Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 24: Difference between revisions
Ksanthosh89 (talk | contribs) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kipling Sahib |
Ksanthosh89 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
__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/The Connected Baby}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Connected Baby}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian News Parade}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kipling Sahib}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kipling Sahib}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Henry Blackwell}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Henry Blackwell}} |
Revision as of 12:16, 24 January 2012
![]() |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Of note is that the nomination does not provide a valid rationale for deletion, and that if a new article is to be created, a title such as Connected Baby (2015 film) may be used. Furthermore, the WP:COI concerns herein may need to be further addressed. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- The Connected Baby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Name clash with upcoming project connected baby, by film co-creator Suzanne Zeedyk Joni Bendall, Head of Social Media, Suzanne Zeedyk Ltd. (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Joni.Bendall You want to delete this article because your employer is planning on using the name for a different project? CrowCaw 22:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Affirmative. You'll have to forgive me, I am new here - having read through, I didn't think my intention contravened community guidelines. My employer is co-creator and owner of the rights to the film the article describes. As you rightly mentioned, the name is being used for an upcoming project. Joni Bendall, Head of Social Media, Suzanne Zeedyk Ltd. (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Joni.Bendall That is actually not a reason to delete this article. If the new project ends up having an article here as well, it will be disambiguated so that both articles can exist. CrowCaw 22:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy Keep #1 due to the above. Striking vote since it doesnt qualify. No opinion on the article itself, just the nom struck me as out of process. CrowCaw 15:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: There is actually a bit of a concern here about this film potentially failing WP:NFILM. Of the sources on the article, only one of them is actually a WP:RS that can show notability, as the other two are pretty much WP:PRIMARY sources since one is a notification of a screening by the film festival itself and the other is from an organization that funded the film. The original deletion rationale is invalid, but it actually brings up a pretty big concern of notability overall and may still end up being deleted... which also casts a bit of a doubt of notability on the other project that is supposed to be added. I'd probably suggest leaving this open over the concerns of notability. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. The sourcing isn't the strongest, but there is enough here to warrant a keep. If there was an article on Zeedyk herself, I'd recommend that this get merged and redirected to her, but there isn't. However I do want to stress very, very strongly that I would highly recommend that Joni.Bendall either not create it herself or that she go through AfC to make the article because of the strong COI here. I'd also really recommend that you read over our guidelines on editing in general, conflict of interest, notability, and so on. As a COI editor you will be expected to know our guidelines better than a casual editor, as every edit you make will be heavily scrutinized. This may occasionally seem like overkill, but Wikipedia has had a very long history of people trying to use it to promote themselves, either by editing themselves or by hiring people to edit for them as part of a publicity crew. You will need to be able to state/follow policy without misquoting or misinterpreting it, which is especially important because again- we have a history of people doing just that in an attempt to keep an article. Sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it's not, but doing this is a surefire way to ensure that people assume that you are only here to promote. In the cases of where it's unintentional, it's had the unfortunate effect of having people write off editors completely and sometimes people can get pretty brusque in their speech. Sometimes it can even affect how much people are willing to go to help you. I wish it was otherwise, but it happens and I've seen pages get deleted that might have otherwise been salvageable. I know this all sounds a little harsh and a little WP:BITE-y, but I really want to stress how important it is that you go over our guidelines as a whole. Some of it pertains to this article, as it had some fairly promotional WP:PEACOCK type phrasing in it, but I also want to give you a little head's up on the other project that you are intending to add to Wikipedia, as I didn't see much out there that didn't pertain to the 2011 film. Just because a project exists doesn't automatically mean that it belongs on Wikipedia (WP:ITEXISTS), so you may want to be cautious about adding the new article. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep invalid AFD and close per cogent analysis by Tokyogirl79 and the obvious WP:COI of nominator... who should go study WP:PRIMER and WP:NAU and more importantly WP:DEL#REASON. As this 2011 film already exists, your production company will have to settle on Connected Baby (2015 film) (or whatever release year) if or when the newer project merits an article. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Apologies for the apparent obvious mistake made listing this under AfD. I did so in good faith, after examining WP:DEL#REASON. I would still argue that this article has potential grounds for deletion under lack of notability, but it is clear that there is some doubt to that. As it stands, understanding that from the POV of more experienced users than I the article is not suitable for deletion, I shall endeavour to ensure that the article is more accurate and follows guidelines on promotional phrasing.
- additionally, we'd would like to make the following 3 observations, in the final stages of this discussion:
- 1. My employer did not create the original Wikipedia entry. She had resisted its creation at the time of its creation. (She has since tried to ensure at least the accuracy of the information contained in the article.)
- 2. She agrees with your analysis, that the film does not fit the criteria of 'notable'. This is one of the reasons she would like the entry removed. The film never premiered in any international film festivals, nor was it reviewed by any formal judging panel. Rather, it should be considered a 'resource' for those interested in infant psychology.
- 3. It is the case that the name of the film is closely related to a forthcoming new initiative, by the same name 'connected baby'. But we do not plan to seek an entry in Wikipedia on the project. So there is no conflict there.
- If the decision is made to retain the article, then we have a revised entry that we wish to post, which gives a more detailed account of the film's purpose and history.Joni Bendall, Head of Social Media, Suzanne Zeedyk Ltd. (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Joni.Bendall: In anything you suggest, please avoid WP:PROMOTION, but best if you pretty much stay away from editing the article yourself. That Yunshui created the article back in 2011, means that "someone-not-your-employer" thought the topic notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. That your employer may not personally think it notable runs contrary to our notability criteria for films. That she may wish this one deleted because of her plans for a new and similarly named project seems a bit self-serving at this point it time. See WP:NAU. If she indeed has no plans to replace this article, then your original deletion argument above fails. A new article on the new film may well be created by someone else and would then be titled per WP:NCF. But most importantly, as WP:COI strongly discourages anyone with too-close a conection from editing topics with which they have vested interests. IF your employer would like to have the current article modified in some manner, you or she can offer suggestions on the article's talk page and provide the reliable sources, sources independent of the film or filmmaker, that support and confirm and such suggestions. Study WP:V, and WP:RS. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Of note is that the nomination does not provide a valid rationale for deletion, and that if a new article is to be created, a title such as Connected Baby (2015 film) may be used. Furthermore, the WP:COI concerns herein may need to be further addressed. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- The Connected Baby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Name clash with upcoming project connected baby, by film co-creator Suzanne Zeedyk Joni Bendall, Head of Social Media, Suzanne Zeedyk Ltd. (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Joni.Bendall You want to delete this article because your employer is planning on using the name for a different project? CrowCaw 22:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Affirmative. You'll have to forgive me, I am new here - having read through, I didn't think my intention contravened community guidelines. My employer is co-creator and owner of the rights to the film the article describes. As you rightly mentioned, the name is being used for an upcoming project. Joni Bendall, Head of Social Media, Suzanne Zeedyk Ltd. (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Joni.Bendall That is actually not a reason to delete this article. If the new project ends up having an article here as well, it will be disambiguated so that both articles can exist. CrowCaw 22:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy Keep #1 due to the above. Striking vote since it doesnt qualify. No opinion on the article itself, just the nom struck me as out of process. CrowCaw 15:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: There is actually a bit of a concern here about this film potentially failing WP:NFILM. Of the sources on the article, only one of them is actually a WP:RS that can show notability, as the other two are pretty much WP:PRIMARY sources since one is a notification of a screening by the film festival itself and the other is from an organization that funded the film. The original deletion rationale is invalid, but it actually brings up a pretty big concern of notability overall and may still end up being deleted... which also casts a bit of a doubt of notability on the other project that is supposed to be added. I'd probably suggest leaving this open over the concerns of notability. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. The sourcing isn't the strongest, but there is enough here to warrant a keep. If there was an article on Zeedyk herself, I'd recommend that this get merged and redirected to her, but there isn't. However I do want to stress very, very strongly that I would highly recommend that Joni.Bendall either not create it herself or that she go through AfC to make the article because of the strong COI here. I'd also really recommend that you read over our guidelines on editing in general, conflict of interest, notability, and so on. As a COI editor you will be expected to know our guidelines better than a casual editor, as every edit you make will be heavily scrutinized. This may occasionally seem like overkill, but Wikipedia has had a very long history of people trying to use it to promote themselves, either by editing themselves or by hiring people to edit for them as part of a publicity crew. You will need to be able to state/follow policy without misquoting or misinterpreting it, which is especially important because again- we have a history of people doing just that in an attempt to keep an article. Sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it's not, but doing this is a surefire way to ensure that people assume that you are only here to promote. In the cases of where it's unintentional, it's had the unfortunate effect of having people write off editors completely and sometimes people can get pretty brusque in their speech. Sometimes it can even affect how much people are willing to go to help you. I wish it was otherwise, but it happens and I've seen pages get deleted that might have otherwise been salvageable. I know this all sounds a little harsh and a little WP:BITE-y, but I really want to stress how important it is that you go over our guidelines as a whole. Some of it pertains to this article, as it had some fairly promotional WP:PEACOCK type phrasing in it, but I also want to give you a little head's up on the other project that you are intending to add to Wikipedia, as I didn't see much out there that didn't pertain to the 2011 film. Just because a project exists doesn't automatically mean that it belongs on Wikipedia (WP:ITEXISTS), so you may want to be cautious about adding the new article. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep invalid AFD and close per cogent analysis by Tokyogirl79 and the obvious WP:COI of nominator... who should go study WP:PRIMER and WP:NAU and more importantly WP:DEL#REASON. As this 2011 film already exists, your production company will have to settle on Connected Baby (2015 film) (or whatever release year) if or when the newer project merits an article. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Apologies for the apparent obvious mistake made listing this under AfD. I did so in good faith, after examining WP:DEL#REASON. I would still argue that this article has potential grounds for deletion under lack of notability, but it is clear that there is some doubt to that. As it stands, understanding that from the POV of more experienced users than I the article is not suitable for deletion, I shall endeavour to ensure that the article is more accurate and follows guidelines on promotional phrasing.
- additionally, we'd would like to make the following 3 observations, in the final stages of this discussion:
- 1. My employer did not create the original Wikipedia entry. She had resisted its creation at the time of its creation. (She has since tried to ensure at least the accuracy of the information contained in the article.)
- 2. She agrees with your analysis, that the film does not fit the criteria of 'notable'. This is one of the reasons she would like the entry removed. The film never premiered in any international film festivals, nor was it reviewed by any formal judging panel. Rather, it should be considered a 'resource' for those interested in infant psychology.
- 3. It is the case that the name of the film is closely related to a forthcoming new initiative, by the same name 'connected baby'. But we do not plan to seek an entry in Wikipedia on the project. So there is no conflict there.
- If the decision is made to retain the article, then we have a revised entry that we wish to post, which gives a more detailed account of the film's purpose and history.Joni Bendall, Head of Social Media, Suzanne Zeedyk Ltd. (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Joni.Bendall: In anything you suggest, please avoid WP:PROMOTION, but best if you pretty much stay away from editing the article yourself. That Yunshui created the article back in 2011, means that "someone-not-your-employer" thought the topic notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. That your employer may not personally think it notable runs contrary to our notability criteria for films. That she may wish this one deleted because of her plans for a new and similarly named project seems a bit self-serving at this point it time. See WP:NAU. If she indeed has no plans to replace this article, then your original deletion argument above fails. A new article on the new film may well be created by someone else and would then be titled per WP:NCF. But most importantly, as WP:COI strongly discourages anyone with too-close a conection from editing topics with which they have vested interests. IF your employer would like to have the current article modified in some manner, you or she can offer suggestions on the article's talk page and provide the reliable sources, sources independent of the film or filmmaker, that support and confirm and such suggestions. Study WP:V, and WP:RS. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- 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.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian News Parade Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kipling Sahib Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Henry Blackwell Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penny Sartori {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Fenwick (neuropsychologist)} Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Association for the Dually Diagnosed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bugei jūhappan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hieronymous Cruse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Book Tokens Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nyctimus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sidhani
- 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. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 05:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Molemo Maarohanye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This one is definitely borderline, mainly because the subject doesn't meet WP:PERP, and although he's supposedly a former child star and current hip-hop artist, the gospel tune mentioned in the article appears to be his only real hit song ever, and the South African charts that are RS are for airplay only. Therefore, I can't verify anything in the vein of WP:BAND, WP:ACTOR, or anything like that. There is a lot of coverage, but it is all written about the court case and things that happened afterwards. The articles aren't tremendously in-depth, and tend to be repetitious. In short, I can't determine with any certainty if he was really notable prior to the crime, and the crime itself hasn't been portrayed as notable other that the fact that it involves a minor B-list celebrity (maybe?), so despite the coverage, I can see this being WP:NOTNEWS. MSJapan (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 18:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tachycardia (disambiguation) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cibikli Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villebernier Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsuyuharai Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rembrandt's J'Accuse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Hivju Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianico Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N2KL Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthijs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapinanthus