Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 7: 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/Alcorconazo (2nd nomination)}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toshiaki Shibata}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toshiaki Shibata}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaakov Teitel (2nd nomination)}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaakov Teitel (2nd nomination)}} |
Revision as of 10:47, 7 October 2010
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Treffpunkt.svg/48px-Treffpunkt.svg.png)
- 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. –MuZemike 22:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alcorconazo (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)
like page deleted Boqueronazo. El Unique (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose, wanting a page deleted because you "want it deleted" is not a grounds for deletion here on wikipedia. Routerone (See here!) 10:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly are you opposing here, the nomination itself? Yoenit (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Term seems to have become a synonym for an unexpected victory of a weak team over a much stronger team in the spanish media, as you can see from articles like [1] and [2]. Definitely more than routine sports news and worthy of it's own article. Yoenit (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As like reasons used to delete Alcorconazo page.--El Unique (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There's some evidence that the term was notable beyond just the game, as Yoenit indicates. Gnews hits are worthless for determining notability, but the fact that there are articles several months after the game that still use the term indicates some moderate notability. I also think the rationale here for deletion is flawed - that article and this one are different, and one deletion does not precedent make. This article should be evaluated on the merits, not because another one was deleted. I will say, though, that we need a bit of a rewrite here. But that's an editing issue, as indicated. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just another football game. So the underdog won... like that's never happened before. Smacks of recentism, and there seems to be a lot of discussion on keeping because it has become synonomous with the underdog winning. The article is written only about this game, not about the synonym, which would fail as a neologism anyway. Coverage of this game is no more or less than any coverage expected of a football game where a bit of an upset has occurred making it sports coverage of a general nature, nothing notable. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia that covers notable subjects. --ClubOranjeT 00:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per ClubOranje, fails WP:NTEMP. GiantSnowman 14:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this fail WP:NTEMP when it is still discussed in the media? For example: [5] and [6], both results from the last two weeks. Seems like WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE to me. Yoenit (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – For us to have an article on an individual soccer match (assuming it's not a final of some sort), there should be some sort of persistent coverage that goes a step beyond brief mentions. I see no evidence of that here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this article seems to indicate that the term "Alcorconazo" is being used as a footballing term, perhaps the Spanish equivalent of "giant-killing". Other GNews hits show the same. This article should be expanded to emphasise this. Bettia (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the term alcorconazo alone received sustained coverage as demonstrated in last AfD. Ipso facto the match itself has received more than sustained coverage. Sandman888 (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep appears to meet GNG, event has received media coverage some time after the actual match. Eldumpo (talk) 11:18, 10 October 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.
- Keep - I completely disagree with the intent to delete articles because some users will angry others or want to keep a page to harass opponents. This page should not be deleted because of Boqueronazo was eliminated in retaliation, this should be a serious encyclopedia and not motivated to feelings of some editors. It should restore Boqueronazo page and people which dislike it not visit. I am fan of Real Madrid but I don't like that people edit in this wiki by fanaticism, one must be as objective, not create articles to harass, nor to compensate or deleted as retaliation, I like the serious things and I always try to edit objectivity and not get carried away by my sympathy to certain clubs Raul-Reus (talk) 2:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC+1)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Toshiaki Shibata (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)
- (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)
I can't see any indication that this artist meets the basic criteria for notability. Only relevant Ghits are from his own website, directories like LinkedIn and commercial sites. Shirt58 (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Failed to find enough coverage. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's not enough significant coverage, too non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not seeing any third-party coverage here to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to sufficiently establish WP:GNG. Unsourced BLP for nearly three years. J04n(talk page) 17:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete under both the English name and the Japanese versions (courtesy of Google Translate, and added to the Find sources above), I can find no coverage of this artist, only of a chemist (and even that coverage wouldn't be sufficient for an article from what I can see, even if it was the same person) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:41, 11 October 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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yaakov Teitel (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 article is a case of WP:BLP1E. The subject was the subject of news coverage for crimes but is not inherently notable. Joe407 (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a deletion review (WP:DRV)
hereI correct: here, 2009 November 13. -DePiep (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The question re BLP1E is: if there is a one-event, what is that one event? -DePiep (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep largely per DePiep's question. As I said in the previous AFD, Teital's name has been tied not to just one event, but to several very notable events including the 2009 Tel Aviv gay centre shooting, the attack against prof. Zeev Sternhell and the booby-trap against the Messianic Jewish family (not as notable as the other two, but still notable[7][8][9]). Rami R 12:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. How can we have such an article? The criminality of this person is why he notable, but he has not been convicted!? Chesdovi (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not his criminality, it's the accusations and indictment which have achieved broad coverage. These are notable by themselves, even without a guilty verdict. Rami R 14:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But should allegations and suspicsions be documented on wiki if that is the only claim to notability? Chesdovi (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not his criminality, it's the accusations and indictment which have achieved broad coverage. These are notable by themselves, even without a guilty verdict. Rami R 14:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly not a BLP1E case, as Rami R makes clear, and no NOTNEWS argument is laid out. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is backed by reliable and verifiable sources about the individual covering a broad time period beyond any single incident, establishing notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, quite famous in Israel and a bit famous outside Israel. Enough sources available, and there are sure to be more as the case develops. Zerotalk 07:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: from WP:PERP, Note: Someone accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Jalapenos has a good point although it's not a blanket prohibition and the article doesn't speak to his guilt. The variety and severity of the charges might have made him notable to the press even if he turns out to be innocent. The trial should be wrapping up soon and we can go from there. Sol (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Having reread the article, the AfD, and the DRV, I see no new argument here. There's a string of events, a confession, an arrest, accusations of terrorism: on and on. And still no killer argument for deletion. So please answer: what is that one event, you are talking about? -DePiep (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see no relevant connection to a failure of WP:BLP1E,WP:BIO or WP:NOTNEWS here. Notability is from continuing and persistent coverage, and a sequence of major acts spanning several years is not a one-event case. Even if this were a one-event case, the level of persistent coverage pushes it into historical notability anyhow. RayTalk 20:18, 11 October 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. –MuZemike 22:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two Solitudes (Canadian society) (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)
Tagged for notability since January 2010. Appears to be a turn of phrase rather than a socio-political analysis; as well, Wikipedia is not a dictionary of Social Sciences. Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the article on the person who said it. It should also be mentioned in the article on the issue. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I started the article when I heard on the radio that Michaëlle Jean had used the term in her first address as Governor General of Canada. I can't find the transcript for this, unfortunately. The refs, such as they are, would point to an earlier origin of the term, one that she mentioned, and it would seem that a merge to her article would not appear to be the preferable result for this AfD.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The person that coined the term is whom I believe Steve Dufour is refering to ...Hugh MacLennan. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 06:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand - clearly notable per substantial media references -- hundreds of mentions over the years.[10][11]--A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment a more truthful search would be [12] with 1/10 of the WP:GNUM Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some comments on Google searches:
- Your Google.ca search is a general web search for "Two Solitudes" Anglophone OR Francophone. Arguably, some non-Canadian media might not use "-phone" terms; while valid words, they are not as widely used outside Canada. An American or Australian newspaper might use "English-speaking" and "French-speaking" instead.
- My Google.com search was for "Two Solitudes" only in Google News (both current and archives); this is a better source of references that meet our reliable sources requirements than a general web search. Even if only 1/10 of these hits refer to the concept of this article and not the book or some other usage of the phrase, that still leaves us with dozens of news articles citing this idea. That's a lot and certainly much more than enough to meet our notability requirements.
- Google Scholar, another source of authoritative references, turns up hundreds of hits in the 2 languages when I search for "Two Solitudes" Canada on Google.ca's Google Scholar site.
- "Two Solitudes" is a very distinctive phrase; I don't think I've ever heard it in anything other than a Canadian context.
- In looking at Google search results, it's important to look at the quality of the results. 2 authoritative sources meeting our reliable sources requirements trump 1000 blog references. I encourage folks to sample some of the individual hits in the Google.com results I've provided here and in my earlier comments.
- --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge&Redir to Criticism of multiculturalism. Same concept, different words. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue that a better merge/redirect candidate might be Multiculturalism_in_Canada#Biculturalism, eh?--Shirt58 (talk) 11:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I personaly do not believe so. 2 Solitudes inherently refers to a criticism of how it is... but ... we will let consensus decide. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 20:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- no not merge into Criticism of multiculturalism or Multiculturalism_in_Canada since this goes to the fundamental basis of the Canadian identity, it's bicultural basis, rather than the policy of multicultrualism in modern Canada. Keep since this political concept is frequently in the news and in research, as well as in Canadian popular culture, per the many RSes that various people have previously indicated in this AFD. It is not criticism of multiculturalism since it is a term used to indicate the lack of cross-cultural communication between the two founding groups of European colonists who founded Canada, which predate the policies of multiculturalism. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "political concept" is a criticism of Multiculturalism. This was a simplified way of defining a complex political concept in terms the masses could understand. Would this article not be violating NotInherited since it was coined from a Novel, and again later, from a Film Title? What are people describing when they use this term? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 06:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The reality described by the term "two solitudes" existed before the policies of multiculturalism were enacted. The novel the term derives from only labels a reality that existed before the novel's creation. The novel, created in 1945, predates multiculturalism policies by three decades. Your statement that it is a criticism of multiculturalism seems faulty. The "two solitudes" have existed since Wolfe defeated Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham, in the 1750s. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply because this term predated the current "political concept" does not change the fact that they are still talking about the same "political concept". Who cares if the novel predates the concept. That only signifies the incubation period for the concept to crystallize and become properly named. The term Black hole went through the same process (originally called a Dark Star), but it was still the same thing. What are people describing when they use this term?
- No, a black hole is not a dark star (Newtonian mechanics). Did you know what you were using as an analogy before using them? A dark star is an object with a definite surface, which is still a star, but whose escape velocity is greater than light speed, a black hole is a singularity, a totally different concept.
- We know that now, yes... but in 1796 they were all 1 thing. Names may change, but the concept is the same. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 07:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, actually it isn't. There are many concepts that are similar to black holes, some of which have solid surfaces, a black hole is not one of them, a dark star is. They only way they could be said to be the same concept is if you ignore all the properties of these two classes of objects and only focus on the escape velocity being greater than lightspeed. Are you doing that with "multiculturalism" and "two solitudes"? Only focusing on a single aspect, without looking at any other aspect? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If your actually going to continue this point, I will refine it then. In 1796, the only concept they had to describe a class of objects was as "a gravity well so strong light could not escape". They did not have the science to distinguish the differences your argument assumes that they did. With "multiculturalism" and "two solitudes" I am wanting to find a policy based reason to keep the Article after finding "What are people describing when they use this term??". Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 09:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, actually it isn't. There are many concepts that are similar to black holes, some of which have solid surfaces, a black hole is not one of them, a dark star is. They only way they could be said to be the same concept is if you ignore all the properties of these two classes of objects and only focus on the escape velocity being greater than lightspeed. Are you doing that with "multiculturalism" and "two solitudes"? Only focusing on a single aspect, without looking at any other aspect? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We know that now, yes... but in 1796 they were all 1 thing. Names may change, but the concept is the same. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 07:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the policy of multiculturalism was created by the Trudeau government. Trudeau was not Prime Minister in the 1940's, he became PM in the 1970's. The term "two solitudes" was applied to an existing political reality, the two non-interacting communities of francophones and anglophones, that inhabitted Upper Canada and Lower Canada. There was no real "multiculturalism" in the environment prior to the 1960's. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A policy with that name was created then yes. But it was not created because of a sudden, new problem. The situation had been in existance long before the policy gave it an official name. Just because they gave it a official name does not mean they were talking about something different, or else the Policy would have been called 2Solitudes. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 07:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering what "multiculturalism" and "two solitudes" signifies, are you being facetious? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A policy with that name was created then yes. But it was not created because of a sudden, new problem. The situation had been in existance long before the policy gave it an official name. Just because they gave it a official name does not mean they were talking about something different, or else the Policy would have been called 2Solitudes. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 07:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, a black hole is not a dark star (Newtonian mechanics). Did you know what you were using as an analogy before using them? A dark star is an object with a definite surface, which is still a star, but whose escape velocity is greater than light speed, a black hole is a singularity, a totally different concept.
- Simply because this term predated the current "political concept" does not change the fact that they are still talking about the same "political concept". Who cares if the novel predates the concept. That only signifies the incubation period for the concept to crystallize and become properly named. The term Black hole went through the same process (originally called a Dark Star), but it was still the same thing. What are people describing when they use this term?
- The reality described by the term "two solitudes" existed before the policies of multiculturalism were enacted. The novel the term derives from only labels a reality that existed before the novel's creation. The novel, created in 1945, predates multiculturalism policies by three decades. Your statement that it is a criticism of multiculturalism seems faulty. The "two solitudes" have existed since Wolfe defeated Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham, in the 1750s. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "political concept" is a criticism of Multiculturalism. This was a simplified way of defining a complex political concept in terms the masses could understand. Would this article not be violating NotInherited since it was coined from a Novel, and again later, from a Film Title? What are people describing when they use this term? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 06:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep..dont think it should be merged...So i guess a stand alone article it is in my opinion. Article needs lots of work as its just a baby stub..but i think its notable as per news.google.com "Two Solitudes" specifically the amount of time that is covered by this topic over 300 years and what i find with -->Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL.....Moxy (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I tried to point out earlier, A Google search for something like this term is very difficult. The search you have just provided does not focus on this term's meaning. It is also bringing in every person that has ever used the term in another context[13][14], Photograph title/caption[15], 2 sides of something/anything[16], every review of the Book and/or Film and every bibliography of Mr. MacLennan, whom was a Cultural icon of Canadian history, and widely discussed in a variety of forums and contexts. In my view, just pointing to a WP:Bignumber in Google on this topic runs deeply afoul of WP:GYNOT & WP:COMMONPHRASE. What are people describing when they use this term? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 07:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neat to see someone comment on everyone comments...The problem i have is that Redirects do not show-up in Internet search (they are not categorized) ....So unless we have that article title ..noone will ever come to Wikipidia to find out about the topic..So in the interests of the encyclopedia and the fact that are main principle is to spread knowledge...I say keep it as per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules because what is being proposed here will not help our readers and in fact will make sure they dont come to wiki to find knowledge on this topic. In the old days of Wiki this would have been filled under common sense....There are rules for everything that must be implemented in a way to help our readers not drive them away. Moxy (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exit2DOS2000, we did read your comments about Google searches earlier -- "As I tried to point out earlier…", "a more truthful search would be…" (personally, as the person posting the presumably "less truthful" search, that comment kind of stung). I posted those Google searches primarily for their content -- their lists of potentially useful links -- not for their numbers. And yes, the majority of these links such as your picture caption are not relevant but 1/10 of a large number still yields a rich list. Skimming that remaining tenth indicates there are many articles and scholarly papers that specifically look at the Two Solitudes concept, usually for English/French Canadian societies but sometimes extending it to the Anglo/First Nations divide. While the article is just a stub, Two Solitudes is a concept, not just a definition, which needs expansion, not elimination. This article needs similar treatment to that of the US' "Melting pot" and other, analogous concepts covered in substantive articles such as "Hyphenated American", "More Irish than the Irish themselves","Bangsa Malaysia", "Generation gap", etc. -- that is, unless we want to do away with those articles, too. There's a reason the Governor-General's use of that phrase and concept was instantly resonant for millions of Canadians. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But that is what I do not believe others understand. Various !votes opine "Two Solitudes is a concept", it is not the concept. Multiculturalism is the concept. "Two Solitudes" was the term a man unwittingly coined in his criticism of the situation as he saw it. Just because the term Multiculturalism was not in use at that time makes no difference. What are people describing when they use this term? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 19:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, multiculturalism is a different concept. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then please, explain the differences in such terms that make one independantly notable and distinct from the other. So far, nobody has put forth a definition that is distinct from Multiculturalism, and I do not believe it can, thus my merge. Not every term smart people coin, deserves its own Article. What are people describing when they use this term? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 07:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you been reading what people have been writing here? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup and so far their has been "fundamental basis of the Canadian identity, it's bicultural basis", "its notable as per news.google.com", "Redirects do not show-up in Internet search", "referred to in the analysis of the Quebec-Rest of Canada relationship", "iconic in Canadian political culture as a phrase" and "multiculturalism is a different concept", but not a single explanation of what it's distinction from Multiculteralism is, nor even a policy/essay amongst the lot. (exept WP:IAR). Nobody has given a basic awnser to the one question I have asked all along, What are people describing when they use this term? All pretty good reasons in my mind to now lable it WP:Fancruft of Hugh MacLennan. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SO we have all given a reason Y it should not be deleted (you simply ignore them or find ways to dismiss them) you keep saying again and again and again the same thing..You seem to think that your view is more important then all the others here and now if things dont go your way you plan to subvert this community decision by tagging the article. So realy your main goal is to delete articles from Wikipidia in any way possible regardless of what this community decision is? You my friend need to read Wikipedia:Reasonability Rule#So how does the reasonability rule apply to Wikipedia?. Multiculturalism deals with all the ethnic groups as a whole and the policies.... Two Solitudes is a term for just what has been happing between the English and French for centuries and would be the opposite of multiculturalism in its affect on Canadian culture. Moxy (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not be repeating myself if someone would give a clear, concise, explanation of What are people describing when they use this term? that stands up to scrutiny. I do not think my view is more important, I simply will not be browbeaten into accepting arguments that have no merit or contradict one another. What have I tagged? I voted for Merge, not delete or did you just not care to notice that fact. What in Reasonability Rules do you believe I have contraviened? Did you mean "it would be unreasonable for an apparent consensus to form that would be contrary to Wikipedia policies" (AHEM... WP:NPA Comment on the content, not on the contributor) Your last sentence contradicts itself. Clarify the thought, find a Cite, and put it in the Article, something anyone here has yet to do. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 04:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if we show you a link or two or three we will not agree on this as you have invested so much time and effort into your point. I should have jumped out of this long ago as the others did and should have let the votes speak for the majority view. BTW heres a copy of the book Two Solitudes its a good read a will help clarify the situation alot. This book and its topic we studied at the High school level in Canada during the 1980's and it looks like its still a part of the curriculum in some schools. Moxy (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not be repeating myself if someone would give a clear, concise, explanation of What are people describing when they use this term? that stands up to scrutiny. I do not think my view is more important, I simply will not be browbeaten into accepting arguments that have no merit or contradict one another. What have I tagged? I voted for Merge, not delete or did you just not care to notice that fact. What in Reasonability Rules do you believe I have contraviened? Did you mean "it would be unreasonable for an apparent consensus to form that would be contrary to Wikipedia policies" (AHEM... WP:NPA Comment on the content, not on the contributor) Your last sentence contradicts itself. Clarify the thought, find a Cite, and put it in the Article, something anyone here has yet to do. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 04:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SO we have all given a reason Y it should not be deleted (you simply ignore them or find ways to dismiss them) you keep saying again and again and again the same thing..You seem to think that your view is more important then all the others here and now if things dont go your way you plan to subvert this community decision by tagging the article. So realy your main goal is to delete articles from Wikipidia in any way possible regardless of what this community decision is? You my friend need to read Wikipedia:Reasonability Rule#So how does the reasonability rule apply to Wikipedia?. Multiculturalism deals with all the ethnic groups as a whole and the policies.... Two Solitudes is a term for just what has been happing between the English and French for centuries and would be the opposite of multiculturalism in its affect on Canadian culture. Moxy (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup and so far their has been "fundamental basis of the Canadian identity, it's bicultural basis", "its notable as per news.google.com", "Redirects do not show-up in Internet search", "referred to in the analysis of the Quebec-Rest of Canada relationship", "iconic in Canadian political culture as a phrase" and "multiculturalism is a different concept", but not a single explanation of what it's distinction from Multiculteralism is, nor even a policy/essay amongst the lot. (exept WP:IAR). Nobody has given a basic awnser to the one question I have asked all along, What are people describing when they use this term? All pretty good reasons in my mind to now lable it WP:Fancruft of Hugh MacLennan. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you been reading what people have been writing here? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then please, explain the differences in such terms that make one independantly notable and distinct from the other. So far, nobody has put forth a definition that is distinct from Multiculturalism, and I do not believe it can, thus my merge. Not every term smart people coin, deserves its own Article. What are people describing when they use this term? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 07:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, multiculturalism is a different concept. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But that is what I do not believe others understand. Various !votes opine "Two Solitudes is a concept", it is not the concept. Multiculturalism is the concept. "Two Solitudes" was the term a man unwittingly coined in his criticism of the situation as he saw it. Just because the term Multiculturalism was not in use at that time makes no difference. What are people describing when they use this term? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 19:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exit2DOS2000, we did read your comments about Google searches earlier -- "As I tried to point out earlier…", "a more truthful search would be…" (personally, as the person posting the presumably "less truthful" search, that comment kind of stung). I posted those Google searches primarily for their content -- their lists of potentially useful links -- not for their numbers. And yes, the majority of these links such as your picture caption are not relevant but 1/10 of a large number still yields a rich list. Skimming that remaining tenth indicates there are many articles and scholarly papers that specifically look at the Two Solitudes concept, usually for English/French Canadian societies but sometimes extending it to the Anglo/First Nations divide. While the article is just a stub, Two Solitudes is a concept, not just a definition, which needs expansion, not elimination. This article needs similar treatment to that of the US' "Melting pot" and other, analogous concepts covered in substantive articles such as "Hyphenated American", "More Irish than the Irish themselves","Bangsa Malaysia", "Generation gap", etc. -- that is, unless we want to do away with those articles, too. There's a reason the Governor-General's use of that phrase and concept was instantly resonant for millions of Canadians. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neat to see someone comment on everyone comments...The problem i have is that Redirects do not show-up in Internet search (they are not categorized) ....So unless we have that article title ..noone will ever come to Wikipidia to find out about the topic..So in the interests of the encyclopedia and the fact that are main principle is to spread knowledge...I say keep it as per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules because what is being proposed here will not help our readers and in fact will make sure they dont come to wiki to find knowledge on this topic. In the old days of Wiki this would have been filled under common sense....There are rules for everything that must be implemented in a way to help our readers not drive them away. Moxy (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This could easily develop into a solid article. It's frequently referred to in the analysis of the Quebec-Rest of Canada relationship and it's been the basis of much scholarly work. This has nothing to do with multiculturalism and merging is even worse than deletion. Pichpich (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. I can't see any good reason why this was even proposed for deletion....now axiomatic and iconic in Canadian political culture as a phrase and as an idea.Skookum1 (talk) 02:28, 10 October 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 Redirect and merge as determined by further discussion. Consensus is that this should not be an article, but more discussion may be needed to decide what to do witht he content. I'm going to editorially redirect it to List of Star Trek characters: A-F#D. This can be changed if needed per any discussion, and any useful content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 06:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- House of Duras (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 has never had references. It is written entirely in-universe and demonstrates zero real-world notability. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This belongs in a star trek specific wiki. Has been tagged as unsourced for over two years and it seems unlikely it will ever be sourced. Delete per WP:PLOT and WP:GNG. Yoenit (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Merge per Fayenatic below Yoenit (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with Yoenit, this belongs in Memory Alpha, not here. Not even an assertion of real-world notability as far as I can discern. 28bytes (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Memory Alpha, and selectively merge to lists of Star Trek characters. It is partly sourced and the tag should have been changed to refimprove. I've done some work on this article myself in the past but, sadly (for both the article and the audience), the greatest real-world notability is probably the sisters' cleavages; not sufficient for Wikipedia. Limited content should be copied to the alphabetic lists of Star Trek characters, as several redirects currently point to this page. I'm prepared to do the work. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like a good idea, moving to merge. I was first wondering why there is a fair use picture of the sisters in the article, but now I see some true star trek fan applied WP:HOTTIE. Yoenit (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Checking the Google Books and News links above, we have several trivial mentions outside of fiction itself: ST encyclopedia entry, guide plot summaries, and one piece that may actually be more substantial. As is, the fictional element crosses different shows in the fictional franchise: it's not like we can just merge this to the Enterpise show. Jclemens (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, the "House of Duras" reference from the Tampa Tribune in 1996 that Google News shows as Pay-Per-View is just a passing reference in the lead of a puff piece on a ST convention: "If you know the difference between a phaser and a photon torpedo, if you know what the Prime Directive is, if you equate pointed ears with logical thinking, and if you're still scandalized by the behavior of the house of Duras in the Khitomer Massacre, then polish those officer collar studs, gas up the car and set your coordinates for Huntsville, Ala. Star Trek 30: One Weekend on Earth is where you ought to be." This is pretty vexing, actually. I've never heard of this house, but such an offhanded reference in popular press suggests that there's something more to this. If we have 3-4 such mentions for such a fictional element, I would really prefer to keep the article intact, even if we merge it into a "Notable Klingons" or "Families spanning Star Trek franchises" sort of list or multi-focal summary article. Jclemens (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But...where is the substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject? A passing mention does not notability make. That's about as passing as it gets. Plus, the article is an in-universe pile of crap with an unnecessary fair use image. There really isn't much to merge, except for brief descriptions of the characters in the character lists. The WordsmithCommunicate 01:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say it met notability criteria on the basis of what I've found so far. I'm saying that there's no good place to merge the content, since it's about a family that spans shows. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But your vote is to keep, not merge. That implies that you think the artiicle is notable enough to exist independently. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say it met notability criteria on the basis of what I've found so far. I'm saying that there's no good place to merge the content, since it's about a family that spans shows. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE non notable. Heiro 03:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Star Trek characters. They were prominent in the TNG series and major baddies in a feature-length film. Surely they deserve to be mentioned. JIP | Talk 07:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Zero real world notability, unreferenced, only a few external links as sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Selective, minimal merge to appropriate entries at alpha lists, mostly at List_of_Star_Trek_characters:_A-F. --EEMIV (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge or redirect due to absence of third-party sources that can WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to my selective merger proposal above, redirect to Klingon, adding a section there on notable Klingons. As this family featured in multiple series, it will be useful to retain the family tree in Wikipedia, linked to entries in the alphabetic lists of characters, with a very brief text about them. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:43, 8 October 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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Edward Drobyshevski (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 gives no 3rd party references. List of publications do not determine notability for the purposes of wikipedia and google searches provide little information other than the publication references. Furthermore, a substantial portion of the article is duplicated at Daemon (astrophysics), which was created by the same author. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I nominated the article for PROD previously, and the PROD was contested by User:Phil Bridger. I welcome more input into this discussion. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
StrongDelete as nomintator. My impression from reading the publishing history of this gentleman is that he was once a decent researcher, but has since gone off into fringe land. He now self-publishes a lot of papers on astro-ph, which is not peer reviewed. Many of his recent papers are only cited by himself (e.g. [17][18]). Similarly, he seems to have self published his own biography here and there are no mentions of him other in reliable sources than his authorship of various scientific papers which may not be themselves notable. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: The article seems to say he has a planet (albeit a minor one) named after him 4009_Drobyshevskij - if this is true is that not enough for notability? (Msrasnw (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep: Notability due to having a planet named after him. (Is this a reasonable criteria?) "Minor Planet (4009) Drobyshevskij 1977 EN1. Discovered 1977 March 13 by N. S. Chernykh at Nauchnyj. Named in honor of Ehduard Mikhajlovich Drobyshevskij, physicist and astrophysicist at the Ioffe Physical and Technical Institute in St. Petersburg, author of some original cosmological ideas and theories of the origin of the planets and the minor bodies of the solar system, also known for his research on the magnetic fields of the sun and other stars. (M 19694) - Dictionary of Minor Planet Names - Fringe nature of current views/publications does not invalidate earlier notability - and seems to me to add its own form of notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment The complete minor planet list is here [19]. Many of the names are not in wikipedia. Of course that's a case of Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. However, adding the minor planet bio to the article would give infinitely more reliable sources than are currently present in the article, which may save it from deletion. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ec There are thousands of such named planetesimals, so having one named after an astronomer is not an indicator of notability. It's an indicator that your colleagues know you. Abductive (reasoning) 18:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. The googlescholar results[20] are fairly modest for someone with such a long research career. There are no significant awards, journal editorships, etc to indicate passing WP:PROF. Having a minor planet named after him is certainly interesting, but, in the absence of stronger evidence, is not quite sufficient, IMO, to establish academic notability. The nominator is correct that this also appears to be, at least in part, a WP:FRINGE case, which I think should raise the inclusion bar a little higher. Nsk92 (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Extra sources: Looking round the web for Edward Drobyshevski - it seems to me his work on the Tunguska event seems to have got the most notice. The article doesn't really seem to mention this. I think Popular Mechanics referece for this is indicative of this stuff.
- And his work on Giant pieces of Jupiter could kill all life on earth documented in Pravda
- * http://www.pravda.ru/news/science/27-06-2008/273686-vzryv-0/
- Are these the fringe things being refered too? They do seem to have attracted some notice - but don't seem too off the wall. Would adding comments on these and the references to the article help? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Added popular media refs: I have added these refs to the article in case it might help(Msrasnw (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete. GS cites are 10, 10, 6, 1. Mainstream work insufficient for WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Possible problem with GS cites count: I think there may be a possible problem with the GS cites reported just above as being 10, 10, 6, 1. If one looks here: "EM Drobyshevski" - Google Scholar seems to be reporting 43 , 21, 16, 16 etc. Also not so sure whether GS is so good on Russian scholastic output, Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Thanks for this useful research. Unfortunately h index still only comes to 11 which is not really enough. GS should be excellent on mainstream publications in astronomy. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Question: This looks to me like on the basis of arguments here - might be going to fail WP:Prof - but seems to me having the mini-planent named after him (with the note about why) and the references to his "original" ideas discussed in Pravda and Popular Mechanics are "significant coverage" and are more than a trivial mentions in reliable sources and should be sufficient for general notability. Is the planet too trivial and Pravda and Pop mechanics not reliable or the articles not so important? (Msrasnw (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- The articles are not about Drobyshevski. Secondary sources, by definition, analyze the topic. Abductive (reasoning) 08:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Little comment: The articles in Pravda, Ria Novosti and Popular Mechanics are about some of Drobyshevski's work and one's work can make one notable. This is our usual logic I think. If you were to read those kind of articles - you might want to look him up and I think that is where our encyclopedia is sometimes really useful. Best wishes anyway (Msrasnw (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- You will note I haven't notvoted, I am just saying that having an asteroid named after you (if you are an astronomer) doesn't mean anything, and that the articles aren't about him. Abductive (reasoning) 13:21, 7 October 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) 05:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He seems to be notable given the sources. The article could and should be improved. Even if his theories are wrong he still seems to be notable. I hope that there is not a prejudice against his article because he worked in the USSR. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I have done a little copy editting and the like in an attempt to help. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep - I don't know whether he is regarded as orthodox or fringe in the field of astrophysics, that's not where I live. But if you search for Eduard Drobyshevsky you will come up with articles such as THIS 2008 PIECE IN THE ENGLISH EDITION OF PRAVDA citing him as an expert. I would be very, very, very hesitant to remove this one. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.
- Comment There's an issue here that has come up in other areas of wikipedia for which there is no easy answer. The views expressed in the linked article are clearly fringe. But they are cited in a "reliable" (I hold a low opinion on the reliability of pravda, but let's leave aside that argument for the time being) source. The mainstream and slightly out of mainstream media are happy to report fringe scientific theories. Since they are obscure theories however, there are no rebuttals published in reliable sources. WP:FRINGE states that fringe views should not be given undue weight. How can we avoid giving undue weight to a fringe theory covered in reliable sources, but for which a rebuttal is not available? In my mind, the solution is to delete such articles, especially when the fringe view itself is thinly sourced. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, more specific to this article, is someone being quoted in an article sufficient to establish notability? My impression based on WP:GNG is that it is not. There must be a reliable source that is substantially about the individual, not just their views. The asteroid citation is the only source that remotely qualifies, and I don't feel that it is adequate. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep , first by precedent as namesake of a minor planet, second because of notable fringe scientific theorist. If someone's distinctive views are notable, they are notable. With the exception of media personalities, what is important about a person is the work or accomplishments that they are known for. If we have significant coverage of that, it's sufficient--people are not generally notable for the miscellaneous facts of his biography. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is clear from this discussion that there is no consensus that having a minor planet named after a person confers notability on that person. Your use of the word "precedent" is troubling. Abductive (reasoning) 06:14, 14 October 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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dan Smith Will Teach You Guitar (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 do not feel that this an ad campaign local to New York City has garnered enough significant third-party coverage to warrant inclusion here. The coverage is mostly local, and the 2nd reference is a dead link, the 4th reference is to Amazon link to a song parody, which doesn't qualify as a source, and the 5th link only mentions Dan Smith briefly and doesn't offer significant coverage. Whose Your Guy (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Whose Your Guy (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been moved to the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions, because the article is about an advertising campaign, not a musician. --Chris Quackenbush (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO. Of the present references, #2 and #5 are broken, #1 is a NY Times naval-gazing self-centered piece more about the writer than about Smith, but still of some value, #3 is good coverage, but is "AOL Small Business" an independent and reliable source? #4 is not impressive, being an Amazon page seeking to sell a download of a song someone did which mentions Smith. Refs 1 and 3 are not quite enough to support a biographical article. Edison (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what's wrong with link #5. If you google for dan smith mike myers, it works, but accessing it through wikipedia doesn't. any ideas? Tduk (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I wasn't sure if WP:BIO was what applied here, since the article is more about his marketing campaign, and the coverage/success of it, as well as satires of it (such as on the Daily Show, which is what made me realize enough people knew about this campagin to create an article for it). I don't think Dan Smith is notable at all, but his guitar teaching campaign is. That's why I named it the way I did. I don't know if that changes your opinion or not, but I'm not actually sure which WP: section would apply to it in that case. Tduk (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The only objection seems to be that it covers a regional ad campaign as opposed to a national one. I don't think there is a Wikipedia guideline against articles on topics of only regional notoriety. Furthermore, the New York metropolitan area is a region with a population greater than all but 58 countries (List of countries by population), so even that excuse seems thin. Chris Quackenbush (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Running a TV ad in New York City is insufficient to gain a permanent encyclopedia article. It is far less sufficient to Xerox a flyer and stick it to lamp posts in New York City. We are not here to aid someone's low budget advertising campaign by pretending that their appeal is of encyclopedic notability, just because folks in the one city have seen the flyers. Edison (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- As stated above, this article is not about the fact that he posted fliers. It is about the fact that his fliers were impressively successful, according to two independant news articles I found easily on google, spanning a period of 5 years. It is also about the fact that two clearly notable individuals have thought this individual noteworthy enough to reference in (1) an advertising campaign and (2) on television referencing the upcoming rally in Washington, DC. I am not creating articles for every individual who posts fliers in cities - but I will create one for someone who has been in print and online news articles, and referenced on national television. Tduk (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As stated above, this isn't about someone being notable for being a musician, this is an article about a notable and successful ad campaign that has been covered in print, online, and television media, and which even a very lazy google will give you lots of hits about. Smith's campaigns, as well as his teaching method and biographical info, are particularly covered in depth in the New York Times article and AOL Small Business article. This is a brand new article - under a month - and I think that with time people will contribute even more references to it - but as it stands it does indeed pass notability requirements. Tduk (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It is a new article that needs work, further, I'm not sure it's properly named (perhaps it should be a biography?). In any case, the New York Times is a pretty hefty source, even if it is not a 'hard news' article. It is still independent and heavily devoted to him. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 09:24, 29 September 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) 00:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not encyclopedic. Just because something is parodied doesn't make it notable for an encyclopedia. Also, as much notability can be claimed for this ad it's still very limited geographically to be notable to people from all over the world. man with one red shoe 18:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per Tduk - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is puffery piece masquerading as an article. A single human interest story in 2005 and a single interview in 2010 does not pass threshold for notability. Notability for an the Ad campaigned i would expect substantial coverage from at least a dozen stories over these "many years" he has been doing this or at least a Marketing Journal article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Rather than stating "this is puffery piece", could you explain why it is puffery? There is very little praise about Smith himself (some has recently been added, but you could simply remove that and make it a neutral POV). Your harsh language and harsh, inappropriate tagging of the article make me wonder about COI, which is frustrating as the nominator also seemed to show a vendetta against me, as this seems to have been nominated because of an argument I had with the nominator over speedy deletion policy. I have been trying to WP:AGF, and thank everyone who has made keep votes, but it is hard to keep a clear head with such accusatory tones and gratuitous mistagging (with errors) of the article. I have addressed the typos and left in the tags that were appropriate. Tduk (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added a lot more references, including a link to the Jon Stewart video clip on the official Comedy Central site. Tduk (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All most of which I just Ripped out becuase they were all blogs by non-notables. which Leaves us With, One AOL News, One NY mag, and One NYT article. You have a single mention on the daily show. Two primary sources claiming a song was written by some one that again is doubtful in notability and a cite from Dan Smiths website. I am becoming extremely doubtful of your ability to evaluate sources as one reference i removed was simply a link to another site with a picture of his poster. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "cite from Dan Smiths website" -- that's not even allowed to be used to establish notability, we need secondary sources, per WP:N. man with one red shoe 18:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- upon closer examination its not even his site but some random site where people are poking fun at him, and accusing him of beating up jews beacuase they are "homo". which is probably a BLP violation just linking to with out trying to use it as source! The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I don't understand policy, but isn't it a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to rip out a lot of references you don't agree without even putting them on the discussion page? I'm still not clear on your interpretation of the policy, but none of the sources presented controversial material - in fact, you left IN the material and simply removed the sources, which does not make sense with regards to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies. I know we are supposed to Wikipedia:Be bold, but doesn't it look a bit odd for you to be behaving in this way? If this is not the place for this discussion, please respond on the Talk page for the article. Tduk (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Conflict of interest would be if User:ResidentAnthropologist were Dan Smiths, or somebody connected to him, just having a different opinion doesn't make a "conflict of interest". This is indeed not a place to dispute references, if you think some were good and removed for no good reason you can discuss in the talk page of the article. man with one red shoe 17:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didn't state my question clearly enough. If someone votes delete on an article and then removes content from it, is there a relevant policy for that? Tduk (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there is, nor should it be, that would also mean that everybody who contributed to an article would not be able to vote against deletion either. man with one red shoe 17:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually that's not quite true. A person could vote "delete" and then remove valid references - and it's possible no one would notice, and then that would influence the final decision. This would be an action in bad faith. There isn't really a similar action someone could perform for _adding_ references - it is much easier for someone to evaluate references that are there than to evaluate things that have been removed... but this isn't the place to discuss that. Tduk (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's very similar to somebody adding unreliable references and wikilawering about them just to prove that the article is referenced. man with one red shoe 14:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It actually isn't. If someone adds 'unreliable' references, this would be obvious to anyone who looked at the article and then looked at the references section. If someone removed decent references, this would only be obvious to anyone who looked at the history of the page and checked everything that had been (added and) removed since the AfD was begun, two weeks ago. There _is_ a difference. Tduk (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Blogs and forums are not "decent references" no matter how much you debate it. man with one red shoe 15:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is no way addresses what I actually just stated. Can you please address what I stated? Tduk (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wanted to put out that at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion it states that Indeed, if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article (noting in the discussion that you have done so if your edits are significant ones). So, one is not supposed to be making significant, let alone controversial edits, to the article without noting so here. Tduk (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY - new sources, including the New York Times have shown notability. Past precedent here has kept such advertising campaigns. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Given the valid opposing viewpoints mentioned post and before the first relisting, I still do not perceive clear consensus here. Hence this second relisting. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can anybody argue that this will be in any way relevant and notable in one or two years? Notability if very shaky even for present (it's supported by blogs and forum references) and obviously this is unknown for anybody outside NY, but can anybody claim this will be notable for years to come? This seems to me like useless trivia, very localized, which lacks importance and notability. man with one red shoe 15:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many keep votes who seem to have argued exactly that. I don't think they're watching this, though, so if I wanted their opinion on the matter I'd read what they posted as the explanation of the keep votes. Saying "notability is very shaky" seems to be misleading, as there are two actual biographical articles from print notable sources, and a few other mentions as well. He has also had an effect on advertising campaigns for notable media. Tduk (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, is what you are asking people to argue (relevance in the future?) in any way related to notability requirements? Tduk (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm mostly talking about Wikipedia:BLP1E#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event this seems to be the case here. "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article" man with one red shoe 15:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how that applies at all. WP:ONEVENT states that Definitionally, an event is an "occurrence of social or personal importance". That is, a single specific act that has taken place with a defined beginning and end, which may last for a second or two, or multiple days.. There is an important distinction between being known for one event, and one thing. Tduk (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue here is not so much 1 event coverage but lack of coverage at all. We have two sources that cover the subject once with five years in between 5 years apart. Then we have one source thats literally a short paragraph which only got covered because john mayer was not really offering Guitar lessons. Nor am i convinced that daily show is a good source either as they make a jokes about all different topics daily and one trivial mention does not seem to establish notability. Nor does citing a Track in an album as a reference as that WP:OR The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the very fact that we have sources from 2005 and 2010 demonstrates that's it's not something that it's not a case of WP:BLP1E. So we have a subject that's been covered by reliable sources, over the span of 5 years and who was parodied by multiple other notable subjects, amongst them a movie that will surely still exist a couple of years. I think those are enough reasons to keep the article. Sourcing problems can be solved by editing. Regards SoWhy 20:25, 9 October 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) 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AB Tech (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 student group at a university. No third party sources to establish notability. Article is just a 1 sentence stub w/o any real information. GrapedApe (talk) 01:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nothing to indicate notability. Likely a speedy A7, as there is no assertion of notability. --Kinu t/c 06:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Carnegie Mellon University. -- BenTels (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Carnegie Mellon University. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: could those editors suggesting a merge be more specific? That is, what sourced content should be merged, and where in the main Carnegie Mellon article would be an appropriate location? --Kinu t/c 18:45, 29 September 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) 00:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete This seems a valid A7, tagged it for speedy. If the speedy is declined, delete it as there is nothing worth merging. Yoenit (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete A7, org with no notability present. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Simply very non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:16, 7 October 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. Although at an editorial level, I would agree with Mkativerata and would have ivoted similarly, while closing this AfD, I do not see consensus being clear. At the same time, should this decision be perceived to be wrong, kindly do contact me on my talk page. There is no prejudice against opening up an early AfD on this article in the near future in case the article is not improved. Wifione ....... Leave a message 11:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Revolutionary Socialist Party (Australia) (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)
A never-registered ultra-minor splinter of a very minor party. Gained some limited coverage because of Rudd's nephew standing, but the entire reference list is composed of party press releases and one article in an Indian magazine. Frickeg (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Frickeg (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The lowest of all possible bars should be placed for political parties, leaders of political parties, and their youth sections. If it exists, it should be covered in Wikipedia on the basis of per se notability, in my estimation. Not all political parties run candidates for office, I add. Carrite (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources of the party, as opposed to V Rudd. I appreciate Carrite's argument but it just isn't accepted by the community. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per Carrite, and as a matter of historical record. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Van Thanh Rudd, or delete. Mr. Rudd is the only reason this splinter of a splinter group is in any way notable. It's not even clear that the external sources are really independent of the group, though further digging by someone with more stomach for petty Trotskyist sectarianism may prove otherwise. Argyriou (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Carrite's argument. Article is sourced and covers more than just V. Rudd.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While I respect Carrite's argument, it is in complete contravention of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This party has zero coverage in reliable, independent sources that is not directly related to V. Rudd. Carrite's argument is one to be raised in relation to changing the guidelines, but can hardly be used in an AfD that is supposed to be decided based on the guidelines. Frickeg (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, my understanding of Wikipedia's theoretical construct is that guidelines change in accordance with the evolution of practice. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.
- Anticipating objections, this is what I'm on about: An accepted policy or guideline may become obsolete because of changes in editorial practice or community standards, may become redundant because of improvements to other pages, or may represent unwarranted instruction creep. * * * Policies and guidelines aim to describe community norms. When a norm changes there is usually a specific discussion. However when the way it works in practice as seen by experienced users is poorly described, the policy is often updated to reflect it better. (from Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.
- Actually, my understanding of Wikipedia's theoretical construct is that guidelines change in accordance with the evolution of practice. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion as the current discussions do not seem to have reached a consensus stage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the artist Rudd's article. The sources I looked at are either self-published, or legally obliged to take notice of the party's existence, or sources that are only tangentially related to the subject (a story about X that mentions the name of the party in passing). Wikipedia is not here to "document history", and I'm very nervous about basing an article about a political party on sources that do nothing more than name the organization. For example, I saw nothing in the sources that indicated that anything in the ==Campaigns== section was an official action of the organization, rather than a private action that happened to involve two members. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 13 October 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 redirect to The Marcy Brothers. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kendal Marcy (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)
Super-thin notability. No non-trivial mentions found. Only sources are some sort of Freemasonry site and IMDb. Notability is not inherited from Brad Paisley. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to The Marcy Brothers per notability criteria for musicians. Not notable outside of the band and does not inherit the notability of Brad Paisley. Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MJ94 (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Marcy Brothers fails WP:GNG. Yoenit (talk) 08:31, 7 October 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disco Mix Club (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)
Very low on sources, minimal notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Since the early 1980's the Disco Mix Club (DMC) and it's many offshoots, eg DMC World DJ Championships, DMC Publishing (Mixmag) etc, has been instrumental in the development of DJ culture. There is a huge amount of scope to expand this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LePett (talk • contribs) 19:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. TPH is correct that there's not many sources in the article, but as the founders of both Mixmag and the DMC World DJ Championships, the assertion of minimal notability is off the mark. Massive scope for improvement here. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD. [21] The articles require payment to view, but you can easily spot major newspapers mentioning this thing. Dream Focus 22:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notable & his article has been nominated for rescue. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:05, 9 October 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. Due to lack of participation, I do not see silent consensus here for any particular close. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Someplace Closer to Here (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 am also nominating the following related album article:
This band achieved some notability, but they also have articles for two albums that do not meet notability requirements. No reliable third-party sources or reviews can be found for the albums, just the usual lyric, download, and social network sites. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: with Lapush. As said in WP:NALBUMS: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 08:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:06, 7 October 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) 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Playlist (album 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)
Questionable notability. No sources, just a directory. Very few of the albums have proven notable enough for their own articles. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/16_Biggest_Hits and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Super_Hits. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - These are all official releases by notable artists, and hence appropriate for a list. While it is true that Wikipedia is not a directory, neither is this list. Rlendog (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the series as a whole is not notable and create the disambiguation page, Playlist (disambiguation), to include these albums as well as other articles using the name (playlist.com for example). Also redirect Playlist (album) to the dab page. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:41, 7 October 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 to University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Penn Medicine (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)
Governing board of University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. No sources to show notability. Not notable. GrapedApe (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Just click on the news link above for evidence of notability. --Kvng (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those appear to be all just mere mentions of the board, or mentions of the Pen medical school, not substantial sources about the board, as required by WP:N.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't appear to be the case to me. I'm a long way from Penn though. But if you are right, then why not just do a merge into University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine? --Kvng (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be OK with that as a result.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - It makes sense for information about the governing board of the school of medicine to be in the article aboutt he school of medicine. -- Whpq (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. I completely agree with Whpq's analysis. (The next thing you know, we'll have separate articles for Coca-Cola, Inc and its board.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 13 October 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dowden Health Media (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)
NN org. Only primary sources. No doubt that it exists, but no evidence of 3rd party in-depth coverage MrCleanOut (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Dowden publishes notable academic journals. --Crusio (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a valid argument, per WP:NOTINHERITED, where is the independent coverage? MrCleanOut (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you click on the "find sources" link above (something you usually do before going to AfD), you find within 30 sec: [22] and [23] in the first 5 results. If you click on "news", you'll find even more stuff. --Crusio (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To the article creator: Your links appear to be extended business directory listings, info that is copied more or less uncritically from company documents, or superficial info on an acquisition. Searching more, this [24] comes up, but it's basically a press release, full of puff. Where is the independent significant coverage that's required for a stand-alone article? The article contents could merged to some target, not necessarily having its own article. MrCleanOut (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first link most certainly is not a business directory but a newspaper article. This doesn't seem to be "just a press release" either. btobonline.com has multiple articles on Dowden. And this is just the first page of the results of a "news" search. There's more, of course. --Crusio (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per Crusio. -Ret.Prof (talk) 03:09, 9 October 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 Snow Keep/Withdrawn by nominator.. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Alex Lambert (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)
Person was on American Idol, so notablity is fleeting on this one. Almost all of the references on the article go to blogs of some sort, so none of it is verifiable. Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though we have a slew of SPAs (single-purpose accounts) doing work here, I am satisfied with the work that has been done and the page is now to the bare limits of notability and verifiability. I suggest all people with SPAs to not use them for that purpose again. I withdraw my nomination for deletion and ask this be closed by an admin or non-SPA user as "keep". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:Person was on American Idol and is NOW on a completely different show which is notable as well as being an artist under the 19 Entertainment label with a future album and career, he IS notable. But, I suppose you should go around and delete every other American Idol contestant because they're not on the show anymore. If you want different sources we can give them to you even though the sources are not all "blogs", but forgive us if Harvard scholars don't report American Idol news. And you're nominating an article for deletion which was highly edited (blanked in areas) minutes before your nomination. So I'm wondering here why the solution isn't editing to fix instead of deleting major portions then nominating for deletion. The person who made all the major edits is also apparently well known for doing these major edits and then putting warnings all over the page for things he has done himself. So if you're nominating the page for deletion after his edits which makes the article incomplete and poorly worded then I object. Also, calling me a sock/meat puppet just because this is my 1st article doesn't mean my opinion doesn't matter. But, thanks for tagging me as such. Forgive me if I haven't gotten around to editing other articles. Gollymolly1010 (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC) — Gollymolly1010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You weren't tagged as a sock/meatpuppet; you were marked as a single-purpose account. The other marked SPAs who have contributed to this discussion are the suspected sock/meatpuppets. If you make a strong, policy-based argument, it's irrelevant whether your account has been marked as being a SPA or not (though obvious sock/meatpuppets will still be disregarded). So far you haven't provided any convincing argument either, however; "he was on american idol" doesn't itself meet our general notability guideline, "you should go around and delete every other American Idol contestant..." is not a valid argument because we don't keep/delete articles because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and the fact that the main contributor is an editor in good standing is irrelevant. Take a look at some of the policies regarding notability and decide for yourself whether the article meets our policies, and then base your argument on our policy. If you simply argue to keep something because WP:ILIKEIT, your argument will be diregarded because wikipedia is not a ballot. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well they are not MY "sock/meat puppets" I have no idea who any of these people are, so sorry if you feel that way. Like I said this is my FIRST article, so that should not limit my opinion or be put against me. Anyways, according to the general notability guideline he HAS significant coverage, by reliable sources, that are independent of the subject. The person who reported the article for deletion did so minutes after the original article was highly edited by someone else. I've fixed said persons major edits, added more reputable sources, and even included all suggestions for sources posted below me. So, despite yours and my sarcastically witty conversation, the person is still notable. If you read the article, you'll notice he WAS on American Idol, is NOW on a completely different show, WROTE AND PERFORMS THEME SONG for said show, IS CURRENTLY a 19 entertainment recording artist.Gollymolly1010 (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not expressing any opinion one way or another on this AfD as I haven't done any research into the article at this point, I'm simply pointing out that if you can make a policy-based argument, that's what your argument should be based on. I'd also recommend reading the concerns of the delete !vote(s) and directly addressing those concerns. Obviously I can't speak for you, but on my part at least, my advice was not sarcastic. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry you responded to me before I edited my comment to provide examples of policy and explanation on how I fixed the "delete" person's worries. Like I said the person reported the article AFTER someone majorly edited it in the middle of my editing.Gollymolly1010 (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not expressing any opinion one way or another on this AfD as I haven't done any research into the article at this point, I'm simply pointing out that if you can make a policy-based argument, that's what your argument should be based on. I'd also recommend reading the concerns of the delete !vote(s) and directly addressing those concerns. Obviously I can't speak for you, but on my part at least, my advice was not sarcastic. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well they are not MY "sock/meat puppets" I have no idea who any of these people are, so sorry if you feel that way. Like I said this is my FIRST article, so that should not limit my opinion or be put against me. Anyways, according to the general notability guideline he HAS significant coverage, by reliable sources, that are independent of the subject. The person who reported the article for deletion did so minutes after the original article was highly edited by someone else. I've fixed said persons major edits, added more reputable sources, and even included all suggestions for sources posted below me. So, despite yours and my sarcastically witty conversation, the person is still notable. If you read the article, you'll notice he WAS on American Idol, is NOW on a completely different show, WROTE AND PERFORMS THEME SONG for said show, IS CURRENTLY a 19 entertainment recording artist.Gollymolly1010 (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You weren't tagged as a sock/meatpuppet; you were marked as a single-purpose account. The other marked SPAs who have contributed to this discussion are the suspected sock/meatpuppets. If you make a strong, policy-based argument, it's irrelevant whether your account has been marked as being a SPA or not (though obvious sock/meatpuppets will still be disregarded). So far you haven't provided any convincing argument either, however; "he was on american idol" doesn't itself meet our general notability guideline, "you should go around and delete every other American Idol contestant..." is not a valid argument because we don't keep/delete articles because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and the fact that the main contributor is an editor in good standing is irrelevant. Take a look at some of the policies regarding notability and decide for yourself whether the article meets our policies, and then base your argument on our policy. If you simply argue to keep something because WP:ILIKEIT, your argument will be diregarded because wikipedia is not a ballot. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notability fleeting? No more so than any of the other ex-American Idols. In fact, less so than of other Idols, as person is currently on a new legitimate show (which has an approved Wikipedia entry), and has received a great deal of attention from numerous press sites. It should be possible to find valid references where missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.82.61 (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC) — 62.1.82.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep seems to be a bit of a BLP2E, but notable enough. A Google News archives search for "Alex Lambert" +Idol shows that reliable sources do exist, such as this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Suggest also searching news archives for "Alex Lambert" +"If I Can Dream" for more current reliable sources regarding notability, such as this and this. Also would like to point out that references for other ex-American Idols also often mostly consist of blogs or entertainment "news" sites, thus do not see why they would not be allowed or adequate in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.165.0 (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC) — 88.218.165.0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep The following is a list of some of Alex Lambert’s credits in 2010. Every item on this list is notable and can be easily verified by an independent source. Contestant on American Idol – top 16, Cast of If I Can Dream, guest on the Ellen Degeneres Show, Celebrity contestant on Don’t Forget The Lyrics, Musical performer at the Sunset Strip Music Festival, Celebrity presenter at the Young Hollywood Awards, Professional music video I Didn’t Know (produced by Clear Channel Radio and featured on their IHEARTRADIO music platform), Songwriting and performance credits for Dream With My Eyes Open (theme song on If I Can Dream) Although Mr. Lambert started out on American Idol, it is obvious that he is not just a former American Idol contestant.--AlexL fan (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC) — AlexL fan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Redirect to the season of American Idol which he appeared in. seems non-notable outside of Primary sourcesThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Starblind. Look, I think the fact that American culture drools over such vapid entertainers is stupid, too, but the sources exist to meet the GNG, and there's no NOT reason to not give him a separate article. Yes, there are a large number of poor sources included, but there are definitely REAL sources which can be used. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, regrettably, per Jclemens and Starblind... Drmies (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although the provided references are all junk. Hulu and blogs are not reliable sources. The article needs a lot of work and it needs reliable sources. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep AlexL fan makes a good case. Dream Focus 19:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep like above Aisha9152 (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep If I'm not mistaken, this article has now been correctly and adequately referenced, thus the bare URL and additional citations warnings can be removed. I also believe that this establishes notability. Kaneek (contribs) 02:53, 10 October 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Max Amini (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)
Tagged for notability for 18 months, but concerns remain. I can't find the significant coverage we require - ImDb verifies a few bit parts, but in my opinion that doesn't put him over the threshold. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps someone might add citations found through the Find sources above. Some are short verifications while others are a bit more significant: Gazette, Los Angeles Times, Arab American News, Citylife, Persianesque Magazine, Pars Times, some books, etc... Looks to be enough available to bring this article into line. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:12, 21 October 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 Nomination withdrawn as heading to WP:SNOW LibStar (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of PDF software (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 already exists this template Template:PDF_readers or would be better served by a new category. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The template contains a fraction of the info within the list, and the list's presence does not prevent a series of categories being created. I'm not seeing any reason to delete this. Someoneanother 18:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep templates and categories include only a tiny bit of the information of a list. --Bothary (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Reasonable list of software. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 00:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No more list vs. category wars please. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As useful as this information is, policy consensus is that mere lists of links do not belong in an encyclopedia. WP:NOTLINK There are few facts in the article, and the links do not serve as verifying sources. --UncommonID (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— UncommonID (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep. This is not a mere list of links. It is organized, contains information on license and platform, and a description. It is an aid to navihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Formatgation for the articles that make up the list in a way that categories cannot be & is consistent with both our written policy & our history of keeping software comparisons/lists when they've been brought up to AfD. --Karnesky (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I came across this article this evening and found it quite useful, so perhaps this is something of an WP:ILIKEIT comment. However, while it certainly isn't a perfect article, it does provide more information than would a category or template in terms of descriptions of what software does and sub-categorisation by operating system. --Kateshortforbob talk 19:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think of this as information that really belongs in the Portable Document Format article but has been moved into a separate subarticle because of size and weight concerns. I don't know if that's how it was created, but it would make sense. More than just a list of links, and definitely worth keeping. I am not sure what the formal criteria are, but if they allow all the crap that has been featured but not this, they are badly broken. Hans Adler 18:12, 11 October 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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Travis Cherry (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)
Vanity piece by a sound engineer who appears not to satisfy WP:GNG. Article is full of name-dropping and other unverified credits, and is cites 3 sources, none of which demonstrate his notability Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete- no references unless you count the self published links in the external links and the myspace listed as his website. Heiro 04:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unfortunately for Mr. Cherry, association with a bunch of notable people is not notability in itself. He'll have to be noticed by third party sources on his own. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The articles for those albums list him. I'm sure someone there checked the label of the product they bought. Primary sources are fine for this sort of thing. A music producer is notable if the works he produces are notable, which in this case has happened multiple times. There is a link in the article already to a magazine which interviewed him. [25] You have to pay to see the article, but it does list in the contents that he was interviewed in that issue. Dream Focus 08:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong communicate 14:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable biography. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Only 2 of the 11 references actually mention "Travis Cherry", and those sources mention him in a very trivial way. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage". At this point, the sources only prove that Travis Cherry exists, not that he is notable. SnottyWong chatter 23:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I was considering Keep based on the Grammy nominations, but engineers/producers are only included in the nominations for the really big "Record of the Year" type Grammys, the lesser Grammys don't include them in the nominations. Exxolon (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -Just an unbiased correction, they are listed on TV for the bigger records but on the smaller ones, just the album itself. The reason is that on the bigger ones, the producers and engineers receive an actual Grammy if it wins, while on the smaller ones, they are given a plaque for nominations or for a win.Superkat2 (talk) 04:36, 14 October 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 and redirect to The X Factor (UK series 7).
There is a rough, approaching firm, consensus to delete here. The debate is about whether the retention of the article is precluded by WP:BLP1E or WP:NOTNEWS, both being policies. Some arguments on either side have to be given little weight: in particular, several keep opinions made either assertions that have no relationship to any accepted inclusion standards, while others argued general notability, which is not the issue (BLP1E, and arguably NOTNEWS, will preclude articles even where there is "significant coverage").
The dispute about BLP1E and NOTNEWS generally revolves around whether this is "one event" and a mere "news item" without enduring impact and coverage. Some degree of crystal ball-gazing is inevitable here by both sides. But at this stage there is a consensus that BLP1E, and to a less clear extent NOTNEWS, apply on the basis that (a) (for BLP1E) the subject is only notable for the one event; and (b) (for NOTNEWS) there is no evidence of enduring notability. I note the large number of early delete !votes. These early !votes may have otherwise been overtaken by events (eg if coverage and further events snowballed during the AfD). But even discarding the first few days of the AfD the consensus among the discussion would still have been to delete, indicating that after 14 days little had changed.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gamu Nhengu (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)
About as WP:BLP1E as it can get; also WP:NOTNEWS. I don't think there is any realistic chance of historical notability based on what we have so far here. T. Canens (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The gossip columns' attention relates to the appearance on X-Factor (or the result of it), it is commonly accepted that only finalists of talent contests are notable – usually only the winner and two runners-up. She fails on that count. The subject attracted 200,000 facebook signatures petitioning against her deportation... so yes, seems to be WP:BLP1E. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No one will care about this person by the end of the month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.42.131 (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. AnemoneProjectors 10:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOTNEWS. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to Wp:BLP1E (as a result of Cheryl choosing Katie and Cher over her) or Wp:NOTNEWS (see previous comment - seriously, this is considered news in Britain - and due to her impending removal from the United Kingdom). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS 86.156.0.137 (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as she is only notable for one thing and Wikipedia is not the news. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and the redirect to The X Factor (UK series 7) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep no matter what people think about reality stars in general this particular one has reached notability beyond X factor. her latest news story even made it onto the daily news on Sky News.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even though she's been mentioned on the news it should go. She is WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS SimonD (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Gamu Nhengu has not only been featured in the tabloid press and Sky News, but also by the BBC/ITV news teams, the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, The Times and by many overseas press outlets. She is notable, at least for now, as her story has been taken up internationally by politicians and press alike. -- Myosotis Scorpioides 13:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a breaking story and it's premature to pass judgement on it yet. In the list of those voting to delete: how many are from from the UK and watch the show when we can find people in here screaming 'delete' from New Jersey? There are a lot of people wanting information on the story and this is an excellent place for them to find it. For once don't let WikiTwits embellish Wikipedia's reputation any further. Otherwise it might be time to start an article on 'Wikipedia Stupidity'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.149.44.232 (talk)
- I am from the UK, I voted delete. WP:NOTNEWS. However, I agree with those who state the article should be kept until the next show. If she does not make a return, there is no point in keeping it. Even if she does, reality TV show contestants do not seem noteworthy WP:BLP1E. If they win, and/or go on to have a successful career, that is the time for them to have an article. 86.156.0.137 (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per above ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 17:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I feel still that their is enough pointing towards a keep as she has reached notability beyond her X-factor appearances. She made the headlines even outside the UK.. that is alot more than even some X-factor finalists have done.,--BabbaQ (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per above Aisha9152 (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes also the delete crowd here points towards certain "wikipedia rules" that doesnt even apply in this particular case/article. While the keep crowd points towarda actual opinions and standards. But that is just my opinion on the matter.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS not apply here, in your opinion? AnemoneProjectors 19:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. However there is a need for a paragraph below the list of The X Factor (UK series 7)#Judges' houses for major candidates rejected and there's no doubt Gamu Nhengu deserves a sentence or two regarding her performance and the outcry that ensued her elimination by Cole werldwayd (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E - she's only received coverage for being kicked out of X-Factor and there isn't even any news about a career after the fact so she is likely to remain non-notable outside of this one event. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The social media campaign to keep the contestant in the competition reflects the changing ways in which people are now able to show their disapproval of decisions made by TV shows. The impacts of the campaign also reached into both national and international politics. The campaign affected domestic UK politics with Scottish MPs and SMPs calling for their ability to keep Gamu in Scotland as a major asset to Scotlands culture. In Zimbabwe both the current government are seeking to use Gamu in their internal politics with the opposition party saying she is a role model for Zimbabwean women and the Mugabe government wanting to make her a national hero in an anti-british campaign. 81.174.168.133 (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC) — 81.174.168.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment I should point out that the reason Nhengu is in the news is already mentioned in The X Factor (UK series 7)#Controversy and criticism. AnemoneProjectors 12:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. as many people have said. LibStar (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep What harm is the article doing? Do you people not have other more serious things to worry about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reli source (talk • contribs) 18:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Perfect example of WP:BLP1E. Miyagawa (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I initiated this article not because of how outstanding Nhengu's talent may or may not be - opinions differ - or any prediction of lasting eminence on her own account, which obviously requires the verdict of time, but because of the exceptional phenomenon surrounding her rejection, which goes well beyond the scope of the article about the show itself. Only if you have been consuming British popular culture (in which I include the saturation of everyday gossip) in this past few weeks can you understand how out of the ordinary this has been. No other reality TV contestant has engendered a greater spontaneous public campaign (which extends beyond Facebook) to change a decision; an extraordinary half the residents (5/ 10k) in her county have now signed a petition to the British Government to allow her to stay in the UK; and it has thrown up a most significant example of newspaper double-speak where those tabloids that most enthusiastically fan anti-immigrant rhetoric have been the cheerleaders for keeping her in the country - many commentators have said that it has given a more human face to immigrants and asylum seekers. All that is worthy of note even in the unlikely event that she disappears without trace. There is therefore an argument for making the article one on 'The campaign for reality TV contestant Gamu Nhengu', but my judgement was that that would be a considerably more clumsy way of gathering the information, given that the story does revolve around her, seems far from over and may well produce further twists. Llahgob (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC) — Llahgob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep Initially notable for one incident but subsequent events have occured which are also notable, as debate exists about the status of children of people in the UK on visas, and she has received far more newspaper column inches than practically all of the finalists combined. As the article was created to identify a 'notable contestant', she qualifies. There is also the social media campaign on both Facebook and Twitter, and the accusations of producer interference in contestant selection within so-called 'reality' programming which make her a notable person in the UK. User:Apex204 (User talk:Apex204) 21:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are multiple events which concern the subject directly and so BLP1E does not apply. This is not routine ephemeral news and so NOTNEWS does not apply. Instead we have massive notability per WP:GNG and notability does not expire so this person will still be well documented in sources in perpetuity. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and put any usable content in The X Factor (UK series 7)#Controversy and criticism. Not especially notable or historically significant event/person, article is the result of recentism etc. Leave it a few months and if anything significant has sprung out of this it will become apparent. This stuff happens, and is reported on, all over the place. It has made national media simply by virtue of being associated with X-factor. Best dealt with on the X-factor page. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 17:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Classic violation of BLP 1E and NOT TABLOID. I generally support Wikipedia covering all significant news events but not transient internet phenomena of no possible continuing interest. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No possible continuing interest? This seems a bold prediction as it is my experience that, in such cases, continuing coverage is almost certain. If continued interest can be demonstrated in a year or more from now, will you undertake to restore the article if it has been deleted, so that it may be developed further? Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I highly doubt it, it is already out of mainstream news, relegated to the middle pages of the tabloids (if mentioned at all). Feel free to revisit the article in a year! But I doubt you will have seen continued interest; people get bored, the media moves on. Unless the mount a significant legal challenge to avoid deportation (which is unlikely, the home office seems to have a cut 'n dried case) or some other big thing happens (i.e. she is executed or something) then it's a storm in a tea cup --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 09:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
I'm giving a rationale for this relisting. Although the number of commentators in this AfD is beyond doubt enough, the discussion seems to not have come to a definite consensus. Seeing polarised comments for keep and delete, and also viewing a few votes that are illogical, I have to relist this AfD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - utterly non-notable WP:BLP1E. Contestants in The X-Factor and other reality TV shows are generally not notable enough for their own pages, let alone those who failed to get through the earlier rounds. In this case, this was a story the tabloids ran with for a few days, but they've now got bored and moved on; it's already yesterday's news. There's no case for long-term notability here. Robofish (talk)
09:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: Although the subject of this discussion achieved notoriety via the X Factor, her notability extends far beyond the TV show now. The topic of Gamu Nhengu, both her singing and her on-going visa problems, continue to make headlines around the world - and are also being discussed at the highest world political levels too. A search of Google News [26] shows she is still the topic of scores of global media articles - so WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS do not apply. Indeed, her widespread notability appears to qualify her for WP:GNG.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 11:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How many times do you plan on voting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eucberar (talk • contribs) 10:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Eucberar is pointing out that Myosotis Scorpioides has now !voted twice. AnemoneProjectors 13:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How many times do you plan on voting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eucberar (talk • contribs) 10:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and possibly rename if necessary - but deletion is not an option here. In my opinion it is not a BLP1E, given that there are multiple events connected to the coverage in sources, which is wide. In any case let us remember that BLP1E is almost never a reason to outright delete: the policy says: In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. - Therefore, in the case consensus is assessed for BLP1E to apply, the article can be renamed and edited to switch the focus to the event (which clearly passes GNG) -as it has been practice in multiple other cases (e.g. Disappearance of Maura Murray). Since it is an issue demanding only editing, per deletion policy, we do not delete. --Cyclopiatalk 13:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A singularly bad example; it was a marginal event at the time, but the ongoing media coverage (spanning the whole lot of years between then and now) solidify it as historically significant. I doubt this will be mentioned again after Xmas (if not before). If it is things can be reconsidered easily. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 13:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Historical significance is not something we can fathom and is not a criteria of our notability guidelines. Notability is forever: once something has been picked up by sources, it is notable, it doesn't cease to be so because public's attention vanishes. --Cyclopiatalk 14:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends on whether we consider this a BLP1E (which I do, very much) or a BIO. In the former case we do ask for historical significance or a lasting effect. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 15:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Historical significance is not something we can fathom and is not a criteria of our notability guidelines. Notability is forever: once something has been picked up by sources, it is notable, it doesn't cease to be so because public's attention vanishes. --Cyclopiatalk 14:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A singularly bad example; it was a marginal event at the time, but the ongoing media coverage (spanning the whole lot of years between then and now) solidify it as historically significant. I doubt this will be mentioned again after Xmas (if not before). If it is things can be reconsidered easily. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 13:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Massively notable with widespread on going media coverage per editor Myosotis Scorpioides. The fact she's attracting coverage week after week in TV , magazines and newspapers ought to be enough to persuade folk she has enduring notability, even if they can see a reason. But just to be helpful , heres three very significant aspects to her story, which also show BLP1E doesn't apply. Shes a rare case of a reality TV evoking so much passion that there has been multiple death threats against those who voted her off the show. It's a notable case of an online campaign having real world impact. The fate of her family and the related public debate is an interesting bellwether of opinion in British society - which will be the strongest out of the poplar desire for tougher immigration procedures v the human appeal to let them stay? FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I still believe that Gamu is notable beyond her original X-factor appearance. Her face is seen almost daily in newspapers and her story has been spread trough out the world. This article is a special case as she might not be notable for her x-factor appearance alone, but the effects afterwards has made her notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:BLP1E. A failed reality tv run is really her only claim to fame, fan-driven facebook hysteria or rumors of deportation do not confer notability outside of the original event. Tarc (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- typical delete sayers, pointing towards Wikipedia standards that can be interpreted in different ways. Also its as usual never any deeper explainations to their stand except the usual "non notable television star" totally disregarding other factors. Like here above. This is a keeper.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This person failed a reality tv competition. Fans created a facebook group. There's some vague rumors of deportations and racism reported by tabloids. That's it. All of this is part of the same topic; reliable sources cover this person in the context of the X-Factor bid. Yes, failures can go on to do more and become notable independent of the original event, e.g. William Hung. But when the coverage of Nhengu is being blared by the likes of entertainmentwise.com and little else, there's not much one can do to justify an article. This is why we have 1E and not-news guidelines; so that one-and-done news blips don't get an article in an encyclopedia forevermore. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: To everyone invoking NOTNEWS, which, remember, is not meant to delete every news from the encyclopedia but to avoid covering "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities", I want to quote the wise words of WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. "Notability is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already, not on subjective judgments of whether people should take notice in the future. Focusing on the objective evidence helps the deletion discussion reach a logical conclusion; injecting your personal predictions does not." --Cyclopiatalk 11:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect. NOTNEWS says quite explicitly: most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion, and then goes on to list some examples. NOTNEWS does not list explicitly what we should disclude, instead it asks us to consider the enduring notability of people and events. This is a regular mis-interpretation of NOTNEWS that is sometimes used to try and incorrectly undermine it. None of these are hard and fast rules, simply advisories with which we try to make an informed decision. In terms of the article, BLP1E helps establish this as suitable as an event, not a bio, and under that context it is not suitable for an individual article. However it may be (and indeed I agree is) significant for inclusion in the X Factor article. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 11:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a bit of a bias on Wikipedia that the Keep sayers has to establish a huge amount of reasons for their opinion, while Delete sayers never have too. Gamu is notable way beyond her X-factor appearance and that is why I said Keep. And I will stick to that.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion this is starting to look like a No Consensus Afd. Because facts has been brought on that proves both sides of the argument pro or against Gamus article. The only reasonable thing to do would be to end this Af as No consensus and then if nothing more happens in 6 months time then bring a second Afd discussion on.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BabbaQ, you're starting to verge on disruptive. We've all made quite extensive cases - both for keep and delete. Either actually contribute more information or sit back, don't rehash you're same arguments over and over (this is explicitly discouraged). It could actually harm your argument. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 21:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion this is starting to look like a No Consensus Afd. Because facts has been brought on that proves both sides of the argument pro or against Gamus article. The only reasonable thing to do would be to end this Af as No consensus and then if nothing more happens in 6 months time then bring a second Afd discussion on.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a bit of a bias on Wikipedia that the Keep sayers has to establish a huge amount of reasons for their opinion, while Delete sayers never have too. Gamu is notable way beyond her X-factor appearance and that is why I said Keep. And I will stick to that.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect. NOTNEWS says quite explicitly: most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion, and then goes on to list some examples. NOTNEWS does not list explicitly what we should disclude, instead it asks us to consider the enduring notability of people and events. This is a regular mis-interpretation of NOTNEWS that is sometimes used to try and incorrectly undermine it. None of these are hard and fast rules, simply advisories with which we try to make an informed decision. In terms of the article, BLP1E helps establish this as suitable as an event, not a bio, and under that context it is not suitable for an individual article. However it may be (and indeed I agree is) significant for inclusion in the X Factor article. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 11:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eucberar (talk • contribs) 10:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep subject has notability way beyond original appearance on the X Factor, given her status as an asylum seeker example amongst the British media and British public. Also notable in terms of massive public online support potentially impacting on her citizenship in the UK. This potentially has importance as a piece of social and immigration history. Kafuffle (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I strongly agree to keep the page. I do believe that the Gamu page is completely nobel. She has had number of headlining pages in the paper's - plus a appearing on one of the biggest shows in the UK, i think that the page is now nobel. L.Geee 14:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E -- roleplayer 15:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep!!! The whole world is talking about this girl.Not just her singing talent but political issues, immigration issues,racism, media issues internet groups,ect.... People are going to want to know about her, they need somewhere decent yo get their information from!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.77.1 (talk • contribs)
- Delete as per the comments above. This article indicates that she has not heard from anyone on the X Factor, including Mr Cowell, so is likely to be deported back to Zimbabwe. Once that happens I doubt very much we'll hear of her again, so not notable --5 albert square (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I absolutely believe this article should be deleted. If this person was worthy of a wikipedia article, every TV blow-in would be on wikipedia. She got her 15 mins of fame, she will soon be forgotten and this article will be of use to no-one. Seriously consider this; how many people would you think will type Gamu Nhengu into a search by next year? Heggyhomolit (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What people will search next year is completely irrelevant for our inclusion standards. All what matters is if we have multiple secondary sources coverage. --Cyclopiatalk 22:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Likely quite many as she according to the article and a source could be shot if she returns to her homeland. Also her possible deportation in itself will have people looking for this article about Gamu,.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I simply meant that she is not worthy of an article of her own as she will be forgotten by then. I do however believe that any information about her should be included on the X Factor 2010 page.Heggyhomolit (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even past contestants who made it ONTO the live shows and the final don't have their own articles. They had media coverage during the shows but they were not worth articles on, and have their own section in the show-related articles. And yes nobody will care or remember this in a short while. Dollvalley (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears to meet the GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Extreme case of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. She is notable for one single event, being on the X factor. What is more, she failed to qualify for the finals. Even most contenstants who do qualify for the finals of this annual show don't have Wikipedia articles, and Ms Nhengu is no different from the large number of people who did not make the final. The fact that many people thought her to be good does not make her more notable.Jeppiz (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Two weeks on, as the initiator of this article, it seems to me that the original justification for its existence has only grown. Those who repeatedly point to Nhengu's personal relative 'non-notability' or transient fame are correct (currently - although the latest rumours suggest she has several offers of recording contracts), but are missing the point - the article is NOT here primarily because of her mere appearance on X Factor, how 'good' a singer she is or is not, or her 'failure' to get to the finals (none of which, alone, justify it), but the exceptional public *reaction* to that which has been widespread, international, involves numerous issues not least the hot topic of immigration and asylum in the UK, and continues as I write. It is not a footnote 'about' the TV show, but a separate and notable phenomenon involving thousands of articles in reputable publications in numerous countries, and a variety of topics and connections; her name seemed to me the most convenient hook to hang all that on. Hence, while there remains an argument to change the title, deletion of this body of information at this stage would seem to irrationally discount all that evidence. Llahgob (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC) — Llahgob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- but the exceptional public *reaction* to that which has been widespread, international, involves numerous issues not least the hot topic of immigration and asylum in the UK, see this is my main reason for rejecting the subjects notability. It's not really "international".. not at least from my observation anyway. As to the asylum issue, certainly it is controversial, and there has been some public reaction. But not a lot and the case is fairly cut and dried against them; she will almost certainly be deported today. My problem, though, is this; no reporting has dealt in any depth with the "controversy", mostly it was outraged fans (from what I can pick up), which is fair enough, but I don't really see anything particularly notable, legally game changing or otherwise of enduring public interest. *shrug* --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 09:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The public's reaction is not a reason for this article to stay, quite the opposite. If it is the reaction of the public to this The X Factor (UK)-event that is notable, not the person, then that reaction should be mentioned where it belongs, in the article on this year's season The X Factor (UK series 7). As a matter of fact, it is already dealt with in that article.Jeppiz (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Justification for its existence? It looks to me like the vast majority of votes here are to delete the article. People get deported all the time, and as for UK asylum and immigration issues; I don't think this case has any encyclopaedic purpose. I really don't see a place for this article on wikipedia, and I stand by my original vote to delete. As a matter of interest, this subject has not been in the media all week.Heggyhomolit (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To add to the comment above, I read Swedish, Finnish, German, French and Italian media daily and have never seen Nhengu mentioned even once. I do not say that fame in only one country would not be sufficient (provided that the person is notable in that country, which I don't think Nhengu is), but those advocating "keep" by claiming "international coverage" seem to overstate their case.Jeppiz (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Justification for its existence? It looks to me like the vast majority of votes here are to delete the article. People get deported all the time, and as for UK asylum and immigration issues; I don't think this case has any encyclopaedic purpose. I really don't see a place for this article on wikipedia, and I stand by my original vote to delete. As a matter of interest, this subject has not been in the media all week.Heggyhomolit (talk) 10:06, 19 October 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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joey Yap (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, advertising, {{tone}} issues. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. should have been speedied as WP:SPAM. Plenty of WP:SPS, and only one WP:RS, merely reporting on an event – insufficient to demonstrate notability. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as spam. Heavily promotional and lacks reliable independent sources. Edward321 (talk) 00:53, 10 October 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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nina Halim (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)
Nominated based on notability per this edit on Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board#Notability issue; notability is not inherited --ZhongHan (Email) 06:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not much there in the article; not much there on GSearch – most of it's personal: Twitter, LinkedIn... Photo gallery also looks distinctly personal and not 'celebrity'. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There's not really anything to establish notability for this person. The only sources I could find were mentions of her as a mother, rather than an entrepreneur. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete self-promotion. not notable. --CarTick 00:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 7 October 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eddie Chin (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)
Nominated based on notability per this edit on Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board#Notability issue --ZhongHan (Email) 06:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - He's been in two notable ensembles (one of which charted at number 72, but still charted!) and he's mentioned in a lot of coverage, even though it's not exclusively about him. I say weak keep for now. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep wp:music 6 `Aisha9152 (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: He is notable and he is charted. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:26, 9 October 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) 09:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joyce And The 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)
Nominated per this edit on Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board#Notability issue, only assertion of notability is unreferenced. --ZhongHan (Email) 06:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I added a source for the competition win (warning: annoying music on that webpage); so there is at least a reference for the assertion of notability. As for whether to delete or keep, I'm sitting on the fence for now. bobrayner (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 2 gnews hits does not cut it. [27]. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 16 October 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) 09:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Crystal Shong (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)
Nominated based on notability per this edit on Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board#Notability issue --ZhongHan (Email) 06:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable atleast on the lowest level of notability requirement here on wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE, no explanation of which notability criterion is being met. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. I did add a reference but it's just talking about her measurements and dogs. It is in-depth, but I don't consider that encyclopaedic. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Her listed accomplishments don't add up to notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no extensive coverage. fails WP:BIO. [28] LibStar (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:BIO, not very much significant coverage. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 09:25, 14 October 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of PowerVR products (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 company already has an article with all the same information, albeit in less detail. this product list has been copied and pasted to this website as well, which is even using the same image hosted on wikimedia servers (click the image on enotes.com and it takes you to the wiki file); seems someone is on a promotional bender. the text from the main article about the company also can be found on that website. not sure if this is a copy vio as it may be the user who posted that info there also made the two articles here. regardless, this article is unsourced and, i believe, unnecessary considering the redundancy. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- actually i am not completely sure, what is the wiki policy in this area. are other companies allowed to maintain unsourced lists of their products on wikipedia? WookieInHeat (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- after reading this talk page, maybe that user is right, this type of comparison of their products could be appropriate. WookieInHeat (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - I shunted this list to a separate page rather than deleting it because I thought it had the potential to become useful (with a lot of work by a helpful editor). But I would not oppose a consensus to delete. - Frankie1969 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral maybe you're right, don't want to be the deletion nazi going around destroying information with potential. so, unless another editor points out a reason to delete i will change to neutral. really only nominated this because of the seemingly promotional nature, but also just wanted to bring attention to it because i was unsure if the copy and paste editing violated any copyright policy. WookieInHeat (talk) 01:30, 8 October 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 deleted as G3, no proof it exists Versageek 13:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Daigle Me (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 coverage anywhere that I can find. Does not meet WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 04:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. - Non notable film. Absolutely no sources. No proof that it even exists. --Kudpung (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a not notable film. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources, no notability, very short article anyway. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can find no proof that this film exists. Joe Chill (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a probable hoax since no sources can be found. Heiro 04:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as WP:HOAX. Mike Allen 05:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If actually shot in September (ahem), and with no coverage, the kindest thing that might be said is this article is too soon... but with complete lack of verifiability, WP:HOAX looks to apply. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment since User:Versageek deleted the article[29] while its AFD was still in process,[30] I have asked that he also consider closing this AFD as now moot.[31] I do not think anyone will question either his good faith deletion or an early close to this open AFD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:46, 10 October 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 redirect to Structured product. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interest rate-linked note (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 sources cited, none found in search. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete or Merge - I couldn't find sufficient reliable sources (only potential sources I found were from SmithBarney & CitiBank). Based on my limited knowledge, it seems like this might be better suited being added and merged with the Structured Product wiki page. It's also worth noting that there are wiki pages for related terms: credit-linked note & equity-linked note.--Artlovesyou (talk) 05:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Structured product. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 October 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) 09:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Marketing term (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)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary and there are no sources cited. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Neutral for the time being. The concept of a "marketing term" probably is capable of expansion, and in fact seems to be in such routine use that I'm a bit stymied to find sources that discuss "marketing term" in a general way. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Against. The term is encyclopedic and should be expanded. Should be marked as a stub to encourage expansion. --Treekids (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been marked as a stub since 2008, and has not been expanded beyond a definition. If you would care to undertake the sourced expansion of the article now go right ahead. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've hit the same problem as Ihcoyc. The problem is that the ordinary meaning of "marketing term" is an item of jargon terminology used in the field of marketing. But that isn't what this article claims to be about. As far as I can tell (at any rate), this article claims to be about the nonce words and phrases that people offhandedly, and disparagingly, refer to as "marketing terms". Although there are sources that mention ordinary marketing terminology/jargon, mostly simply glossaries of the same, I have yet to find a source that documents what this article purports to be about. I suspect that this name is itself a "marketing term" for what is more usually called marketing speak or a buzzword. But I cannot be sure. The article's creator has given very little context to go on in the article, zero sources, and zero further explanation above in this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have a marketing degree, and honestly don't understand what the definition of "marketing term" means here. When I read the first sentence, I though it meant a brand name, which is also supported by the claims that it could be copyrighted (at least the logo) and trademarked. In this case, the correct term is brand name. Another alternative is, as Uncle G states, that it is a buzzword. However, buzzwords are not normally trademarked or copyrighted. Could it be slogan that is meant? Then again, brand names, buzzwords and slogans are all too short to be copyrighted (they can only be registered as trademarks). "Marketing term" could also mean something akin to greenwashing (a word used to describe marketing strategies), but that is again not copyrightable or trademarkable. Unless someone can explain what the term means, please delete it as WP:OR or even WP:HOAX. Arsenikk (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looking at it, I thought it meant "slogan" or "buzzword." Not sufficiently used to justify a redirect. Sven Manguard Talk 00:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not a dictionary or glossary. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks sources, also per WP:DICTIONARY. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:04, 14 October 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mary nissenson (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)
Promotional unsourced BLP full of dubious claims and promotional language. Orange Mike | Talk 00:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unsourced biospam. Hairhorn (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up. There are plenty of solid references out there, including a Time magazine article. Many deal with her job/awards as a reporter or her botched plastic surgery.[32][33][34][35] (p. 2) [36] Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only cleanup possible is a complete re-write, that's why I voted delete rather than keep. Spam is spam even if it's about a notable topic. Hairhorn (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, but as a stub. I agree that the current article is unacceptable. I think the Peabody Award plus the assorted publicity over various aspects of her career do satisfy GNG. So I guess the right answer is to stub it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clarityfiend has shown plenty of sourcing is available. Edward321 (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as mentioned, sources are available. AlgebraT (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A Peabody Award establishes notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:52, 7 October 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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- John Brittas (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)
Appears to fail the WP:BIO guidelines. Being a managing director is not, of itself, notable for an encyclopaedia entry. Since creation in 2007, the article has been tagged for improvement with no signs of any improvement apart from the tags being removed. The award mentioned appears to be a scholarship scheme and is unlikely to be sufficient to address notability. Fæ (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepthe Ramnath Goenka Awards appear to be fairly prestigious, (speeches thereon by India's chief justice of the supreme court), but it's hard to find out much about it. That said, if this award is Brittas's only claim to notability then the article stands or falls on the award's status. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Comment The Ramnath Goenka Award may be prestigious; but can anyone verify whether it was awarded to John Brittas? Do they (the trust) have a website. Is this (the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism award to Brittas) covered in any mainstream newspaper; at least in Indian Express which is associated with this trust. Did anyone get anything other than this Wikipedia article for a Google search of this "Journalism Educational Award".180.149.48.245 (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The guidelines are that if a BLP depends on an award, that the award should be "well known". I would interpret this a needing to be internationally recognized. If basic searches reveal so little information that we are not sure exactly what the significance of the award is and there is no Wikipedia article for Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award, then it must be considered not notable enough by itself to justify the existence of BLPs for awards winners. The award was created in 2006 by the Express Group for Indian journalists. Fæ (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "we don't have an article, therefore it's not notable" isn't much of an argument. Wikipedia's coverage of India isn't as good as it should be, perhaps we missed something somewhere? Incidentally, googling Ramnath Goenka Awards turns up quite a few hits, although they seem to be mostly Indian news outlets trumpeting winners from their own staff. The award is seemingly well-known within Indian journalism (and worth an article here?), but I'm starting to doubt whether simply winning one makes Mr Brittas notable enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have missed the word "and" in my statement and inadvertently misrepresented my comment. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- aaargh. Thanks for pointing out my phail. I shouldn't be doing this on a Sunday morning! Totnesmartin (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have missed the word "and" in my statement and inadvertently misrepresented my comment. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "we don't have an article, therefore it's not notable" isn't much of an argument. Wikipedia's coverage of India isn't as good as it should be, perhaps we missed something somewhere? Incidentally, googling Ramnath Goenka Awards turns up quite a few hits, although they seem to be mostly Indian news outlets trumpeting winners from their own staff. The award is seemingly well-known within Indian journalism (and worth an article here?), but I'm starting to doubt whether simply winning one makes Mr Brittas notable enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The guidelines are that if a BLP depends on an award, that the award should be "well known". I would interpret this a needing to be internationally recognized. If basic searches reveal so little information that we are not sure exactly what the significance of the award is and there is no Wikipedia article for Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award, then it must be considered not notable enough by itself to justify the existence of BLPs for awards winners. The award was created in 2006 by the Express Group for Indian journalists. Fæ (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Ramnath Goenka Award may be prestigious; but can anyone verify whether it was awarded to John Brittas? Do they (the trust) have a website. Is this (the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism award to Brittas) covered in any mainstream newspaper; at least in Indian Express which is associated with this trust. Did anyone get anything other than this Wikipedia article for a Google search of this "Journalism Educational Award".180.149.48.245 (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not a single reliable source has been produced so far to establish that John Brittas is a recipient of the Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism.180.149.48.245 (talk) 05:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a mention of the award here. Salih (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, however the keral.com profile appears to support the facts of his BLP but does little more to establish the award itself as sufficient to justify notability. Fæ (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He appears to be notable even without the Ramnath Goenka Award. See the list of celebrities mentioned here. The article says that "We are presenting the profiles of prominent Malayalees living today." Salih (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, however the keral.com profile appears to support the facts of his BLP but does little more to establish the award itself as sufficient to justify notability. Fæ (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a mention of the award here. Salih (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keral.com is not a reliable source, by any standards. The simple fact that emerges is that we have not found any reliable source to establish the notability of this person. 180.149.48.245 (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as the nominator my opinion should not be seen as a consensus, however it is clear that after reasonable discussion with several people looking for sources that none has been found to support a claim of notability in the sense of WP:BIO. For a deletion it is not required to demonstrate non-notability, only to show that notability is unlikely to demonstrated in the near future. Fæ (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've come round to the delete side of this discussion. There really doesn't seem to be a source to establish his notability. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if kerla.com, the website that published the subject's detailed profile, can be considered as a reliable source, otherwise delete. Salih (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-notable people can be listed and profiled on notable websites, for example not everyone with profiles on myspace, IMDB or bwfc.co.uk is automatically notable even if the organizations running those websites are. Fæ (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's not fair to equate keral.com with myspace, IMDB etc. where a registered user can add their own profile. Salih (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-notable people can be listed and profiled on notable websites, for example not everyone with profiles on myspace, IMDB or bwfc.co.uk is automatically notable even if the organizations running those websites are. Fæ (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Managing director or dceo of a notable company is notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, that statement is not supported by the notability guidelines. A MD or DCEO or any other executive has to be notable in their own right. Fæ (talk) 06:43, 14 October 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:BLP. Besides David Dinkins, there are several other unsourced statements in this article about living people. If someone wants to source this article I will be glad to userfy or incubate it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joseph Corrao (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 sourcing whatsoever, and contains defamatory claims about living individuals and corporations. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - I believe that undoubtedly good sources do exist to corroborate this. This so-called "crime family" has been written on and reported on extensively, and in great depth. Also, almost all of the people who were directly associated with the Gambino's during the events leading up to John Gotti's arrest have their own pages. And since this isn't a BLP, I think it should just be tagged for needing references...and perhaps trimmed down on some of the more critical aspects until the refs are provided. This could be a really interesting and highly content-debated article. The Eskimo (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a BLP, but there are references to living people supposedly linked to him and to two cafes and a fuel company he supposedly part-owned, all with zero sourcing. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fix it or delete it - One can say of a dead person that they exhumed the body of Chester A. Arthur and used it as a coffee table or collected the heads of housecats in pickle jars, but if one makes an assertion about a living person being a member of an organized crime family, one had damned well better have that documented. All potentially defamatory material about living people needs to be footnoted or removed pronto, or this article should be deleted. —Carrite, Sept. 29, 2010.
- Keep Just which living people are they about whom negative information is given. Dinkins is mentioned, but not negatively, & there should be a newspaper source for his involvement in canceling the city contract with him In any case, the basic material in the article is clearly about other deceased individuals, so if there is such material about living people and it cannot be sourced , it can be removed without needing to delete the article.. DGG ( talk ) 07:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD, per WP:V. Unsourced contested articles must be deleted. Sandstein 06:24, 7 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- World's first pine tree farm (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)
At the moment, this is little more than an essay (WP:NOTESSAY) about the "first" timber plantation. I can only see one mention in a search, and that mention is not from a reliable source. This may warrant a sentence or two at Plantation#Forestry but nothing more. (Struck because it is clear that this is not true) It also seems as if the text has been copied from somewhere, but I don't know exactly where. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this is an essay, not an article. JIP | Talk 07:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Reads more like vanity press than even an essay. Was this someone's grandfather? No refs, no evident notability, if it's in the 1920s it's certainly not "the first". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as there is no coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are no reliable sources to support notability. Limongi (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above. Heiro 04:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, essay; also contradicted by Christmas tree cultivation. Hairhorn (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, essay, obvious fabrication > MinnecologiesTalk 14:35, 9 October 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. The arugments for deletion seem to significantly outweigh the sole reason for retention here. –MuZemike 22:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Janet Scott-Batchler (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)
IMdB verifies the career. amazon & worldcat verify the book. But the book is self-published, and the material at IMdB is not sufficient to show notability either. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with DGG. Doesn't seem to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:BASIC. A related AfD for her husband is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Batchler. I also removed much of the unsourced material. In case anyone wants to see it, here is the version before I did so. Novaseminary (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:AUTHOR: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." -- according to Batman Forever, the film had at least 54 reviews. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I always thought of that as referring to a novelist who had a book turned into a movie, or more on point, a film director who created the film. In this case, this writer was one of three writers of a screenplay. They (obviously) were not the ones who created the character or anything. Novaseminary (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A related AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Batchler, has now been closed as delete. The only potential notability-related difference I see between the two is that she has written a self-published book that, per WorldCat, is held in four libraries. But I cannot imagine that would come close to meeting notability. Novaseminary (talk) 06:39, 14 October 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. Jummy Pit's keep vote notwithstanding, I see consensus here for delete Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lee Batchler (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)
Imdb verifies the career, but I do not think the career notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with DGG. Doesn't seem to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:BASIC. A related AfD for his wife is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Scott-Batchler. I also removed much of the unsourced material. In case anyone wants to see it, here is the version before I did so. Novaseminary (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:AUTHOR: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." -- according to Batman Forever, the film had at least 54 reviews. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I always thought of that as referring to a novelist who had a book turned into a movie, or more on point, a film director who created the film. In this case, this writer was one of three writers of a screenplay. They (obviously) were not the ones who created the character or anything. Novaseminary (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tangential comment I do not believe WP:AUTHOR makes any requirements on how much of a creative work must be purely from the creator's mind rather than incorporated/adapted/portrayed/borrowed from elsewhere. There were plenty of cypresses and sunflowers in Arles before Van Gogh arrived and tried representing them on canvas; history writers get historical information from other sources, rather than directly participating in major world events; and Eddie Adams merely handled a camera, he didn't execute anyone :-) bobrayner (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't find any significant media notice of him, only mentions as a screenwriter for Batman Forever. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:19, 7 October 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Charlotte Research Institute (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)
NN organization. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Totally unreferenced. Nothing to merge. Prod was contested by an anon IP. GrapedApe (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The news link above lists 158 news articles about this organization over the last 8 years. - Hydroxonium (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article needs definite improvement but sufficient coverage [37]. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 7 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Building Services Architect (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)
Unreferenced, possibly unencyclop)edic.. Is little more than a large dictionary definition. Kudpung (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I should have preferably put a PROD on this. It would have been procedurally deleted by now. If there are no new comments, I'll leave it to the closing admin's discretion. Generally if consensus is not reached, articles will be closed as default to 'keep'. But if there have been no comments at all, there is no consensus to measure, so a deletion, or a move to another architecture related article would also probably be in order.--Kudpung (talk)
- Delete. As per nom, basically an unreferenced dicdef, reads very much like original research on an unnotable topic. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not notable? Do you imagine that people are able to build massive buildings without writing about the design of aircon, lifts (elevators), power, water &c. See BTEC National Construction, Building Services Engineering..., for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Building services engineering is a significant professional discipline which is required for all large buildings. The nomination seems to be disruptive to the development of this new article contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Nobody is arguing about the importance of the profession. The nomination is for a page that contains little more than a dicdef that has been languishing
at the bottom of the NPP list since 31 Augustat NPP for ten weeks because its creator cant't be bothered to come back and expand it, and no other editors, and nobody here on this AfD knows what to do with it. The article does not assert sufficient importance for its existence. If it had been a PROD, it would have been long gone already. The nomination is perfectly justified because it gives you an opportunity to challenge it, but two relistings here, one keep, and one delete, have demonstrated that nobody cares either way.--Kudpung (talk) 07:00, 14 October 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Koprol (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 local social networking site. Promotional tone. Does not appear to be onnected with Yahoo as may seem to be suggested on its site graphics. Kudpung (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, needs editing, but id.yahoo.com does appear to link to this as "Korpol [Baru]" (I presume that means "Beta") News sources seem to confirm that Yahoo acquired them, and there are recent results on a gnews search for them. (They aren't in English so I have no idea what they say.) OSbornarfcontributionatoration 21:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading this thing more, it's like it was auto translated or something. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 22:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Executed some heavy cleanup. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 22:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sufficient coverage in WP:RS to pass WP:N (e.g. the Tempo articles I just added). As for the nominator's statement that it "Does not appear to be onnected with Yahoo", I can only assume he did not follow WP:BEFORE whatsoever: the very first item in Google News Archive is about its acquisition by Yahoo. cab (call) 05:50, 7 October 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Metis TransPacific Airlines (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 article is largely a fluff piece as well as furthering what has long been suspected to be a hoax airline. I do not believe that this article or even "organization" meets our notability requirements. Furthermore, the sourcing quality is largely lacking and what is provided is either too promotional or not reliable per our established standards. -MBK004 06:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I believe it's notable. It's a notable hoax. If multiple sources suggest that an organisation may be fictional (and is controversial as a result), that means we should pay extra scrutiny to sources, not that we must delete it - wikipedia has lots of fine articles on hoaxes. In this case we have some good sources to establish notability. I have added an extra ref on the hoax; a Macau Daily Times article. If some content in the article appears to take the airline too seriously, we should correct that content; but the lede currently says "Metis TransPacific Charter Airlines is an airline that claimed to be based in Macau, People's Republic of China; the actual existence of the airline has been disputed. Its website is no longer online" so, as it stands, I doubt the article is furthering a hoax; I think it mostly takes the right stance. bobrayner (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looking at the article history, I suspect there may have been one or two COI editors involved in the past. I'll watchlist it. bobrayner (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per bobrayner--enough sources to suggest this is a notable hoax.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:23, 7 October 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sultan Geliskhanov (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)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
no extensive coverage in gnews [38]. will reconsider if someone can provide substantial coverage in Russian. LibStar (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want someone who speaks Russian, then use the deletion sorting mechanism or ask at WP:RUSSIA, don't just express a vague desire in your summary for someone who speaks Russian to appear out of thin air. Or you could try using the Google Transliteration tool yourself. cab (call) 09:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 09:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 09:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge somewhere? I added the {{Find sources}} template above for the Cyrillic spelling. But even with the greater volume of Russian coverage, it's pretty clear this is a WP:BLP1E. The only non-trivial articles about the man were within a few days of his surrender. Everything before or after that consists merely of passing mentions in books and articles about other subjects. His surrender doesn't seem to have been a particularly important event of the Second Chechen War so I'm not sure that's an appropriate merge target. Aside from that one event, it's also verifiable that he was the head of the department of state security ([39]) under Dzhokhar Dudayev in the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria back in 1994, but I'm not sure that qualifies him as passing WP:POLITICIAN. Maybe a mention of him in a list of governmental officials of Ichkeria would be appropriate. cab (call) 09:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sourcing is terrible here, but based on the Kommersant article cited in the footnotes (in English), we know the person exists and that the general description of him as a top leader of the Chechen nationalist movement is accurate. Notability seems assured, the question being whether there are any BLP issues to be addressed. Here you will see Султан Гелисханов as the subject of coverage in the online version of Vremia. There are many other hits. Pretty clearly clears the notability bar as a top leader of the Chechen movement, poor sourcing of this article notwithstanding. —Carrite, Sept. 30, 2010.
- For those of you not versed in Russian history or current events, the Chechens are a Muslim nationality within the old Russian empire, severely repressed under Stalin, who have been using terrorist methods in an attempt to achieve national sovereignty. Gelishkhanov would be regarded a "top terrorist" or a "hero of the Chechen national movement" depending on one's POV. He's notable in Wikipedia terms either way one feels. —Carrite, Sept. 30, 2010.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - perhaps need some re-writing etc .. but notable. yes it is.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE. your argument fails to address how the article meets WP:N or WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable top terrorist/freedom fighter. Even if the article is a stub, it will grow from translations and additions from reliable sources over time. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:59, 13 October 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 redirect to Punggol New Town. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Edgefield Primary School (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 primary school. Delete and/or merge to school district or locality page as per standard procedure. Kudpung (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I should have preferably put a PROD on this, it would have been procedurally deleted by now, but I wanted to keep the option open to merge it, rather than WP:BOLD and unilaterally do the merge. . If there are no new comments, I'll leave it to the closing admin's discretion. Generally if consensus is not reached, articles will generally be closed as default to 'keep'. But if there have been no comments at all, there is no consensus to measure, therefore in the case of all primary schools, the usual procedure is to merge to the school district article and redirect..--Kudpung (talk)
- Redirect to Punggol New Town per standard practice, without proper sourcing there is nothing worth merging. Yoenit (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per usual practice. No need for an AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, 7 October 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) 04:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ronnie Rucker (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)
A radio show host and "co-creator" of a magazine. Despite a handful of references, there is no evidence of notability. Most refs are blogs or not independent. Searching for subject's name brings up a lot of Twitter, blogs etc. Two appearances on non-notable shows, neither of which are mentioned anywhere outside the Youtube, Twitter, Myspace universe. The magazine is unheard of, with only one non-Wikipedia mention on Google. Recently announced a run for politics, but we don't keep candidates on Wikipedia until they win at state level. PROD added twice, and removed by two contributors whose only edits concern this article. Potentially libelous statements about drinking problems made without refs. Dmol (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
- I'm not the original author but am one of the users mentioned as trying to edit the article in question. I'm new and added my reason why I disagree with the arguments to delete this article in the Talk Page. If I was wrong to do it that way I apologize. RR4PREZ (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC) — RR4PREZ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I Added more to Pendejo Magazine Section. Found review of magazine with mention of articles subject as it's Publisher. Added Category Zines. As a Zine it inherently shouldn't be easily found on Google, shouldn't be cause for deletion. Found mention of Shaka Talk in an article in the Honolulu Weekly, publication outside of the Youtube, Twitter, MySpace universe. Removed potentially libelous statement, not needed & a distraction from the article. Removed contended statement about running for office, seemed out of place anyways. RR4PREZ (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. His radio show doesn't seem to be notable, and neither does his zine. (Zines don't get special treatment because they're obscure; it's assumed that any Zine that has achieved notability will have risen out of obscurity in the process.) —Paul A (talk) 03:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree it being a Zine shouldn't qualify it for special treatment but because it's a Zine, inherently not notable, one shouldn't be able to assume because said Zine isn't popular, or "risen out of obscurity," it should be used as a cause to delete an article as it was in the Original AfD and once again above. (note: if memory serves me correctly, zine was not an issue in the original two PROD's) The edits, including the fact that it was a Zine, since the Original AfD were made to address the reasons that provoked this discussion. I think I addressed them well as one could infer by the article being Relisted due to lack of consensus, or what would seem to be the case, no definitive reason for deletion was apparent. If there were I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be having to write this. From the beginning of this process, with the exception of one other user, I haven't seen one editor attempt to improve this article, for example the potentially libelous statements, they were used as a cause for delete as first resort in the original PROD's and once again in the AfD rather than being deleted from the article. Another example is the notion that the subject of this article announced a run for political office. Instead of deleting the statement, trying to get clarification, adding citation needed tags, or any other of the myriad of options available to users, straight to AfD, supported by evidence that one would have to read the original statement with a very crooked eye to reach that conclusion (see discussion page). Instead of looking past the first page of a Google search it's claimed that there are zero mentions of subject outside of a particular universe, straight to PROD. Instead of researching and making an attempt to understand something more, things get labeled "unheard of" and straight to PROD. With that said, there is no way that this article or any article for that matter, can defend it's self against vague causes for deletion like "doesn't seem notable," lazy research, or outright untruths like "no mentions outside of the Youtube, Twitter, or the MySpace universe" as addressed (see edit history). I'm at loss. Is there a process? Is it taken seriously? RR4PREZ (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, (As the person who listed it for AFD). Despite all the several pages of commentry you have added here and on other talk pages, you still have not done what needs to be done and that is to prove that Ronnie Rucker is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Nothing you have added or removed from the article has changed that.--Dmol (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not even sure his 'radio' show is even broadcast anywhere, it appears to be a self-produced web-only thing. And zines can rarely be notable, but the people who make them aren't. The obvious self-promotion/WP:COI/Spam issues aren't helping any either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - None of the sources provided in the article meet WP:RS, and I can't find anything to establish general notability. Delete I'm afraid! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:27, 8 October 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) 04:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- King Lizzard (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 stumbled upon this when I found a "self" image of the subject - it said "I Randall Colmus created this work entirely by myself", when you look at the King Lizzard article, also created by the same user, the first thing it says is King Lizzard (born Randall James Colmus)... From the overall looks of things this user was/is here only to promote themselves via this article. This appears to be a self promotional piece edited mostly by the subject via their user accounts and I.Ps There are no real sources and only links to various "official" websites. The article "asserts notability" but unless sources can back this up I don't see how it meets policy and related guidelines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't comment on notability challenges of entertainers very often. I will mention that while this bio may well be self-produced per nom, as these things go it is written in a dispassionate and informative encyclopedic manner. It's not sourced, and that's a big problem, nor do I have opinion about the notability of its subject one way or another — but it is well done, for what it's worth. —Carrite, Sept. 30, 2010.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Agree that the issue for me is whether there are RS sources reflecting notability. Sound -- have you done a wp:before search? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE, unsourced, self promotion, non notable, Heiro 03:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't find any coverage of him besides social media. Yoenit (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the 20-year period he calls his "famous" years consisted of being in a band that never made a record, getting married, switching religions, and working as an extra. Is that really what this guy considers 'famous'?! Come on, seriously, this article is a joke, right? Right?? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, 7 October 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Elnec (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 domain is spam, and also promoting company products, Advertising. Removed PROD. WuhWuzDat 14:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I wouldn't go so far as to call it spam, but I'm not seeing much in the way of reliable sources either. I'd lean slightly toward delete but maybe someone in the field can shed some more light. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Please consider also that products of the company are sold in the US and UK under different brand names - as "Dataman" and "B&K Precision" - so brand "Elnec" may not be well known there, but for sure is present. Elnec products are used by worldwide Electronics manufacturetrs as Foxcon, Samsung, Acer, etc. Products are also recommended by many chip producers:*Microchip reference, STMicroelectronics reference eg., EM microelectronics reference, XILINX reference, etc. - (may not good references for the article). Pssstpssst (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:02, 14 October 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) 09:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Scott Piecha (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 bio of a journalist has been PRODded twice for notability concerns and contested. It came to my attention because a user has been replacing the content [40] (user claims this is still the same person), however I can't find biographical coverage that would establish notability for any version of the article. January (Cassandra 73) talk 16:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked for sources and come up empty handed. The sources already cited have either rotted away or contain minimal information. I agree with the nominator. There's no way to write a verifiable biography here. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 00:39, 14 October 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) 09:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Plasti-Clad (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)
Restored after my speedy deletion, with a claim that the review in Gear Diary supports the article.. I consider that review to be clearly a promotional write up. The leading contractor claim turns out to be a contract for $23,000, according to the ref. given. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete reads a bit too much like a brochure. It's possible the company that makes this thing may be notable, they do have some big-name clients, but there too sourcing would likely be a significant problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Gear Diary is not citeable. Unless there exists other proper and notable references, this needs to go. --CompRhetoric (talk) 18:52, 14 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad Trip Records (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 evidence that this company/record labol is notablie Oo7565 (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. See my entry at Talk:Bad_Trip_Records#September_2010 re: WP:FAILN, WP:N question on interpretation of "trivial mention", and WP:USEFUL - Note COI(s) in my Userpage! - bonze blayk (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC) - REV bonze blayk (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article cites no non-trivial reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - While the current stub is unsourced, given the ongoing relationship of the label to the catalog of Angry Samoans, one of the seminal bands from the history of punk, there is no reason to believe that sources do not exist or will not emerge if the article is allowed to stand and develop. Label predates the explosion of the internet, which is why a Google search may well be fruitless, but there is probably vintage printed sourcing out there in the long grass. Carrite (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete where is the third party coverage? [41]. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - added references to Bad Trip releases from Robert Christgau's Record Guide; see scans at http://www.badtriprecords.biz/gif/Christgau_Record_Guide.jpg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonze blayk (talk • contribs) 14:55, 15 October 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) 04:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pulp.Net (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 reliable sources (only ones that existed were trivial, giving quotes with promotional text) establishing notability. Tagged as advertising for years without improvement. DreamGuy (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:WEB, and I agree this is likely an advertising attempt. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:01, 7 October 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tape Wrangler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]] • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This stub is an article about one minor brand of tape dispenser. It seems to be promotional and is not really a noteworthy subject. There is an article about the general subject of tape dispensers but I would not want every manufacturer to list their individual products in WK. Wikipedia should not be a product listing service. Pkgx (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think the sources in the article demonstrate that the topic meets the general notability guideline. As far as advertising, I'm not seeing that the article has a promotional tone. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, sources available are mostly press releases, nothing that looks like significant coverage to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 05:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The sources are just press release, which don't supply an notability. Wizard191 (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteComment This has been posted and reposted with only one editor (the author) supporting this article. Let's delete it. Pkgx (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Query - are the sources from the Traverse City Record-Eagle and The Detroit News press releases? What about the product review from Hardware Retailing Magazine? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Have to agree with Arbitrarily0 on this one. The sources he mentions don't look like press releases. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Traverse City article is good, but the Detroit News and Forth Worth Star articles both begin with "You can do anything with duct tape, except for getting it off the roll in a smooth, straight piece. Most of the time, the tape folds over and crinkles as you tear off a strip. A new product solves that problem. The Tape Wrangler is like a giant tape dispenser for duct tape. The tape roll fits on a spool and pulls off across a cutting blade that keeps the cuts neat and...", so it appears to be a reprint from somewhere. I don't have access to the full text, so perhaps they diverge as they continue, but they read like a press blurb floated to newspapers. The Hardware Retailers magazine is "the hardware and home improvement industry’s leading trade publication," and is sent free to members of the North American Hardware Retailers Association, basically a vehicle for advertisers to target hardware retailer with some fluff and feel good pieces, and I don't think these three really go to establish notability in the generals sense. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Detroit News article has a interesting tone (such as starting with a pronoun) for attention-grabbing, but I don't this should necessarily disqualify it is a reliable source. It's my guess that the Forth Worth Star article, printed one week later, is a duplication of the Detroit News article. While I don't know much about Hardware Retailing magazine, the title is "Duct tape dispenser.(SPRING PRODUCT PREVIEW)", making me think it's not a press release, but a product preview by some entity called "Spring". Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm assuming that you have access to the full article in Detroit News, yes? Does it have a byline, such as AP or Reuters? That would be the usual way a reprint between two regional papers would work. As for the 'spring product review' my assumption is that spring refers to the season, but again, I couldn't say without full access to the text of the article. I'm very leerly of using snippets to assess notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Detroit News article has a interesting tone (such as starting with a pronoun) for attention-grabbing, but I don't this should necessarily disqualify it is a reliable source. It's my guess that the Forth Worth Star article, printed one week later, is a duplication of the Detroit News article. While I don't know much about Hardware Retailing magazine, the title is "Duct tape dispenser.(SPRING PRODUCT PREVIEW)", making me think it's not a press release, but a product preview by some entity called "Spring". Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As a biker I only need two tools - WD40 and duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should I use WD40. If it does move and it shouldn't I use duct tape. From what I can see of the topic it seems to be a fairly unique product - I don't know of any other duct tape dispensers and I work in theatres sometimes where we use miles of the stuff. That's OR/POV of course, so take it for what it's worth. Reading the listed sources it does seem to me to be a notable product and I would happily support it being kept on that basis. I do think the article would be better rewritten to feature the company rather than one of its range of products. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mebbe across the pond duct tape is better, but here you'd use gaffer's tape and PB Blaster--WD40's a good cleaner but not much else. (' --Nuujinn (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Really, I don't see notability here. Sven Manguard Talk 03:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Without evidence that the Detroit News coverage is a press release reprint, assuming it is would be original research. That gives two reliable and independent news sources covering the product, which makes it notable under WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question, who's read the entire article in the Detroit News? --Nuujinn (talk) 14:42, 22 October 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) 04:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Veronika Zemanová (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)
Little indication of notability; a google search indicates a couple of sources, but they appear to be exclusively forums or blogs, sites which present wikipedia's own material, and social networking sites. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yes, little chance of scholarly articles on this subject. Establishing notability in the normal way will be impossible or difficult. However one factor which I believe the google searches show is this nude model's fame - explain: In the UK (and possibly Europe) this nude model was in the 80s and 90s famous in her chosen career. As far as I know she did not model much for magazines in North America. Basically it is difficult to understate her fame in the area of 'mens magazines' during that time period. I think that needs to be stated for anyone who needs a cluestick on this one. See the multiple interwiki links for this title which give a clue as to the relative fame of this subject. (or turn safe search off and do an image search for "zemanova" ~699,000 images which is more than the olsen twins per twin..)
- However the article is unlikely to ever amount to a good encyclopaedic article given the subject area, and there is really very little to say about the subject. Probably an odd example where fame does not confer notability. Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Number of hits for a keyword search on the model's name doesn't confer notability. And with the regards to the Olsen twins, WP:OTHERSTUFF. There needs to be non-trivial coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Do not delete. mind your own business. --Jo (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that arguments which are not based on policy or do not address the issues will be disregarded by the closing admin, and uncivil and unjustified "votes" are simply disruptive. Wikipedia is not a democracy and we don't work by counting "votes"; make a valid, policy-based argument or it'll simply be disregarded. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Veronica is indeed very famous. She has appeared for playboy and other major magazines, and has accomplished as much as any other porn model. if you delete here page, you will have to delete a lot of other pages. Personal attack removed GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC) --Jo (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I do not see any significant coverage in the usual sources online. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not meet WP:BIO, imdb only independant source AlgebraT (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesn't even really claim notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable Infinitely Humble (talk) 21:24, 7 October 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Satellite (US band) (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 due to lack of notability. CSD removed by an editor claiming the band indicates notability based on a "specific association with Mitch Allan". While Allan is notable, WP:BAND only supports notability when a band "contains two or more independently notable musicians". This a new band, released debut EP July 2010 and performed together for the first time in August 2010. I do not see where the band meets any criteria of WP:BAND. Additionally, the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Thank you. Cindamuse (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The band contains members of other notable bands. Whether or not this is sufficient to pass WP:MUSIC, it makes it a non-starter as far as speedy deletion is concerned. Given that Allan's notability does not appear to be in doubt (despite the lack of sourcing), why would we want to delete this rather than at least merge it to the Mitch Allan article? --Michig (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Mitch Allan seems to be the smart choice, with no prejudice against splitting it back out when and if they do anything notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 05:54, 14 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lloyd Memorial High School (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)
While High schools are considered notable, this article is not about the high school but about the results of its football team. Not notable. Unsourced. noq (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, rewrite. The nominator is correct that the current article is uninformative. However, this can be easily fixed by recourse to the district's and school's official websites[42][43], and a Google News search turns up quite a bit about the school, including a 2001 article from the Kentucky edition of the Cincinnati Enquirer that gives a nice summary the history of the school and asserts, "In 1956, Lloyd High School made national news when it became one of the first schools in the country to desegregate. The integration went so smoothly the school was featured in a Life magazine article spotlighting its success."[44]
I have to run out for some errands right now, so if someone else wants to take this information and re-do the article, that's great, otherwise I'll deal with it later; butthere's no need to delete the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I have effected a rewrite of the article per the above, keeping the useful infobox from the existing article, adding basic information and history with a couple of sources, and deleting the excessively detailed information about the football team's recent games. I think the article now qualifies as a clear keep under our usual standards for high schools. With respect to Mandsford's comments below, I don't see how it "rubs salt in the wound" to make use of the infobox prepared by the article's creator; it seems to me that a complete deletion of all of the editor's good faith efforts--even the valid ones--would be worse. All the more so because it appears to me, from reviewing User talk:Tleejr, that this editor previously attempted to write an article that included information about the school's history, but fell afoul of WP:COPYVIO. (By the way, I am uncertain if an image of the school's logo may be used in the infobox, as it is currently; if not, of course, that logo may need to be deleted.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you're right. User:Tleejr can still read his original article by clicking upon the article's history tab, an option that wouldn't have been available with an outright delete. Mandsford 01:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Delete Good writing, bad topic. It's the first time contribution from a new editor who may be unfamiliar with the rules concerning notability. Although I appreciate the effort that went into it, there are no high school football teams that are notable enough that their schedules and results can be hosted on Wikipedia. Granted, there are tons of fan-created articles about college teams seasons, and an occasional attempt to create a shrine to every player on a college team, but allowing an article about the Lloyd High team's season would mean that we'd have to allow pages for every other high school sports team as well. I won't rub salt in the wound by suggesting that the contribution be rewritten about something else entirely; the information is organized well, even though the topic itself wouldn't qualify for its own article, and I encourage User:Teleejr to consider that format for other articles. If someone else wants to write their own article called "Lloyd Memorial High School (Erlanger, Kentucky)" they can start from scratch. Mandsford 01:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - all high schools are de facto notable, only primary schools are deleted. This school clearly asserts additional notability according to a The Enquirer article (very good source) about an extremely notable event. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education --Kudpung (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep High schools are presumed notable according to our guidelines, and Arxiloxos's rewrite should assuage any concerns about the article's contents. 28bytes (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per longstanding precedent, although in fairness to the nominator this was a terrible article at the time it was nominated. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article makes an explicit claim of notability, above and beyond our general consensus that secondary schools are inherently notable. Article needs expansion, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on my standards, and on Arxiloxos's excellent job of fixing it. Bearian (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All high schools are notable. Not sure if any of the 73 Google news results mentioning this high school would provide any notable coverage, but doesn't matter, since as I said, all high schools are notable. Dream Focus 18:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong speak 23:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per previous precedent regarding high schools and WP:SNOW. SnottyWong speak 23:19, 13 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Victor C. X. Wang (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 article, which appears to have been written by its subject and has an odd relationship to its sources (for example, it lists Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed as a source for someone who is definitely not mentioned in the book and was, indeed, four years old when it was written) is about someone who doesn't seem to meet the relevant notability guidelines. Chick Bowen 00:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. GS cites negligible. Too early, if ever. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. Can't find any notable mentions in third party publications. Merely being a published author, even one who has written several textbooks and numerous journal articles, is insufficient to establish notability under WP:N. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wang has added a reference to being Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology to his page.[45] However, as the relevant section of WP:PROF states "The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area", and this journal started in 2010 and appears to have published only one quarterly issue, I'm not changing my stance. I can't imagine a journal being any less well-established and still actually existing. Perhaps in a year, though, there may be sufficient notability if the journal prospers. If the author wants to move the article to userspace until then, I'd definitely support that—although, given his behavior in editing the article so far, that may not be an option for long. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Suggest salting Given that even though he was cited for edit-warring on this page, Cxw888 (talk · contribs) is still editing away on his own page, has not responded to any messages left on his talk page, has blatantly ignored the notices on the article (e.g., don't delete the AfD template), and hasn't bothered responding here... I suspect that if the article is deleted, he his highly likely to try recreating it in short order. Therefore, I suggest that if the AfD outcome is "delete", the page should be salted to avoid further edit-warring. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:ACAD Vrivers (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, his academic contributions are mainly as an editor and to teaching aids rather than to quality publications. Fails WP:PROF. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. What about all these books? Abductive (reasoning) 19:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a book, or many books, published doesn't establish notability under the above quoted guidelines. To be notable, other sources must talk about the subject. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's odd, certain frequent contributors to AfD discussions on professors point to editorship/authorship or one or two books as proof of notability. Abductive (reasoning) 20:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think if you look through the guidelines, you'll see that mere editorship doesn't mean much, but being Editor-in-Chief of a notable work does; being published a lot doesn't necessarily count, but publishing one particularly notable work (as backed up by citations in other sources) does, as does having a number of published journal articles that are themselves widely cited by others in their journal articles. As I've said, this fellow is on the cusp right now. It doesn't help that the current article is an autobiography; if kept, it will have to be stubbed. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's odd, certain frequent contributors to AfD discussions on professors point to editorship/authorship or one or two books as proof of notability. Abductive (reasoning) 20:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a book, or many books, published doesn't establish notability under the above quoted guidelines. To be notable, other sources must talk about the subject. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:34, 12 October 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. - Bobet 15:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a vanity article,for the user,Arthur Rubin,other than (has earned a place among the five top ranked undergraduate competitors ) thers nothing else.I don't think this is notable enof for wikipedia. Pixel ;-) 23:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--Pixel ;-) 23:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I made exactly two edits to the article, to add my year of birth, as an indication that it was acceptable to me that it appear in the article, and an attempt to Wikilink the title of my thesis, which seems to have come undone. I suspect a WP:POINT violation. The question of whether I'm notable is open, but the first sentence puts me in a group of 6 of over 20,000 (probably closer to 100,000) total students who have taken the William Lowell Putnam Competition. I decline to declare a Speedy keep, but the nomination reason is factually incorrect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes,Yes,i suspect that you are not nottable enof.Are the winners of the contest nottable?Why a holle article?--Pixel ;-) 23:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - not vanity and clearly notable, even when apparently known as "Wikipedia's Arthur Rubin" [46] (if true then I'm not sure that's the most flattering example I could have given, sorry Arthur). Yomanganitalk 23:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nottable per what?He has a fields medal,or noble?--Pixel ;-) 23:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- HAHAHA.Ok,now i understand why you all mock me.No no,i now that thers no nobel in maths(any one has a gess why? :-))i was putting an example for nottability.I'm not a dumbt like you seem to sujest,you shouldn't make a link ither betewn my intellect and my spelling.--Pixel ;-) 00:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep obviously notable. Nomination is neither compelling nor coherent. Opabinia regalis 00:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - no need to look beyond the Putnam for notability, reliable sources are not a problem, future expansion seems possible. He's also won all of the Nobel prizes for mathematics so far, so I don't see a problem there ... RandomP 00:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sorry, but I'm not convinced that Putnam Top 5ers are encyclopedically notable (why "obviously" notable?) enough for their own article. As an academic mathematician, article so far fails WP:PROF. Bwithh 00:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy since he is well, a user. If some claim to notability can be articulated, then keep. FrozenPurpleCube 01:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. The four years in a row feat is notable. Reid Barton did it too, and I saw him once at a math awards dinner in my high school career. An Erdos number of one, while not notable in and of itself, adds to this person's overall notability. It would be better, though, if this article could be expanded. YechielMan 02:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I'd seriously consider Reid Barton for deletion too. He doesn't seem quite notable according to WP:PROF though I'm sure it's quite likely he'll qualify one day. FrozenPurpleCube 02:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Or he will simply burn out.--Pixel ;-) 01:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I'd seriously consider Reid Barton for deletion too. He doesn't seem quite notable according to WP:PROF though I'm sure it's quite likely he'll qualify one day. FrozenPurpleCube 02:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Erdős number 1. Putnam exam top 5 finisher 4 consecutive years is also notable. Nomination reason given is factually inaccurate, and I doubt that the nominator is qualified to assess encyclopedic notability of mathematician bios. Quale 04:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for your worme and kind words.What i see is an undergraduate competition,and then nothing(apart erdos thing).From the notability critiria only (7.The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.) seems to be closer to the situation.And from that i undestand it like the fields medal or something,not an undergraduate competition.And yes,i now that ther isn't a nobel for maths,you whant my opinion on this?--Pixel ;-) 00:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. Are we going to give everyone with an impressive resume in their field a wikipedia entry? And to head off the increasingly hostile tone of the article supporters, yes, I am qualified to assess the encyclopedic notability of mathematician bios. SkipSmith 06:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Personally, I think he's more notable as a Wikipedian admin. (A good admin yet still...) Though with the article, I would give more weight to his Erdős number then to the Putnam Competition since at it's core the former is work with probably one of the most notable mathematician and the later is ultimately just a contest. It is a difficult and very selective contest but still just a contest. 205.157.110.11 10:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. He is a repeat Putnam Fellow, a Caltech graduate, and a mathematician with Erdős number 1. I don't know anyone else in the same group. Do you? Giftlite 23:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Six people have won the Putnam fellowship 4 times, 15 have won 3 times. There are 509 people with an Erdos number of 1. There are thousands of Caltech graduates. I'm sure I could find thousands of people that have a unique combination of several prestigious titles, accomplishments, or awards. Uniqueness isn't the same as notability. SkipSmith 06:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - doesn't look like a vanity article to me. Erdős 1 is a pretty reliable indicator for notability in mathematicians. Needs to be expanded --Storkk 12:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Erdos number = 1 makes a mathematician notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Should we create entries for all 509 mathematicians with an Erdos number of 1? SkipSmith
- If we have anything to say about them and somebody wants to write them, then yes by all means. 509 is not a huge number of articles by any standards. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I just checked, and there are only 1948 people with a Bacon number of 1. We've got some article writing to do ... SkipSmith 07:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't forget the Katsumi number.--Pixel ;-) 17:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I just checked, and there are only 1948 people with a Bacon number of 1. We've got some article writing to do ... SkipSmith 07:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If we have anything to say about them and somebody wants to write them, then yes by all means. 509 is not a huge number of articles by any standards. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Should we create entries for all 509 mathematicians with an Erdos number of 1? SkipSmith
- 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.