the talk page before nominating for AfD. GedUK 15:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chilean presidential election, 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- WP:CRYSTAL: Candidates in Chile do not usually announce they will be running until a year prior to elections, thus this is extremely premature; especially considering Chile completed the 2009-2010 elections this past Sunday, Jan. 17th.--Neon Sky (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Disagreed, does not meet WP:CRYSTAL criteria (see #1 under "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball"). Pristino (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Partially agreed, though that is no basis for deletion. There are candidates that campaign much earlier than one year before the election (i.e. Sebastián Piñera). Pristino (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To make a list of candidates three years in advance is a stretch.
I do not have an issue with the topic of elections,(Actually, I do have an issue, considering there is nothing more than an event date that can be added at this time.) ...however the subtopic of including candidates is not prudent. The articles seems more of a list of assumed candidates than a topic on electoral process. If it is not deleted, it may grow to mimic the current elections article, which would be a grave distortion of the truth. --Neon Sky (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] - In regards to the WP:Crystal, it clearly states Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. To say there will be elecetions is highly probable. To say who those candidates might be is not. --Neon Sky (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To make a list of candidates three years in advance is a stretch.
- WP:Verifiability: There are currently no sources or press to support this,
- Comment - Disagreed Article could be improved. Pristino (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NPOV: Four of the five candidates you list and link to are center-leftist,
- Comment - Disagreed. It's just that that there are more candidates from the left than there are from the right. It simply reflects the reality of Chilean politics nowadays. Pristino (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a political shift in the country right now. Pinera has to form his office, the country is going to enter a significant transition; elementary political science here. As for there being right-wing notables, there are; however if I name them I would be subscribing to your logic and I just don't agree we can speculate three years in advance. Anything can happen. --Neon Sky (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Disagreed. It's just that that there are more candidates from the left than there are from the right. It simply reflects the reality of Chilean politics nowadays. Pristino (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no content other than a generic infobox and internal links to politicans.
- Comment - Agreed. Article could be improved. Pristino (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am new to Wiki and this is my first time requesting a deletion so if I did something wrong or am missing information, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks. Neon Sky (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The above is dialogue between the author and person contesting article. Please vote below the line. This will help avoid confusion. Thank you. --Neon Sky (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 02:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 02:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If the community believes this should be deleted as premature, I wouldn't contest it. Pristino (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baf09 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All that's in here is a list of "potential candidates", which is WP:CRYSTALBALL at its very worst. To put it in perspective, the most recent presidential election in Chile was only six weeks ago (December 12, 2009) -- and the runoff election between the two top candidates was this past Sunday January 17, 2010). Mandsford (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd add that people who have written "agreed" might want to instead say "delete" (i.e., they agree that it should be deleted) and those who say "disagreed" might want to write "keep" (i.e., they disagree that it should be deleted), and that a reason should be given. Mandsford (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No one has written agreed, it's Pristino, the author of the article in question who is agreeing or disagreeing with the critiques. --Neon Sky (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Way too early as Mandsford noted.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to make it simpler to follow, I've taken the liberty of prefacing comments as comments. In addition, bold print, like ALL CAPS, should be avoided, is. One can put a comment in italics for emphasis. Although it's not really a vote (and we use the odd term "!vote" for that purpose) I'm assuming that Neon, as nominator, would say "Delete" and that Pristino, as the article's creator, would say "Keep"; and that if I interpret Pristino's agreed comments correctly, it's more along the line of "Si, pero..." or "Yes, but...", something along the lines of "the article should be improved instead of deleted". Note that if you've posted without being logged in, it shows up as an IP address number and not a name; and that if you say "keep" or "delete", it helps to explain why you feel that way. Mandsford (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as nominator.--Neon Sky (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is going to be odd for me, but I'm leaning in the direction of keeping the article but keeping a close eye on it. We've usually have articles for the "Next [insert country here] general election"...this tends to be common enough that I'd call it a convention of sorts (there's already an article for the next German federal election, for example); it's not like we're listing the 2021 elections on here, after all. With that said, I do think that if an article is to be kept, then candidate listings need to be kept under control. The article offers no sources for these candidates being "potential" candidates, and that is something that needs to be watched carefully to prevent abuse of Wikipedia by political groups attempting to gain free publicity/notoriety.Tyrenon (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Ok, I've stripped out the candidate speculation and I'll do my best to keep an eye on this one. Right now, it's just listing a date and it could use a source or two on the dates (I'll tag it as needing sources), but it's no less speculative than the one on Germany...or, for that matter, the detailed article on the 2014 US Senate elections. Even if we're just saying when elections would legally be scheduled for, I think a stub on this point is well within what belongs on Wikipedia.Tyrenon (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Relisted as needing more discussion after being stubbed by Tyrenon. Sandstein 05:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as stub (the election is notable, it's the next one, and this is what we know about it so far) with only sourced, factual statements of interest, candidacy or other relevance as they come in. Galatee (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gulnara Silbayeva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No consensus in this articles last AfD, but after a fairly long search, I can't find any evidence that this lowranking reality tv artist passes the notability threshold, so brought here for your consideration Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see notability here. Sorry. Vartanza (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep Withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Carmel Maher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced BLP, PROD removed without the addition of sources. Unimportant politician for a minor party in a minor political spectrum (ACT Legeslative assembly only has control of the ACT, and is in effect a local government. Unknown, unimportant and left after serving one term. ViridaeTalk 01:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this is an article of an elected MP in Australia, therefore this page has about a zero percent chance of deletion. Why you chose to embarrass yourself with an AfD I have no idea. The page will stay, mark my words. Timeshift (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The ACT Legislative Assembly is the functional equivalent of a State Parliament except for having its legislative powers subject to Commonwealth veto (very rarely exercised). It otherwise has all the powers that a State has (indeed in some respects more, because there is no local government in the ACT). Therefore, in my view, she passes WP:POLITICIAN. Sadly, the Canberra Times does not archive its articles so it would take a hurculean effort to find a substantial degree of coverage. But at the least, the facts that she was an MLA, formed a political party, and brought down a government, can be verified: 1 and 2. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. Timeshift (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ACT: 2,358 km2, one (small) city and surrounds. Smallest state (Tasmania): 90,758 km2, multiple major population centres. It is the equivalent of a local government. ViridaeTalk 01:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Viridae, you won't succeed. All federal, state, and territory MPs in Australia are noteable. How much further do you want to dig? Timeshift (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not even an "all X are notable" situation. WP:POLITICIAN covers it: "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges." Orderinchaos 01:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, that is an absurd comparison. The ACT has a population of 350,000. A State in all but form. Would you propose getting rid of all articles about Washington DC Councillors - a similar small-area federal territory with an urban population of 600,000? --Mkativerata (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rhode Island and Prince Edward Island in other countries are comparable. Orderinchaos 01:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Viridae, you won't succeed. All federal, state, and territory MPs in Australia are noteable. How much further do you want to dig? Timeshift (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think it is worth keeping, fix it. If unsourced statements remain beyond the end of this AFD they will be removed. ViridaeTalk 01:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep First-level subnational MP - clearly passes WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN. Orderinchaos 01:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - oh look, i've added 2 dud refs I don't care about. Looks like it's no longer unsourced :) Time to kiss this waste of time AfD goodbye... Timeshift (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As per WP:Politician. Should be beyond dispute. Turgan Talk 02:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nominator was on a hiding to nothing suggesting deletion of this article, but to defend the indefensible by using the land area of the ACT to dismiss the territory's government as "local government" is just plain silly and wrong. --Canley (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - overwhelming keep. What a surprise. Should never have been AfD'd. Hole dug enough by the nominator yet? Timeshift (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like I have succeeded, that article was unreferenced since 2006, and a BLP. The deletion discussion prompted cleanup and sourcing. The options I wanted were delete it in its current state or fix it. Seems like a win to me. ViridaeTalk 03:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bundelkhand Akikrit Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This political party does not appear to have garnered any significant coverage in reliable sources, and in particular doesn't seem to meet the criteria for non-commercial organizations. It has been nominated for deletion (and deleted) under an alternate spelling (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bundelkhand ekikrit party. Bongomatic 02:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 05:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20091211/816/tnl-mayawati-demands-creation-of-bundelk.html seems to be a mention in a relaible source. The entire story seems to be devoted to a complex of related parties under various names of which this is one, as best as I can understand the politics involved. DES (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.merinews.com/article/bundelkhand-government-should-not-wait-for-more-deaths/15783056.shtml seems to be another such mention. DES (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.indiastudychannel.com/resources/99187-The-creation-Telangana-state-revives-calls-for.aspx seems to be another. DES (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -SpacemanSpiff 01:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's a very local party that hasn't achieved anything notable. The only time they'll ever get any attention is when the state bigwigs pay lipservice to their cause and they get a trivial mention. The Bundelkhand movement itself isn't one of the more notable statehood movements in India and therefore it can't be expected that these orgs will gain notability anytime soon. –SpacemanSpiff 07:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Local party with no assertion of any notable achievements (such as any electoral success, even at the sub-national level). IMHO, the political equivalent of Other Stuff Exists.Tyrenon (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 05:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fillie Lyckow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete no evident claim to notability, violates BLP due to a lack of sources. JBsupreme (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above; unsourced BLP. Jack Merridew 01:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —--Milowent (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no obvious claim to notability. Orderinchaos 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep: borderline notability as per WP:notability (people). Found basic references in a few minutes [22][23][24]. Has a fairly extensive list of works. I think this artilce could be improved on. Turgan Talk 02:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think the article is now sufficiently referenced to demonstrate notability. Turgan found some good references. When you encounter an unreferenced BLP for an actor or actress, it's worthwhile to check http://www.imdb.com Even though IMDb is not considered a reliable source, it will give you a general idea as to how much work a given actor has done. For a Swedish actor, http://www.svenskfilmdatabas.se/ is worth checking as well. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Filmographies are great and all, but what kind of non-trivial coverage has this person received from reliable third party sources? JBsupreme (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely the film databases can not just be dismissed as "trivial", when we're talking about a large number of roles? Tomas e (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Filmographies are great and all, but what kind of non-trivial coverage has this person received from reliable third party sources? JBsupreme (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in agreement that notability in Sweden is notabilty for en.Wikipedia, and improvement will help stem systemic bias against non-English persons... even if all the sources are in Swedish. Being unsourced is a concern, yes... but if it can be addresed through regular editing it is not cause for deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Mostly minor roles, but a lot of them over a long career, basically agrees with Turgan. Tomas e (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Now sourced Vartanza (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hermitech Laboratory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to fail WP:CORP. Zero hits in google news archive. The creator of the article left a message regarding notability when he contested a CSD two years ago, but as far as I can tell he argues just that the company was listed in a few directory-type lists (see Talk:Hermitech Laboratory). Pcap ping 23:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 23:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 23:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - directory entries with W3C don't establish notability. I can find no coverage about this company. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I have also searched for coverage of this company, and I've come up empty. I've also looked up its products and can't find anything significant there either. -- Atama頭 17:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete small software company with a niche line of products. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to build an article. Icewedge (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Requesting relist Left comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermitech Laboratory. Editors there should be allowed time to respond. My concern is that absence of evidence of Google footprint for a Ukrainian org (Cyrilic alphabet) may not imply evidence of absence of notability. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Their web page is only in English, so I don't even know how they spell the company name in Russian or Ukrainian. I'll delsort to the Ukrainian queue, just in case. A news search for their url failed to find anything either. Pcap ping 08:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it does not appear to be notable. JBsupreme (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. As was pointed out by various parties in the discussion, the larger issues go beyond these articles. Perhaps a wider discussion ultimately will help settle those. In this particular Afd there is no clear consensus. I don't think it's too much, though, to suggest that editors might want to try to reign the list in. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Chile-related topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- Index of Chile-related articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. This is an indiscriminate list, Wikipedia is not a directory. Saying that it is "Chile-related" is not discriminate. JBsupreme (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I know that the fact that someone put a lot of work into something is not a valid reason to keep. However someone did and this is probably not a bad way to list articles. A person wanting to learn more about Chile would find this list useful. Northwestgnome (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is what Category:Chile is for. Ivanvector (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep perfectly valid list/index, although they should be merged to one. No different from Wyoming's list, or any others from Category:Indexes of articles by U.S. state, or the 165 country lists in Category:Indexes of articles by country. -SpacemanSpiff 01:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's no way I could vote "keep" on this, and the only reason I don't vote "delete" is because someone worked hard on this. Normally, I would say that a list can co-exist with a category, but this one is too big to be useful, and it's actually worse than a category, which is no small feat. Believe it or not, it runs for more than 100 pages (try clicking on print, without actually printing, and you'll see the estimate), making it something like ten times as long as the Wyoming list referred to above. There's no limit to what's thrown in here (Easter Island, Buildings and structures in Chile, Observatories in Chile, Houses in Chile, Chilote mythology, Mapuche mythology, etc. etc.). Yes, someone worked very hard on this, but the nominator is right that this is an indiscriminate list (in other words, it's just a list of articles with no additional information). The list tells me that there's an animal in Chile called a culpeo, with nothing to tell me what a culpeo is. If all this serves is to tell me where to click on an article, if all this does is list a subset of articles in alphabetical order, it's been done. Mandsford (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's the entire purpose of this Index wikiproject. At the risk of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Index of Chile-related articles is no different from the 165 other country indexes or the 50 US state indexes. The list should be smerged to the index, but if we are questioning the concept of these Indexes, then it shouldn't be restricted to Chile alone. -SpacemanSpiff 17:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't even notice that JBSupreme had nominated two articles instead of one. I think that it's in serious need of a different format. It wouldn't run 100+ pages and it would be less unreadable if it didn't insist on a
- separate
- line
- for
- everything.
Mandsford (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No arguments from me on that piece. –SpacemanSpiff 20:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the categorisation of "Chile-related" topics is not the subject of reliable sources, in the sense that this is neither a recognised subject matter by the world at large in accordance with WP:NAME, nor is the subject matter defined (even in the broadest sense) by any reliable source in accordance with WP:Source list. Without a reliable source to support its inclusion, arguments that it does not fail WP:NOT#DIR based on subjective importance are not supported by form of external validation. Without a valid name or verifiable defintion, this list is little more than an open invitation for origininal research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but cleanup the outline. Keep the index. The Outline seems to be a mixture of an Outline and an Index. Both are valid navigational page types, but mixing them together might not be ideal. There are RfCs being drafted to discuss these and related topics. There are WikiProjects associated with both, each with hundreds of items (WP:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge and the draft stage WP:WikiProject Index). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. It appears that the editor(s) built these enormous, unnavigable directories by harvesting titles from Wikipedia's own category tree. It is time to put an end to this nonsense. Abductive (reasoning) 11:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It looks like the kind of quick reference pages I made for a Wikiproject I founded, to help potential project participants to locate stuff they would like to work on. I'm not sure that List of Chile-related topics is a candidate for main article space.--Kudpung (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no sourced content (WP:V) that could be merged, and the person with the changing signature makes no policy-based argument for keeping the article. Sandstein 05:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- María Elena Chávez Caldera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sad but WP:NOT#NEWS, the few google news hits are either passing mentions, or happened around the time of her murder. No lasting notability. Delete Secret account 13:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep...kinda protocol, since it's an article that I started, but still....Hit me with your best shot ,sup>hablame! 12:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Female homicides in Ciudad Juárez. Although notability is not temporary, and I'm satisfied she meets WP:GNG, this is a case of WP:BIO1E. Sadly, nothing about her particular murder is noteworthy enough to set it apart from the other Ciudad Juárez murders. Ivanvector (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL possibly merge into a serial killing (this particular serial killer's serial killings) article. 70.29.211.138 (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said b4.....so I must again vote for keep. I mean would Barack vote for John??...certainly not! Jackass one and half Y que te importa?! 10:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an election. Do you have an argument in favour of keeping the article based on Wikipedia guidelines? For example, in this case I think a lot of editors would be satisfied if you could demonstrate that she met the general notability guideline before she was murdered. You might also explain why har specific murder is more notable than the other murders in the series, thus not failing based on WP's policy about biographies of people notable for only one event. As it is, you are effectively arguing that the article should be kept solely because you created it, which is in fact specifically against policy. I commend the work you've done on the article and think that the content should be kept, but for the reasons I pointed out above I don't think it should be a separate article, so I suggest merging. Ivanvector (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also confusing that you changed your signature in between comments. Ivanvector (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I always vote for the articles I created to be kept because I like my work to be enjoyed for posteriority. I know it's not an election, I just used the Barack and John example as a comparison, kinda like saying "it's expected for me to vote to keep it" kinda thing.
- I always vote for the articles I created to be kept because I like my work to be enjoyed for posteriority. I know it's not an election, I just used the Barack and John example as a comparison, kinda like saying "it's expected for me to vote to keep it" kinda thing.
- About the signature, I always do that. I never sign the same way. I just want to make other readers and contributors laugh a bit and also remember me for my unconventionality, wild ways, wackiness and sense of humor. :)
- I assume you're probably not intending this, but when you change your signature every time you make a comment, you can make it look like you're trying to stack the discussion in your favour. Actually stacking the discussion is very against policy (see WP:SOCK for one). I applaud your creativity, but please be careful. Ivanvector (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You hit it on the button when you said I wasn't intending that. I guess I can revert to my old signature in which I wrote it like: Antonio ("Whatever")Martin...I really appreciate your applauding me, Ivan. Rare when people here praise others! Thanks and God bless you! Antonio the Fourth Jonas Brother Martin Aha? 07:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- About the signature, I always do that. I never sign the same way. I just want to make other readers and contributors laugh a bit and also remember me for my unconventionality, wild ways, wackiness and sense of humor. :)
- About the other things you said, what can I say but that you're right about most of it? Megan Please Be Mine!!! Que de Que??? 10:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 05:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Brickfilm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not sure that this is notable. Topic already covered to some extent in the main Lego article. Frankie Roberto (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant 3rd party coverage; essentially a neologism. EeepEeep (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above, although if we're being really really generous a redirect to Lego might be appropriate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Though the current sources in the article might be poor, this is a notable topic. Please note that articles about 'brickfilms' exist in wikipedias of 8 other languages. There are 120.000 google hits and several websites devoted to the topic such as brick-cinema.com and brickfilms.com SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 22:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is a form of stop motion animation that has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Examples: [25], [26]. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A near unanimous keep after the article was improved and source during the listing period. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert C. Kolodny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced WP:BLP; was deleted out of process by User:Rdm2376. No sources to demonstrate notability. Rd232 talk 00:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete again. It was very much deleted under due process as this violates the very spirit of BLP policy. It still does, and it was irresponsible to restore it without sourcing it immediately. JBsupreme (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, you've clearly not even bothered to click the "find sources" links provided above. There are ample sources available, and I looked enough to confirm that notability might be confirmable before restoring and AFD'ing. Rd232 talk 01:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's gone through due process and been deleted, and you think it should be restored, shouldn't you userfy it and fix it, before you restore it to mainspace? Per WP:BLPDEL, due to the high standard that BLP articles must adhere to, the onus is on you to fix the article to demonstrate it should be kept, otherwise it must be deleted. As it stands, this is an easy speedy G4 candidate.Ivanvector (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- The whole point was it wasn't "deleted under due process", it was a rogue deletion by an admin who was acting disruptively. I don't think even they would claim that any process was entered into at all. Orderinchaos 02:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, you've clearly not even bothered to click the "find sources" links provided above. There are ample sources available, and I looked enough to confirm that notability might be confirmable before restoring and AFD'ing. Rd232 talk 01:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, there was no process, I'll withdraw my comment above. It seems User:Rdm2376 has started a campaign to mass delete stale unreferencedBLP articles without following procedure or attempting to seek consensus. This should be stopped. Ivanvector (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind, that's already happening. Ivanvector (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, there was no process, I'll withdraw my comment above. It seems User:Rdm2376 has started a campaign to mass delete stale unreferencedBLP articles without following procedure or attempting to seek consensus. This should be stopped. Ivanvector (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but improve Needs work but the author appears notable (checking on booksellers etc) and it should not be too difficult to source the uncontroversial claims made. Orderinchaos 02:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep - he's a published author, a fact which is already noted in the article. Cites on the way. Frank | talk 02:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable physician and author. I added a review of one of his books. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep considering the added references. We have it confirmed once again: AfD is for cleanup. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep Article has references, but not the world's most notable sexologist and most academics are published. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This guy is published commercially...a big difference. He qualifies as notable on that basis alone, quite apart from any academic credentials. And, while notability is not inherited, it doesn't hurt to have been associated with Masters and Johnson. Frank | talk 13:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- London - Game of children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- Current-Shock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gujjana Goollu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Vennela Vatti Aata (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)
- (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)
These are four supposed children's games from India for which no sources are given and for which I can find none. My PRODs were removed without comment by the author, who has also declined to answer my inquiry on his talk page about sourcing. I realize one should expect it to be hard to find sources about backyard games in India, but unfortunately we need to have them. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: all four games are regional variants and might be known by different names in different states. I have known (by other names) and played three of them myself. But reliable sources would be difficult to find. I think number of phd thesis exist for such games. But unpublished dissertations won't meet RS standards. Will have to look for regional language books.--Sodabottle (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all three into an article called Traditional Indian children's games. We have an entire Category:Children's games that would be more accurately called "Games that Wikipedians played while growing up in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada or Australia". However, there does need to be sourcing regarding the existence of these games. An article based on one's childhood memories is only original research. Mandsford (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There are better known games that aren't notable enough to have their own articles. EeepEeep (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete delete them all! Per nom andyzweb (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 10:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'd like to pre-emptively quash any unfair claims of WP:BIAS -- if you have sources, show them. Put up or shut up. JBsupreme (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No possible way to verify. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Mansford. Title says it all. Merge seems like a good idea Buggie111 (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.