Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 4
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 15:30, 3 March 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
- 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. Jayjg (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Trillbass (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 cited, didn't find anything in a search. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Here's their entry at Allmusic, at least as a verification that they exist. Remember that search engines aren't an absolute gauge of notability; that said, I couldn't find any substantial articles from a cursory search, either. Noir (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete - No, search engine results aren't an absolute gauge of notability, but when the article provides no sourcing, it is the best tool we have available. I found this interview. But that's all I could dig up. That's not enough for me to say keep. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware that Google is not the ultimate test for every subject under the sun, but for an American musical group that is currently active, we should be able to find something we can use if they are at all notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I couldn't find any reliable sources for this band. Narthring (talk • contribs) 16:10, 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ravinder Jagdev (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)
Apparently non-notable subject, the article has no references and I've not found any significant coverage via google. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Editor's Response: There is not much because not many people have written about him but i have found a few refencences from him and will be adding them by the end of the day. -------------
- Delete No independent references strong indicates lack of notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Editor's Response: SuperPC and Fancy Show Tech are very crediable sources--------------------------------------------------------------
- Comment, please sign your posts by ending them with four tildes (~). SuperPC is a handle, the ref provided is to a personal blog, and such are not reliable. I see no reference to Fancy Show Tech, but it also appears to be a personal blog. Please review wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Editor's Response: Fancy Show Tech is not a personal blog for SuperPC. superpc's bio which rav is mentioned in is from a very crediable blog in the tech world 71.253.250.9 (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC) — 71.253.250.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment, when I google fancy show tech, I get to this, and the about link takes to a blurb "SuperPC has been in the world of technology for a long time. He started his first YouTube channel in 2006. He had then made funny movies while still being in the tech world for a long time. In 2010, he founded Fancy Show Tech. Fancy Show Tech has been very successful in the tech blog field and SuperPC continues to make new posts everyday. Read more on SuperPC..." Do you mean another site? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, and no, Fancy Show Tech / SuperPC is not a reliable source as outlined in WP:RS. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editor's Responce: It is noit just superpc there are a few other writers on fancy show tech. just read some of the blog posts 71.253.250.9 (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the crux of the matter. Those blog posts are not reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability. You can have, ten, one hundred or one thousand of them and it would still not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Self-promoting autobiographical spam. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Autobiographical piece, lacking reliable sources or any evidence of notability. I'm sure he's a smart kid, and maybe someday he will do something notable, but at this point does not meet Wikipedia standards. --MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interstate 69 The Road To Pleasure Mixtape (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 mixtape, fails WP:NALBUMS. Lacks significant coverage from secondary reliable sources to assert notability. Prod was contested. — ξxplicit 23:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SPEEDY DELETE, non notable mixtape, more than likely self promotion of some sort, delete with all possible hast. Heiro 01:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NALBUM: mixtapes are generaly non-notable and no reliable source contradicts this. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 5 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. overturned un-necessary relist by a non-admin, The issue is sources and the keep side hasn't produced any. Also keep arguments are variations of INTERESTING & OTHERSTUFF which cut no ice. Spartaz Humbug! 06:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Soccer Matrix (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 product, no references 2 says you, says two 22:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I believe Soccer Matrix is a very notable topic, of interest to soccer enthusiasts, engineers, and others. I don't play or watch soccer, but am interested in this device from the standpoint of impact sensors and signal processing. Someone else might not care about that but be interested in the use of computers for sports training. Someone researching on Wikipedia for any of that might be interested in this article. I haven't used the thing and don't know how well it actually works. I've been trying to find more references, which might include positive or negative criticism of the technology or this specific device. I've found some intriguing online videos that show it in use but am not sure that those are appropriate to link to.Mandolinface (talk)
- Comment This deletion discussion has absolutely nothing to do with the fact Soccer Matrix is a commercial product, the issue is that its a non-notable product. Notability for the purposes of Wikipedia means that an article's subject (person, organization, product, etc...) has been discussed in multiple print or online sources that are reliable, non-trivial, and independent of the topic itself. From everything we've been able to see, Soccer Matrix has not been mentioned anywhere, let alone in sources that would meet the thresholds required by WP:V and WP:N. 2 says you, says two 05:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-non notable product with no references except to an advertizing site, which seems to be its only google hits. Heiro 01:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As a European football enthusiast, I disagree with Mandolinface, this isn't notable. It's a product that fails N and currently the page itself fails V. Sven Manguard Talk 02:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding to my earlier comment, I've been told that Soccermatrix is the first implimentation of MEMs technlogy in a sports training product—though I'm waiting to find a valid source to reference before putting that in the article. Anyone researching sports training devices, electronic sensing in sports, soccer training methods, etc. might want an article just like this.
- Add to that the precedent of the many other sports and technology Wikipedia articles that happen to deal with a commercial product:
- Hawk-Eye
- MacCAM
- Shoe Goo
- LZR Racer
- PointTracker
- NordicTrack
- Nike Mercurial Vapor (one of five individual articles on Adidas products)
- Adidas Predator (one of 17 individual articles on Adidas products)
- X-Bike
- ...If we delete Soccer Matrix, shouldn't we delete all these.Mandolinface (talk)
- Some of them, probably.--ClubOranjeT 00:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the idea. I went through and AfDd a few. The shoues are both notable, as is the swimsuit and perhaps some of the software, but the Shoe Goo has to go. BTW this is an excellent example of how WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can backfire. Oh and this article still isn't notable enough to be kept. Sven Manguard Talk 05:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a "backfire," that's my point. Lets delete all articles that merely describe a commercial product, if that's the policy. Some of these, unlike the Soccer Matrix article, are filled with adjectives and unsupported claims (especially in the case of athletic shoe articles).Mandolinface (talk) 04:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the idea. I went through and AfDd a few. The shoues are both notable, as is the swimsuit and perhaps some of the software, but the Shoe Goo has to go. BTW this is an excellent example of how WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can backfire. Oh and this article still isn't notable enough to be kept. Sven Manguard Talk 05:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of them, probably.--ClubOranjeT 00:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no demonstration of notability, merely an advert for a product. No obvious sources found to indicate it is anything worthy of note here.--ClubOranjeT 00:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand previous view with policy reasoning: per WP:NOT; Personal inventions...not notable enough to be an article until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it, per WP:GNG; has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject --ClubOranjeT 04:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sheer advertising. Figureofnine (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep ...unless there is a Wikipedia policy against some interesting use of technology that hapens to be a commercial product--in which case many other things in Wikipedia should go too.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.135.113 (talk) 6 October 2010
- Note: This IP has two edits, both here. Clear canvassing or meatpuppetry. Sven Manguard Talk 04:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems like an interesting example of technology. I would like to see more information about how the product actually works, however. If this article is deleted, than the many thousands of other Wikipedia articles that discuss specific sports products should also be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aholub (talk • contribs) 23:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC) — Aholub (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This user has less than ten edits, and is not likely to have found this page without assistance. Likely meatpuppet. Sven Manguard Talk 04:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Why single out this page as too commercial when there's an actual Wikipedia category for Nike products? Is Nike paying for that or something? This soccer matrix page is written without adjectives or hyperbole and other things that would make it advertising-like. It reads like an encyclopedia entry on something interesting--though it does need more references. .75.0.176.163 (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This user has less than ten edits, and is not likely to have found this page without assistance. Likely meatpuppet. Sven Manguard Talk 04:49, 9 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, Alpha Quadrant talk 20:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Alpha Quadrant talk 20:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article is appears to be on a notable topic. The article just needs to be rewritten. --Alpha Quadrant talk 20:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment POV issues aside, what exactly is notable about it? There are no non-trivial, reliable sources that are independent of the subject that I was able to find... I'm not entirely convinced it even passes WP:V. Rescue squad is great for articles where there is a reasonable belief that the subject is notable (i.e. reliable sources are known to exist but simply need to be tracked down and/or incorporated in the article) or the article has potential but is littered with copyright, POV, SPAM or other concerns. When the product's manufacturer is redlinked and there are no returns on a google/ google news search other than this article and press-release reprints, there's a pretty good chance the article's subject is not notable. 2 says you, says two 22:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that there are three SPAs for keep. (possible socks, although Mandolinface is contesting this and I'll say nothing more on the subject until after the investigation) That leaves the creator and Alpha Quadrant as only the two keeps. Compare that against the four (five) deletes, and there's a clear consensus to lose this thing. Sven Manguard Talk 01:54, 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 delete. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chelmsford City season 2010-11 (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)
- Coolman372 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
As agreed here and confirmed here, clubs lower than the Conference National are deemed below the notability threshold for season articles. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Nom particularly as this season does not appear especially notable as far as anything actually worth mentioning is on the page.--ClubOranjeT 00:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Not sufficiently notable for an article. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. GiantSnowman 12:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. —Half Price 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Henri Herbert (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 could find very little coverage out there outside of the usual myspace pages and youtube videos. Here is the main thing I found [1]. Does not seem to have drawn the kind of coverage we need to construct a verifiable biography. Gigs (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If that's the best sourcing you can find, then the subject clearly does not Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-sourced to myspace and his personal website, non notable on own, at best a brief mention at The Stargazers (1980s group), if a ref can be provided he is actually involved with them. Heiro 01:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Have to say keep, if their is enough info on this man to make an article like this. then I dont see a problem.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete @BabbaQ: Yes, there is plenty of information, but if it comes from the person himself (via personal sites) then it's a moot point. @Everyone else: Fails WP:N. Sven Manguard Talk 21:22, 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. redcirects don't requiore afds but this is inadequately sourced Spartaz Humbug! 06:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Red Bull 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)
I cannot find any third party reliable sources to confirm notability. The Page says it is a subsidiary of red bull, but again, no verification for that. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge-no references, and google only seems to find the red bull site, twitter and youtube. At best, it warrants a section of the Red Bull article. Heiro 01:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nothing notable here Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 09:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - [2] confirms that RBR is not some whacky trademark violation, I think, if that's what you mean by wp:V. It sure seems like the subject is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, but I think a redirect plus a small note at Red Bull about this unit to satisfy WP:REDIRECT#PLA is reasonable. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect - Aside from ErikHaugen's reference, I couldn't find any other independent and reliable sources to verify notability. If this is a legit label, it might be worth adding to the Red Bull wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artlovesyou (talk • contribs) 04:51, 6 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 delete. CopyVio Ronhjones (Talk) 21:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seattle Sutton's Healthy Eating (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)
Notability. Copy vio. Promotional. The Eskimo (talk) 20:59, 4 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. Jayjg (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Tweet Heat" (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)
Prod removed by author, no third party reliable sources to show notability. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability is neither asserted nor shown. Edward321 (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable application. JIP | Talk 05:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No-Delete This is currently an App that went live in Bing Maps App. I am still trying to take time to build the wikipedia site so that people can better understand about that. User:Viswa Mani Peddinti 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not to help others understand about an app you like. It's an encyclopedia accepting only articles on subjects that have received coverage in external sources. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article is about a cell phone application. I could not find any reputable third party references. --Alpha Quadrant talk 20:52, 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 Userfy: Primary editor requested userfication. Consensus to delete, plus that request means I'm closing this early.. Primary editor requested userfication. Consensus to delete, plus that request means I'm closing this early. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What Men Know that Women Don't (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 almost entirely quoted copyrighted text. I'm left with the distinct impression that this a promotional piece. Of the two WP:RS-looking sources, the Irish Times source is just a search for "Zubaty" and the Harvard Crimson source has only a few scant details about an apparent rally to promote an earlier verson of the book in 1995. The publisher, Virtualbookworm.com, likely falls under vanity press considerations.[3] An article on the author was deleted earlier this year. I believe this article fails to meet WP:NOTABILITY. — Scientizzle 20:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article pic, File:Whatmencover.jpg, appears to have WP:COPYRIGHT issues.[4] — Scientizzle 20:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is short, as I expected. (Sorry couldn't help that. :-) ) Anyway it seems to be semi-self published by the sound of Virtualbookworm, the publisher, so not notable. Perhaps an article on the author, Rich Zubaty, would work. Borock (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Guess What??? (Sorry about the triple question mark.) There used to be an article on the author, Rich Zubaty. But guess what? It got deleted. Why? There was no reference to an another article on any work produced by him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lew Loot (talk • contribs) 07:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A self published book [5], with no significant coverage of either the book or the author in reliable sources and held in a grand total of 23 libraries world wide. [6] Note that I have removed from the article significant amounts of verbatim pasted text from http://news.mensactivism.org/articles/01/12/31/0616240.shtml as a copyright violation and further removed excessive quotation in violation of Wikipedia:Non-free content. Please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Zubaty and its associated talk page for why the author is also not notable. Voceditenore (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:NBOOK. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Voceditenore (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per discusison aboveSadads (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per discusison above by User:Voceditenore Heiro 01:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The expression "vanity press" is a little outdated since with modern Internet publishing and marketing an author can self-publish a book and expect to make a profit if it sells at all. So no longer "vanity." Borock (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agenda Behind Demands for Deletion Somewhere out there today is another Vincent Van Gogh who could really use a wikipedia page to keep bread on his table, but you will never know him because of your predilection for the old and the staid and the hugely publicized over the new and the controversial and the almost, but not quite, unknown. If Rich Zubaty was a feminist would we even be having this discussion? Has any feminist, EVER, been deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lew Loot (talk • contribs) 06:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In answer to your question, just some of the articles about feminists deleted via discussion, with an excerpt from the original article:
AFD: JeeYeun Lee ("JeeYeun Lee is a queer theorist. She is an Asian-American Bi-sexual woman, who is indeed a feminist...")
AFD: Carlin Ross ("Carlin Ross is a sex-positive feminist blogger and attorney...")
AFD: Bridget Irish ("Bridget Irish ...is an American performance artist, lesbian feminist and Marxist...")
AFD: Katherine Hanson ("Katherine Hanson is an American feminist. In the 1990s, she was the head of an organization known as the Women's Educational Equity Act Publishing Center...")
AFD: Nina (poet) ("her poems discuss issues such as pregnancy, female liberation, racial equality...her poems attack and criticize sexual and societal mores and taboos, especially those associated with and promoted by Christians, (especially the Roman Catholic Church) conservatives, reactionaries, fascists, and even moderates and socialists who are not socialist enough...").
Many more have been deleted via the Proposed deletion process or speediliy deleted as unambiguous advertising/no credibile claim to notability. Most of the original articles can be found on Deletionpedia. Voceditenore (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In answer to your question, just some of the articles about feminists deleted via discussion, with an excerpt from the original article:
- Do Not Delete Just for the record, any decisions to delete are NOT unanimous. Do not delete. Lew Loot (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Clearly fails wikipedia's notability requirements. To Lew Loot, nobody here is putting forth a bias for or against feminism or any other aspect of the book's content. What we are concerned with here is establishing whether the topic is notable based upon wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I suggest you carefully read Wikipedia:Notability (books) which clearly explains what this criteria is. If you feal that What Men Know that Women Don't does meet this criteria, please make a statement to that effect here which explains your reasoning for that viewpoint.4meter4 (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, see earlier discussions on this subject. Lew Loot, it does not have to be unanimous .. you really think that if you were the only vote to keep that then the consensus would be keep? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE We've been through this all before with the same cast of characters: Beestra, Voiceditnore. You people don't like the topic and want to see it banished. But this book meets sufficient requirements of for inclusion. It has been in print for 17 years in two different editions. Tens of thousands of men and women around the world have read it and hundreds have provided personal positive testimonials as to its value (which you won’t accept as verification of notability). It’s simply the BEST BOOK ABOUT MEN ever written, with Susan Faludi’s “Stiffed” coming in a close second. Hundreds of copies have been stolen from libraries by feminists who do not believe in free speech. Leo Tolstoy and Mark Twain self-published because any writer with a following knows that by self-publishing you can keep your book in print indefinitely, rather than having it go into remainders after three months. What kicked this episode off is that Zubaty was just interviewed by a writer for the Globe and Mail in Canada so we prepared this page thinking we would have a sufficiently large and current cite to accompany the Irish Times, and the Harvard Crimson...and then editors at that paper sliced out any mentions of Zubaty for political reasons...but we decided to go ahead and submit this book page anyway with Svoboda’s online book review. Your methods are classically feminine. You do not like the topic, have decided it does not belong on wikipedia, and now are lurching around looking for ways to justify that decision. It’s all in the book. You’ll delete it, like you did Zubaty’s personal page, despite the fact that it qualifies in every way for inclusion. But word is getting around that though wikipedia safely handles any safe topic, it allows itself to be bullied by the tyranny of the majority on anything controversial. Well, good luck with your uncyclopedia, aggregator of popular knowledge that can be found on line. You are like the Popular Mechanics of intelligent thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.207.192 (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC) — 72.234.207.192 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment "we prepared this page"? The page was created by Lew Loot (talk · contribs). You have edited it extensively, and in these two rather uncivil comments [7] [8] on my talk page today, you refer to What Men Know that Women Don't as your book and your page. You need to read WP:Conflict of interest and of course WP:Notability (books). The latter is what the outcome of this discussion will be based on, nothing else. These guidelines have been pointed out to you many times, by many editors. Voceditenore (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
what Men know about hypocrisy I asked you Voceditenore what your name is and where YOUR book is and you refuse to say. This book has been in print for 17 years, has sold 25,000 copies worldwide, received hundreds of personal letters and emails noting it's valuable contributions to gender issues. In the last 17 years I have done over 200 radio shows on this book and its’ men’s topics. In the last six months youtube hosted 19,000 downloads to 40 different countries of the What Men Know That Women Don't video. It’s been reviewed by the Irish times and the Spokane Spokesman, numerous online reviewers, and I, as it s author have been mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, the Harvard Crimson, Transitions Men’s magazine, the Chicago Sun-Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and numerous other men’s publications and some feminist publications. The Sterling Institute of relationship wikipedia page uses it as a cite for their men’s organization. But though it is the best book ever written in human history about MEN, but because it is despised by feminists, it is blacklisted in most main stream media. No...you have already decided to delete this page. You are just looking for justifications. No one here is looking to improve the article. Your snap judgments revolve around how few libraries have the book when hundreds of copies have been stolen from libraries by feminist harpies who have no love for free speech. You are arrogant and prejudiced and the only reason I’m writing this is because I want it archived. Lewis worked hard putting this together and you have no business deleting this. Rich Zubaty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.207.192 (talk • contribs)
- No one wants to improve the article, because it does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. If you are, indeed, the author of this book, then you have a conflict of interest. It doesn't matter how many radio shows you have done to promote this book, or how many downloads on YouTube it has, it is not notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17 years of notability This book is notable to tens of thousands of people who have some appreciation for men's issues which clearly is none of you. While I spend my days fighting against war and fighting corporate greed, you spend your time cruising around anonymously looking for preoccupied worker bees like me to victimize. There's a word for that. This book has sold small amounts every month for the past 17 years and has appreciable amounts of notability as stated above, and nothing you imply is going to eliminate that. As I said, Lewis worked hard on this and I can't believe you hypocrites are going to delete him again. That’s why I’m coming to his aid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.207.192 (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Zubaty, you are going to need to prove that this book meets Wikipedia's notability guideline for books. Just asserting its notability by vaguely saying that thousands of people have bought it (along with your usual incivility and personal attacks) is not going to cut it. Also, please stop pretending that Lew Loot isn't you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article author Lew Loot has been previously chastised on his behavior regarding a prior attempt at "establishing" the notability of Rich Zubaty & his self-published works.
Back in May, his incendiary remarks during the AfD debate warranted deletion of his comments. He's most recently been warned about posting remarks in this current article's discussion page without proper user-tagging.
I see now that Rich Zubaty himself has "signed" a comment from the previously anonymous IP 72.234.207.192. Mr. Zubaty's edits to this and prior related articles violate WP:NPOV & WP:COI.
Wikipedia is not the proper forum for him and other Zubaty "fans" to garner free advertising for his books and website. DennisDallas (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find sufficient reliable sources to support the assertion of notability for this book. And if I were the author, I'd spend a little more time tracking down links to reviews and other coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, and a little less time insulting the editors here, since only one of those activities is likely to keep the article from being deleted. If you've gotten reviews in the Wall Street Journal and the Chicago Sun-Times, for crying out loud, post some links to them here! Or if not links, at least dates so we can look them up. Demonstrating press coverage of your book is a much, much better use of your time here if your goal is to keep the article. 28bytes (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break
[edit]- LOTS MORE CITES
Thank you 28bytes, for showing a sincere interest. You are the first one. If you will be kind enough to show us HOW to present this information, we will follow your advice to the T.
..................................
First off, Lew is in Luxembourg. I am in Hawaii. We are NOT the same person. He is one of the thousands of people who read my book, got a lot out of it. and wants to help.........
ANY ONLINE SEARCH FOR THE BOOK SHOULD INCLUDE BOTH NAMES........
Surviving the Feminization of America (original name 1993) What Men Know That Women Don't (2003)
same book, two editions......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.207.192 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 6 October 2010
- Note that the remainder of this message posted lengthy verbatim copies of articles etc. To make the actual discussion easier to follow and edit, I have moved this to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/What Men Know that Women Don't where editors can examine it and advise. Voceditenore (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Mr. Zubaty, for providing those links. I can't promise they'll tip the balance of the discussion towards keeping the article, but that's certainly the right approach to take in advocating for the book's notability. 28bytes (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Summary of the information/links provided at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/What Men Know that Women Don't:
- Mentions of Zubaty in 3 articles by the same author in the opinion section of The Irish Times, including one which reviews both his book and a play by another author which begins: "I want to mention two artistic works from last year, each in its own way obscure, which, by virtue of being overlooked, indicate the kinds of discussion we seek to avoid." [9] (Link currently in article and has never been removed)
- A brief article in the Harvard Crimson describing a demo organized by Zubaty where he was publicizing his book [10] (Link currently in the article)
- Text from a non-available article in the Wall Street Journal which appears to basically quote this article in the Cornell Sun, but adds: "The paper, however, misses another Zubaty tome, What Men Know That Women Don't, described on his web site as 'the book that unshames men and frees your brainwaves for recovery from Feminism'."
- A reprint of an article by Zubaty (but not about him or his book) which originally appeared in The Washington Times. [11]
- An article by Zubaty (but not about him or his book) which originally appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times Commentary section, October 29, 1994 (reprinted here)
- Notes on "What Men Know That Women Don't" by Lion Kimbro on Kimbro's self-published website. Lion Kimbro's Wiki [12] in which Kimbro says that he has not actually read the book. The notes are based primarily on Svoboda's review on another "open contribution" website, mensactivism.org [13] (already linked in the article)
- Excerpt quoted from a web site "Brother to Brother Culture Comments" (no link provided and I could find no trace of the web site)
- Apparently interviewed with others in "Peace Accord Will Women and Men Ever Learn to Resolve Their Differences and Just Get Along?", The Spokesman-Review, October 23, 1994 [14], although it's behind a subscription wall, so I don't know what it says.
Other reliable sources which I've found (although all but the Male View and possibly the Culture Wars) are extremely brief mentions of either the book or Zubaty:
- A 1999 review of Surviving the Feminization of America from Male View (ISSN 1361-1968). The magazine is no longer published. The article can found at Highbeam Research, to which I have subscription access.
- Culture Wars (magazine), "Selling Contempt", Ultramontane Associates/American Center for Law and Justice, Vol. 20, 2000 (only snippet views, but looks like it might deal substantially with Surviving the Feminization of America)
- Kaye, Miranda; Tolmie, Julia, "Discoursing Dads: The Rhetorical Devices of Fathers' Rights Groups", Melbourne University Law Review, April 1998 (Zubaty's article, "Reuniting Fathers with Their Families" in the Washington Times cited in a footnote)
- Klein, Ellen R., Undressing feminism: A philosophical exposé, (Series: Paragon Issues in Philosophy), Paragon House, 2002. ISBN 1557788111 (Surviving the Feminization of America p. 61 cited in a footnote)
- Boyd, Susan B. et al.. Reaction and resistance: feminism, law, and social change, University of British Columbia Press, 2007. ISBN 077481411X (brief mention of Zubaty as one of 9 authors whose writings are derivative of works published in the 70s and 80s and footnoted to What Men Know That Women Don't)
- Ducat, Stephen, The wimp factor: gender gaps, holy wars, and the politics of anxious masculinity, Beacon Press, 2004. ISBN 0807043443 (brief analysis of the cover image of Surviving the Feminization of America)
- Parke, Ross D. and Brott, Armin A. Throwaway dads: the myths and barriers that keep men from being the fathers, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1999, ISBN 0395860415 (brief mention of Surviving the Feminization of America under the heading "New Misogynists")
- Preston, John, "Blast those dungarees", Sunday Telegraph, 30 January 2000) via Highbeam Research (brief mention in a review of an episode of the BBC2 programme, Counterblast: "After 15 minutes, however, he was starting to run out of steam. He'd already called on the services of a like-minded American with the unlikely name of Rich Zubaty, described simply as "an author", who provided the usual array of meaningless statistics that these occasions demand. "Did you know that 19 out of every 20 people who die on the job are men?" Rich announced, at which George could only shake his head and mutter "Middle-class dykes", in a distracted sort of way."
- Goodman, Marshall Rockford, Karla Marx, lulu.com, 2008, ISBN 0557002966 (a self-published book, so very marginally a reliable source, but has a quote from What Men Know that Women Don't)
I had originally provided the above sources (apart from Male View) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Zubaty. Note also that the Mens' Studies Press (founded in 1992) publishes five peer-reviewed journals, one of which is the journal of the American Men's Studies Association. I searched all five journals from 1992 to the present for "Zubaty" and could not find a mention. I also searched "Zubaty" in their 2008 International Guide to Literature on Masculinity: A Bibliography with zero results. Voceditenore (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Additional sources added by Voceditenore (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MORE CITES
Thank you to Voceeditnore for this collation. Too bad so many of the cites I noted are missing from it. I recommend everyone who intends to vote on this looking over the entire body of evidence I presented. Furthermore, I find it remarkable that she wishes to start a list of all the places I am not mentioned. Feminism is not monolithic and neither is men's studies. There are factions and they fight with each other. Mythopoetic, men’s rights, father’s issues, circumcision and on and on. Moreoever, there are no men’s studies programs at any university in America and no degrees in such, therefore there are few publications and little literature and no academic support. Most of the best writing in this field has been by non-academics. Saying that What Men Know That Women/Surviving the Feminization of America has nothing to say about men’s studies is like saying Gone with the Wind has nothing to say about the ante-bellum South. At some point the academic statisticians have to just stand back and take it in............
Here is what was said about me by one magazine editor in the last wiki deletion episode:.......
_______________________________
- Beginning of message copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Zubaty
Do Not Delete I was involved in the publishing of Transitions, the newsletter of the National Coalition For Men (ncfm.org) for over 10 years, including 4 years as chief editor. Some of our past issues are archived at (http://www.californiamenscenters.org/transitionsbrown.html). NCFM is an educational organization that examines discrimination against men and boys. I can assure you that Rich Zubaty is notable in the field of men's issues. As evidence of this, we printed an excerpt of his book "What Men Know That Women Don't" in the Nov/Dec 2000 issue of Transitions. We printed a review of his book "The Corporate Cult" in the March/April 2002 issue, and a news article about his internet podcast in the Jan/Feb 2006 issue.
Wikipedia should consider that the field of men's rights does not get a lot of attention, for various political reasons. That Zubaty was able to earn the list of references that have been provided in this discussion should be seen as a noteworthy accomplishment. Many of the references are from web sites related to men's issues, but many are not, including the WSJ and The Harvard Crimson. As men's issues is still a growing field, many of our references will come from sources with an interest in the subject.
For verifiability, all you need to do is go to Amazon and see that his books are for sale. The content of Zubaty's writing is not in question; the article simply states that he wrote those books. They are available and the sales have not been insignificant.
The article does need to be improved, and this can be done once this case is settled.
Jwleath (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- End of copied message
_______________________________
I am sitting back here pretending that this is all hapening sensibly. But this is how I was lulled into deletion last time. Voceeditnore led the charge to delete me last time. And she’s doing it again, all the while feigning objectivity. Unless one of you administrators comes forward to challenge her attempts to “organize” this information, this effort on behalf of fair treatment for men will be all for naught. Her very first move was to delete any and all references to the Waters/Irish Times articles. My strongest cites. Just wipe them out before anybody saw them. This is not above board behavior. The Brits have a great tradition of politely and patronizingly tearing people apart. I have never considered that civil in any sense. It’s the epitome of rudeness. I’m doing my best to rein myself in, but I don’t want anyone else to be lulled into believing this is all moving along nicely and sanely now. There has been a great emphasis on where I do not appear, and no research from you administrators on where I DO appear. WE don’t have the search tools you have.
Also, edited out of the above collation is mention of the 200 plus radio shows I appeared on including CFRB Tonornto, WGN Chicago, Australian Broadcasting Company Sydney, and Perth, and hundreds more in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and across Canada, which had a particular hunger for what I had to say when the book first came out in 1994. Also TV: Montel Williams, CLTV Chicago, Morton Downy Jr. and others – all of these devoted to examinations of the newly published Surviving the Feminization of America. Someone has the search tools to find those and it does not do us justice for them to be buried off in some other file held somewhere else offline. Voceeditnore sabotaged me once before, and I’d be a fool to think she will not do it again. While pretending to be polite and diligent and objective, she is ignoring evidence (like my electronic media and San Francisco Chronicle exposures) and floating sly insinuations about how I do not appear in emasculated academic publications. Not kosher.72.234.207.192 (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why you think the Irish Times reference was hidden, it's right there in the list, and in the article too. And for the record, Wikipedia doesn't give us any special search tools when we sign up for an account here; we use Google just like everyone else. 28bytes (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, at no time did I remove any of the links to the sources. I removed copyright infringing text only and left the links to the sources. [15] The article created by Lew Loot consisted of pasted-in verbatim chunks of copyright material from this source which had to be removed per WP:COPYVIO. Likewise, the excessive verbatim quote from The Irish Times which exceeded the fair use limits for non-free text. I cut the quote down but left the link to the reference. I had warned Lew Loot about this when he had first created the article in the Sandbox and provided links to the relevant guidance pages on his talk page. I strongly urge both Mr. Zubaty and Lew Loot to read those guidance pages. Voceditenore (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the one column by Zubaty in the San Francisco Chronicle [16] that I could find. It was in the "Open Forum" section of the paper. However, it is a piece written by Zubaty, not about him, and does not attest to the significance of What Men Know that Women Don't. Mr. Zubaty may not like the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books), but those are the ones that he will have to work with if he wants the article kept. Voceditenore (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the place where Voceditenore completely removed the John Waters Irish Times material referring to it as a failed verification when in fact it is a link to THREE Irish Times mentions of me and my book.
- We have already been through the rigmarole about how I am not a notable person. Fine. But my book has been a notable book for 17 years. That’s how I got on vast amounts of electronic media and got to write articles for the Sun-Times and San Francisco Chronicle and many others. The book is my credential. No one gets to write for those kinds of publication just because he “wants to”. You need a passport. An acknowledgement of notability. A book. This book took four years to write.
- Here is the wiki criteria
- The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.
- We meet this criteria hook line and sinker and have met it for over a decade. There is no way that this criteria can be employed to delete this book, except by extreme prejudice of some wiki editors. If I was a feminist we would not even be having this discussion.72.234.207.192 (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why you persist in claiming that I removed the link to the Irish Times articles. Look in every single version that I edited [17], [18], [19] [20], and the link to all three articles in The Irish Times is always there. I merely removed the excessive quotation of non-free text and the copyvio. Voceditenore (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How could it not be you? SOMEBODY removed the John Waters text and link entirely and that change, as shown in this link: ....... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_Men_Know_that_Women_Don%27t&diff=388768204&oldid=388765475........ was recorded in a Voceditenore edit. So, ignorant as I am, what else would I conclude? I opened Lew’s original page after you had been there and all mentions of Irish Times, John Waters, and the link to the Irish Times were deleted. I MYSELF had to put those back in, which is WHY they are there NOW! I linked the NEW footnote to a single page/article at the Irish Times rather than the previous linked Irish Times search page that listed all THREE of the mentions of Rich Zubaty and What Men Know That Women Don’t. Frankly I am amazed you continue to claim you didn’t erase that stuff when the evidence is recorded in that link. Am I failing to understand something? I don’t think so. Your begrudging attempts to find cites only when your nose is pointed right at them displays an utter lack of objectivity or willingness to help. You have the search tools to find hundreds of mentions of me and my books over the past 17 years, and you won’t do it. That is not kosher. 72.234.207.192 (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Voceditenore is correct, the text of the review was removed, but the link was not. Just click on that link you posted and scroll to the bottom, you'll see the Irish Times link in the references section. 28bytes (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is supposed to sound right to me? Voceditenore removes the entire text of the main cite synopses about my book. Then she calls it "verification failed", when indeed, the original link takes the viewer to THREE different links mentioning my book in Irish Times. She has the tools to get into those pages and see which one of them refers directly to those John Waters quotes. Does she do that? Does she try to solve the problem? Does she leave us an advisement to solve the problem? No. She wipes out the whole thing. She leaves the footnote dangling under an innocuous opening sentence. That is NOT ethical editing and you cannot convince me your rules prescribe it. This was an unsubtle attempt to sabotage Lew's page from the get go by removing the main notable reference authority. The Irish Times, founded in 1895.
- I will say this again. We are willing to work with you to meet your requirements. But we are not willing to sit back and assume everything is going along well and objectively when the main person handling this delete page is the one who deleted my personal page six months ago. This is called the “theory of unclean hands” in the law. Someone else has to hop in here and trying solving things. Or else this is just all a tedious joke.72.234.207.192 (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, you really need to lay off Voceditenore. She did not nominate this article for deletion, and even if you think she's missed some media references to the book, you have to admit she's put in a lot of effort here to compile a list of media references that other editors can use to gauge the book's notability. It's pretty commendable for a (volunteer) editor to put so much effort into that sort of research and documentation, especially for a book whose author is repeatedly bashing her. In the end, the decision does not rest with her, it rests with the community as a whole who will look at what she's said, what you've said, what Eagles 24/7 has said, and everyone else, and make the determination whether it fits our notability guidelines. As a few folks have pointed out, assuming good faith is a really important part of our process here, and you really need to start assuming good faith about the people with whom you disagree.
- That said, if the article is deleted, it's not the "death penalty" for it. It can be moved into a user space if you like so that if and when additional reliable sources can found, they can be added to the article and it can be restored to the main space. I'll be happy to walk you through this process if the need arises. There's absolutely no rule here that says that if it's deleted, it's gone forever. The deletion simply means that it's not ready, in terms of notability, for the main space. As you continue getting coverage in the press for it, the notability will increase, to the point where we'll be able to have enough third-party sources discussing your book to be able to support an article about it based on what they say about it. Time is on your side here. 28bytes (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. That's the nicest thing anyone has said so far. No, nobody told us when my personal page was deleted that it could be moved to a "user space" and perhaps restored later. No one besides you has offered to work with us on the sources and the presentation of the sources. The fact is that thousands of men and hundreds of women have benefited from this book. Their testimonies can be found on my podcast/blog http://www.therudeguy.com . And on my Youtube page of the SAME NAME as the book: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLPDBGZiT54 Just shy of 20,000 people have watched the video in the past 6 months and hundreds have left comments. I guess you don’t care, but it matters. That’s what millions of people care about. Men’s issues. Not the book, not the video, not the podcast, not the TV and radio appearances. Not me! The issue. So based upon your promise to help I will back off of Voceeditore. But I won’t let my guard down. I think there are people eavesdropping on this site who could plop my book names into super search engines and come up with hundreds of mentions of both titles. But they don’t do it. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.207.192 (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You write, "No, nobody told us when my personal page was deleted that it could be moved to a 'user space' and perhaps restored later." Actually, I did explain exactly that to you, here. Ebikeguy (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, I was talking about userfying the article, not setting up a "user page" as such. 28bytes (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been explained to you before. We do not have any "super search engines" at our disposal just because we are editors at Wikipedia. We just use Google. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I sincerely appreciate your agreement to ease up on the editors here. 28bytes (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) 72.234.207.192. I put the failed verification tag on the Harvard Crimson citation not on the Irish Times citatiion.[21] This was because the article, as you had written it, claimed that according to the Harvard Crimson you were quoting directly from your book. However, the Harvard Crimson article did not say that you were quoting from your book. It merely recorded the things you said at the rally. Once again, I shortened the quoted text from The Irish Times because I considered it in excess of the levels permitted by the "fair use". As it is, the article is still nothing but quotes. I did not nominate this article for deletion, nor did I nominate Rich Zubaty for deletion. Nor can I personally delete any article. I am not an administrator. Only administrators can delete articles after an AfD and they do that based on the results of the discussion, not on their personal whim. Really, 28bytes's advice to you is very good. If the decision here is to delete (and it won't be my decision, but a consensus of the participants as judged by the closing administrator), the article can be transferred to a Lew Loot's user page where you can both work on it in draft form, taking your time to bring it up to scratch, incorporating as many of the sources I have provided, and writing it in a neutral point of view, without excessive quotation or copy-pasting from copyright web sites, and without cherry-picking only positive quotes and sources. Voceditenore (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RESET BUTTON Honest to god, I don’t want to argue with Voceditenore any more, but simply by LOOKING at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_Men_Know_that_Women_Don%27t&diff=388768204&oldid=388765475 one can see that the ENTIRE John Waters Irish Times quote was removed. Not just part of it. At the time it looked like outright sabotage. To me it still does. Furthermore, the idea that I picked positive quotes is silly. I selected the most accurate and controversial quotes I found quoted by reviewers. And this whole notion of putting this away in the woodshed for it to cool off for awhile is just what I imagine it is. A polite charming manipulation to get the page deleted. I have not yet seen anybody do anything more than OFFER to help once it is deleted. I think I’d rather go fight in Afghanistan than keeping fighting with you people. I won’t know who the enemy is over there either..... But let me get a grip on myself....and let’s put it down to a bit of fumbling in the dark and move on.
Regarding 28bytes comments about search engines. Some of you have paid access to newspaper archives and such. I know for a fact that papers like the Chicago Southtown Economist did stories about the book in the mid 1990s. Also the South Chicagoland Star newspapers at about the same time. Also an Ottawa paper. But I can't find 'em. Most of my exposure was on radio in the 90s and it is my belief that some of you have privileged access to radio archives which would at least confirm the vast number of shows I was on. And probably have transcripts from some of them.
However, I did find this. A favorable mention of my BBC2 Counterblast TV show on Jan 24, 2000 hosted on some British web site. These are all quotes from my book. How do I know? I wrote them! You can read ‘em too. Anytime you want I’ll send you an ebook. This isn’t about attribution in main stream media. It’s about a damn book! Voltaire got thrown in jail for self-publishing his works.
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/1cset0.htm Counterblast BBC2 7.30pm 24jan00
American anti-feminist author Rich Zubaty joins George (McAulay ) to talk about the sort of privileges women enjoy today as they head into positions of power in society.
"Men have to register for military service in the States, women do not. I don't know how women can become congressmen and senators and CEOs of huge corporations and they're never required to somehow protect or defend the form of government that allows them these high privileges," Rich explains. "If we created a special class of men who were born into a privilege whereby they never had to fight in war, they were never expected to do hard physical labour, we would consider these men aristocrats and throwbacks to a couple of centuries ago. But the fact that women can be born into a class where they never have to fight in a war, never are expected to do physical labour is a type of aristocracy."
Rich believes female chauvinism is based entirely on the belief that men are the oppressors of women. He says this is not true today nor has it ever been the case despite the fact that the entire feminist agenda is built upon the notion. "Men have always been the ones to fight the wars, to mine the minerals, to drill the oil, to bring comfort and security into the lives of women. Nineteen out of twenty people who die on the job are men. If nineteen out of twenty people who died on the job were women we'd have a federal investigation into this tragedy."
I'm gonna get back to stopping war and punishing corrupt banks for awhile. Somehow that's easier than this.72.234.207.192 (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Voceditenore's remarks look a case of, think of a number and there's always a bigger one. She's found a number of references, but these were not acceptable because, evidently, they weren't BIG references. Thresholds. Can always be moved. Numbers. There are always bigger ones. I think the fight that some people are willing to put up -- on their own time -- just to keep a book OFF is giving it future notability. Lew Loot (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 72.234.207.192 and Lew Loot for the last time, I removed the excessive amounts of non-free material from the Irish Times per these guidelines, not to "sabotage" your article. I put the failed verification tag on the links you gave because they did not verify that your book "examines masculinity in crisis in the western world". You are free to extract the gist of the Irish Times articles (and others) in your own words with only very brief quoted phrases and add it to the article. The current article, now that you have restored much of the Irish Times text is 242 words of which 213 are quotes, i.e. 88%, and almost all from Zubaty's book.
As Eagles247 pointed out to you, the number of radio shows you went on to promote your book, does not in itself make it notable, although if properly documented, it could provide useful material concerning the history of the book and its publication, once notability is established.
The references I provided are the best and most extensive I could find. For some discussants, they might tip the balance in favour of a "keep". At least they have something to go on. I'm personally not convinced that they are enough, but that's not to say that others in this discussion (who are not directly involved in promoting Mr. Zubaty and his book) would agree with me. If you don't want to use them to expand the article, then don't.
You've both been pointed multiple times to Wikipedia's guidelines concerning notability, reliable sources, verifiability, conflict of interest, neutral point of view, copyright, fair use, deletion policy, etc. etc.. If you don't want to take the time to read them, or simply reject them, as you are doing here, there's not much I, or any other editor can do about it. Voceditenore (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 72.234.207.192 and Lew Loot for the last time, I removed the excessive amounts of non-free material from the Irish Times per these guidelines, not to "sabotage" your article. I put the failed verification tag on the links you gave because they did not verify that your book "examines masculinity in crisis in the western world". You are free to extract the gist of the Irish Times articles (and others) in your own words with only very brief quoted phrases and add it to the article. The current article, now that you have restored much of the Irish Times text is 242 words of which 213 are quotes, i.e. 88%, and almost all from Zubaty's book.
- Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources in the article are all passing mentions. Because this article by a non-notable author fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability, and Wikipedia:Notability (books), it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - First, "What Men Know that Women Don't" is nada. Second, if the article is like the book (which is a good bet) it's probably the rant of one guy who doesn't feel he should have to pay child support just because he's the sperm father. Third, and most importantly, it's fairly obvious that the author wants to use wikipedia to help establish artificial notability. Somewhere out there, I'm hearing the cry of Hormel's flagship product. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ↑ Agreed with everything he said. I could have not said it better. Cunard (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ↑ Also agreed, lets hope Mr zubaty or the author doesn't try to climb the Reichstag dressed as spiderman--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If he does, and someone gets a snapshot of it, that could be used in the article. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with Cunard here plus copyvio claimed by the nominee, the cover uses GNU licence we can't use that for book covers can we?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposal What I suggest is that we steer a middle course on this. We move the article to the User Area (that would be my user area), and develop it there. We then seek regular guidance to take it to the standard required for it to go live. For example, it was my own idea to use the GNU License for the book cover. Not being entirely familiar with copyright regulations, this seemed the best choice at the time. Both myself and Mr. Zubaty will be regularly on the lookout for cites in the media that we can link to give the article the completeness it needs for publication. How does this sound? Lew Loot (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's an excellent idea. If the result of this AfD is "delete", an administrator will remove it from the main article space. At that point, you can go here and request that it be "userfied," which means it will be moved to User:Lew Loot/What Men Know that Women Don't, where you can work on it and add new sources as they become available. Incidentally, you can also request that the Rich Zubaty article be userfied using the same process. It may end up that that article is the more notable of the two depending how the additional sources shake out. 28bytes (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just now userfied it. Thanks for the advice. Lew Loot (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One suggestion I'd make, is that once you think the article might be ready to move back onto Wikipedia, you seek, and most importantly, take the advice of experienced editors on your final draft. If they give you the thumbs up, then take the draft through the Wikipedia:Deletion review process for approval, instead of simply adding it back. If it is directly added, nominated for deletion (i.e. this current process) and deleted a second time, it becomes almost impossible to get it back on Wikipedia a third time. The reason I emphasised the necessity of actually taking the advice of the experienced, outside editors you've asked is that if there is even a hint of promotional language, or a failure to adhere to a neutral point of view in the article, it won't get through the deletion review process. If you are an advocate of the book, or have a personal or professional connection with its author, it is very hard (almost impossible) to be objective about how your writing will be perceived by others. WP:COI has very useful advice on editing under these circumstances.
A good person to ask for advice or to look over your draft is User:DGG. Another resource is the Article Rescue Squadron. And just a reminder, don't paste copyright text into the draft, even to use as notes. It's not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, even user pages. Keep the material in a separate file on your own computer. I've left you some links on your talk page to more guidance on copyright issues at Wikipedia as well as a link on how to correctly upload copyright images donated by a third party. It requires permission from the copyright owner in writing, which has to be sent to Wikipedia before the image is uploaded. It's a bit of a complicated process, but if not followed will inevitably result in the image's deletion. It isn't enough to simply state on the file page that you have the owner's permission. Voceditenore (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC) further material added by Voceditenore (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the advice. I shall be working on it in the days and weeks ahead. Lew Loot (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This "middle ground" sounds like the Black Knight telling Arthur, "All right, we'll call it a draw." Technically, is there any reason the user can't "userfy" it right now, and request speedy deletion of the actual article? The user should also put the "NOINDEX" parameter on the userfied version so Google won't find it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's not really possible to use {{db-author}} on an article which has more than one contributor, and secondly userfying is normally done by an admin to preserve the edit history. It shouldn't just be cut and pasted elsewhere. That's why the AfD template says that the article must not be blanked during the AfD. Although, there's no reason why an admin couldn't bring this debate to an early close if there seems to be clear consensus for deletion and it's been requested by the article's creator as well. The copyvio was removed with this edit [22] and has not been restored. Voceditenore (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha, thanks for the explanation. In short, it's not a copy-and-paste, it's a move. And presumably if it ever achieves something resembling viable status, it could be moved back, right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. There's a recent example here following this debate at Deletion Review. Voceditenore (talk) 09:58, 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 keep. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- New York City mayoral election, 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Too early for this unsourced, speculative page WP:CRYSTAL CTJF83 chat 20:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely disagree. The article on the 2009 election was started in 2005. I also plan on adding sources very soon. --Jleon (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a reason to keep....Wikipedia standards have far increased since then. Also just because it was created then, doesn't mean it should have been. CTJF83 chat 20:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw the nomination due to sources being added. CTJF83 chat 20:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a reason to keep....Wikipedia standards have far increased since then. Also just because it was created then, doesn't mean it should have been. CTJF83 chat 20:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Agree Crystalball. ShoesssS Talk 20:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is now sourced with further sources coming shortly. The potential candidates are already actively fundraising and the election is beginning to get news coverage, so I think it is overzealous to delete it. --Jleon (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There are now three sources on the article (two from the NY Times, and one from WSJ). Also, one of the leading candidates has already announced that he is running. --Jleon (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep well sourced to NY Times and WSJ, impeccable sources. Even is it wasn't sourced we are !voting on the concept, not the state of the article at any given time. Raising money for next election begins even before the previous election. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Rule 1 of WP:CRYSTAL (!) which states: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Prehaps the nom should read the policy they are citing before nominating articles in the future. Lugnuts (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AGFing would be great on your part. if you continue to read "....are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research" When I nominated the article, it was unsourced, OR speculation, so at the time it was a right nomination...now that sources are added, I'll withdraw if Shoessss agrees. CTJF83 chat 20:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is the very next election, which will surely happen, and is not too remote in time. Bearian (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ironically, if it doesn't happen, it'll be even more notable! Lugnuts (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Election is on the calendar already and there are candidates preparing to run, backed by reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 13:26, 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Homage (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)
Declined WP:PROD Prod reasoning was that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this word already has an entry at Wiktionary. Subsequent editing since the prod was declined does not seem to have rectified this issue, it's just an expanded definition. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clear case of "not a dictionary." The article is clearly about the word, not the concept. In fact as the word has evolved it has changed meaning at least twice, as recorded in the article. Borock (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if the article is going to be about the artistic concept, with background on the word. Borock (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Historically, this article has been little more than a dicdef, this much is true. That said, I think that the original topic of the article (the artistic use of homage, particularly in literature and film) really warrants, even needs, an article. The practice of artistic homage has a long and certainly encyclopedic history that connects to but is distinct from concepts like Intertextuality, Pastiche, etc. which this article once linked to and situated its contents among. Unfortunately, the article that this should be just hasn't been written yet, and I don't have the time to create it. Instead of deleting, however, I suggest we hold off for now and perhaps try to get some attention from Wikiproject:Films or some others who might be able to add content. Wikipedia is still pretty weak in articles about vaguely-defined artistic devices, as these can be more difficult to develop than articles about individual works of art, but there are plenty of published materials on these devices. So, if this is deleted now, the article should be re-created later on and given the substance that it currently lacks. Feeeshboy (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is a WP:STUB not a dictionary definition. It is easy to expand as I shall demonstrate. The nominator's complaint about "subsequent editing since the prod was declined" is feeble as the nomination was made within 10 minutes of the prod being removed and without any discussion on the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong squeal 00:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A notable concept, not just a simple definition. Dream Focus 01:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this well-sourced stub about a notable concept. It was ugly and a difdef, but has been improved per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 15:51, 5 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Philip Masiello (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 see no evidence of notability, though I see claims to notability. The result of this search of Google News Archives speaks volumes; there are no reliable sources given in the article that are accessible and can help verify notability. The article itself reads more like a resume than an encyclopedic article. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or replace with the actually notable late labor union official Philip Masiello of Middletown, New York. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like the opportunity to rewrite the entry in a more suitable manner. It was not meant to be a resume and all of the claims of notability can be substantiated. All of the articles exist and should be credited to the inroads made in the food supply chain. I can also tie together the late Philip A Masiello, union official as I believe the two are connected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulartins (talk • contribs) 00:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC) — Paulartins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- If you can do this before the AfD runs out, you might change people's minds. You could have it moved to your personal user space if it does get deleted--which would give you all the time in the world to work on it, and it would clear the way for the union official mentioned above (who could, of course, also just become Philip Masiello (labor official). Closing admin, please keep userfication in mind when closing time approaches--thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Perfect example of the sort of American businessman/executive articles which should be removed from wikipedia enmasse.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. No evidence that this biography meets the standard of notability.--Lockley (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nominator's search confirms that this person cannot meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. If it could be confirmed that he originated the idea of supermarkets selling complete meals, he might make it as notable. However, nothing could be found to substantiate that claim. Otherwise, he has co-founded a few companies and created little or no notability for himself in the process. The two articles he authored, which supposedly "incited great discussions on the modern retail supply chain," could be found only at the online site Searchweb, where they have been viewed only a few hundred times in two years. (I cannot link to them because Searchwarp is a blocked site for Wikipedia.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 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 merge to Student life at the University of Pennsylvania. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Penn Singers (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 college opera group. The only coverage comes from the university's students newspaper, which doesn't establish notability. GrapedApe (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keepor if the consensus is not to keep, Merge to an article on the University. The group has been the primary subject of over 20 articles since 1990 in the campus newspaper, the Daily Pennsylvanian, per [23]. TheDaily Pennsylvanian is a respected, award winning, independent campus newspaper, published since 1885, with an editorial review board and a policy of editorial review of stories, which are written by identified reporters. This establishes verification if any of these articles were added to the article, and shows that they are notable at least within their local community, the university, as much as a town arts group would have verification and local attestation of notability with 20 stories in the noncampus town paper or the local TV station. For a campus arts group (there are 45 at Penn, and I certainly do not advocate articles for every one of them) I would like in addition to see some noncampus reliable, independent and verifiable sources showing that they have more than a local notability, the same as if they were off-campus. If they have only local notability, then the key facts in the article could be greatly condensed and included in the University's article. Edison (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Merge – The notability guidelines are pretty specific in situations like this where it states; “…A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.” Which can be found here at Notability (organizations and companies). Sorry to say, I was not able to find any non-trivial coverage of the organization, even including the student newspaper The Daily Pennsylvanian. However, I could see a merge on just the pertinent information into the University of Pennsylvania student activities section. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 20:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a mention in the college newsletter doesn't establish notability, or we'd have a whole lot more stub BLP. Heiro 01:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The series of articles are significant coverage, not just "a mention," and the newspaper is not "the college newsletter," anymore than a newspaper in a comparably sized town is "a town newsletter." Edison (talk)
- Is a student newspaper considered a reliable source here? Heiro 03:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the Wikiproject Universities' article guideline:Student-published college newspapers and university-published press releases are generally reliable sources for verifying information, however, these sources cannot be used to establish encyclopedic notability.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If thats the only references available, then this is pretty much settled then isnt it? Heiro 03:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the Wikiproject Universities' article guideline:Student-published college newspapers and university-published press releases are generally reliable sources for verifying information, however, these sources cannot be used to establish encyclopedic notability.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A wikiproject guideline doesn't trump the GNG. Anyone can throw up a wikiproject guideline in an hour that can negate any Wikipedia rule. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge While I think that the sources are borerline independent and reliable, I wonder if the better option isn't just to merge this and several similar articles in the navbox into a College life at Penn or similar article. Jclemens (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Student life at the University of Pennsylvania, which already exists and mentions several of the student performing groups. I'm sure this is a fine organization and if I lived near Penn I would go to their shows, but it's not independently notable. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dyson's eternal intelligence (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 or Merge into Infinite Stub. Single source. Article is basically just an example of a broad philosophic concept: That if you have a supply of something, and continuously reduce it by half, then, in theory, you will never run out. The supply will be endless. Should be deleted or merged into a broader concept of eternal or infinite. The Eskimo (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable source discusses tbis term, which let my think, that Dyson made it up one day. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The reliable source is the published paper that presented this concept. The journal in which it was published is a major journal. Yes it is a "trivial" concept . . . once you think of it. If it must be deleted, it should be merged into the Freeman Dyson article. Samw (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Trivial but notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It is much more than "reducing something continuously by half" - the main idea is correlating the energy consumption with the cooling of the universe. For a detailed explanation, see Paul Davies: The Last Three Minutes, chapter 8. Yrtgm (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to an appropriate article. This is basically a concept presented in a single paper, which according to a Google Scholar search has been cited by others 218 times in the 30 years since it was published. That is significant enough to warrant inclusion somewhere in Wikipedia, but not enough for its own article. Incidentally, the abstract of the paper does not seem to support the definition given at the Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 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 keep. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To Fintanaki (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)
Badly translated article from Greek Wikipedia, its text is mostly meaningless waffle. Film or play seemingly non-notable in the English-speaking world; no reliable sources found via Google or Google News for "+To +Fintanaki +Pantelis +Horn -wikipedia". If this is kept, I suggest it's stubified with existing citations. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 02:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "Non-notable in the English-speaking world" is not a reason for deletion. A notable work from a notable early 20th-century Greek dramatist. Notability has nothing to do with the language of sources. Aside from the sources already cited, by copy-pasting the Greek title into Google and using Google translate on the results (which the nominator should do himself per WP:BEFORE) I see many more articles from Greek media recently like [24][25] etc., despite the fact that the play is eight decades old. cab (call) 02:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The title of this play is usually translated into English as The Sapling or The Young Plant. According to the Encyclopedia of modern Greek literature it was "a considerable hit", The Cambridge guide to theatre calls it "Horn's most memorable play" and, most tellingly, The Reader's Encyclopedia of World Drama says that it "is regarded by critics...as the most significant folklore drama to date". Phil Bridger (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have flagged this as a rough translation and listed it at the appropriate place, so we might get some help with getting the article into some sort of reasonable shape. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and stubify. Fair enough - I expected to find more source material on Google. Thanks, and sorry to have bothered you. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No bother :) Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong speak 23:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Based on sources found, this clearly notable. Against reducing it to stub, that the same as delete(or close enough since over 90% would be deleted). Dream Focus 02:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's content is barely understandable. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:13, 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 keep. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike Caveney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to be an online Resume. The sources listed are either the subject's own website sources or some fringe magician websites that seem like they were made by the persons listed there. For this BLP to convince me, I need to see some reliable verifiable sources, like some well-known media venue with an in-depth coverage of this person. If there are sources here that I do not understand and are sufficient, please indicate; I do not see passage of WP:BLP, WP:GNG. Also, I tagged for notability and creator/editor/owner of the article simply removed, twice. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – I believe Mr. Caveney has generated enough coverage from third party – independent – creditable and verifiable sources to have a spot here on Wikipedia. Used as an authoritarian (expert) voice in a New York Times review as shown here [26]. Additional use of Mr. Caveney as an expert in his field can be seen by the number of times he is shown as the citied source or contributor to numerous books on the subject of magic/illusionist as shown here at Google Books [27]]. Also the star of NBC's "World's Greatest Magic” as provided here [28]. Hope this helps. ShoesssS Talk 19:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When I first saw your comment I almost considered withdrawing my nomination, but when I looked at the NY Times source, it is nothing but a book review written by someone else that mentiones subject one time as the author's biographist? Not good enough.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment -Usually a book or author that is reviewed by the New York Times is one of the foundations in establishing notability in that the NYT typically only reviews specific books and authors that are notable. However, you are right in saying if I based my opinion on just this one review it is “…not good enough”. That is why I also noted Mr. Caveney contributions and cities on the many other books shown in the above link. Hope this explains my rational a little better. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 20:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When I first saw your comment I almost considered withdrawing my nomination, but when I looked at the NY Times source, it is nothing but a book review written by someone else that mentiones subject one time as the author's biographist? Not good enough.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Shoesss, but he did not write the book in that source.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Recently voted "stage magician of the year" by Magic Castle. That's notable. Cullen328 (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Magic Castle is a private business. Hardly an independent source. Do our guidelines mention this as automatically notable as you seem to? WildHorsesPulled (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Third party sources are in the article citing his recognition among peers. I don't understand why the article was nominated -- what would a non-fringe magician web site be? What sort well-know media venue is going to cover stage magicians? Us (magazine)? USA Today? patsw (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If other authors believe this BLP! is notable, so be it. I do not think so, I could be wrong. David Copperfield is notable, and has been featured in stuff the likes of you mention.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not as important if you personally find him notable, or if your choice of well-known media venues find him notable, rather it is if he has special achievements or has been recognized by fellow magicians, and people who follow magicians. patsw (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If other authors believe this BLP! is notable, so be it. I do not think so, I could be wrong. David Copperfield is notable, and has been featured in stuff the likes of you mention.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I would venture to say that getting magician of the year from the Magci Castle is significant recognition from peers. A look at Google News results show much material behind pay walls making if difficult to evaluate but this LA Times article looks like it would qualify based on the summary. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Caveney is a noted authoritarian and expert on magic and magic history. He was recently credited as co-author of an important book about the history of magic titled, Magic, 1,400s-1950s, co-written by fellow magic historians Ricky Jay and Jim Steinmeyer for Taschen Books [29]. For decades, he has generated significant coverage from third party and verifiable sources to remain on Wikipedia [30]. He is an expert in the field of magic. His contributions can be seen by the number of times his name appears as the cited source and contributor to numerous books, articles and related documents on the subject of magic Google Books [31]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milo Bixby (talk • contribs) 14:56, 6 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) 00:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Louis and the Nazis (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 this has somewhat more content than the other AfDs in this series, it still only has one source, an IMDB source that only certifies that this program exists. The article fails to establish any type of notablilty. As in the other articles I nominated for deletion in this series, I would not be opposed to a redirect or merge to Louis Theroux or Louis Theroux's BBC 2 Specials. The content is already in place in full in Louis Theroux's BBC 2 Specials anyways. Sven Manguard Talk 16:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not significantly covered by RS. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I am a pathetic person. I have actually seen this documentary. It was a very good and well made documentary. It was also very provocative, like most of documentaries in Louis Theroux's Weird Weekends. Unfortunately I would have to agree that this article is very meagre (to say the least). Please expand this article so it can be saved. Alternatively include the titles in the article on Weird Weekends and add a synopsis. --JHvW (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Another program of his, that seems to be a part of the same series, (The Most Hated Family in America) was shown to be notable and kept. I am sure the same could be done here. (Just don't ask me to waste my time doing it. :-) ) Borock (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that one program in a series had enough coverage in reliable sources to be notable sets no precedent regarding other programs, since each receives varying levels of media coverage. Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of sources available on a subject should not trump inherent notability. Is the documentary notable, or is it not? LordAmeth (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep found a source and I am sure there are more. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those sources actually mention "Louis and the Nazis" at all. Peter Karlsen (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would simply remove them as inappropriate references not verifying the preceding text, except that it's generally considered bad practice for editors supporting deletion in an AFD to remove purported sources. Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Too bad about that, I just deleted them without reading your post. I have no intention of undoing it, as I find the idea that someone would use irrelivent sources to try and save an article from deletion to be an insult to our intelligence. Bad practice on my part, maybe. Bad practice on his, unquestionably. And his work is usually much better. This is beneath his normal behavior. Sven Manguard Talk 02:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Assume good faith. I don't think he was trying to insult your intelligence by his use of irrelivent sources. They are references to the statement that the guy revisited people from this documentary in his book, and are thus relevant to that statement. Dream Focus 12:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Too bad about that, I just deleted them without reading your post. I have no intention of undoing it, as I find the idea that someone would use irrelivent sources to try and save an article from deletion to be an insult to our intelligence. Bad practice on my part, maybe. Bad practice on his, unquestionably. And his work is usually much better. This is beneath his normal behavior. Sven Manguard Talk 02:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong talk 00:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The websites I used refer to the book. The Call of the Weird: Travels in American Subcultures is a book Louis Theroux revisits people he previously interviewed for the Weird Weekends documentaries. Hence why I used the sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No Reliable Sources. IMDB is user-editable and does not nor has it ever qualified as reliable here. -- ۩ Mask 16:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Source from New Zealand Listener [32] Dwanyewest (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...that's just a review. That falls under trivial. The standard is (or used to be phrased as) multiple non-trivial third party references. A game guide or show review is trivial. A newspaper article discussing the impact a show had on a certain town or culture would be an example of a non-trivial reference. The standard isn't 'we can verify this exists', it's 'we can say this is important enough for an entry in an encyclopedia'. -- ۩ Mask 17:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it does fall under trivial. If it is notable enough to be reviewed (and to be reviewed by a publication from the other side of the world), then that should count for something. LordAmeth (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. That is a notable review. Dream Focus 12:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seemingly notable within the genre/field of documentaries on white supremacy and neo-Nazism in contemporary US society. Just because an article is not long enough yet, or does not have enough sources listed yet does not mean that the subject is inherently non-notable. Rather than prodding it for deletion, why don't you (you, whoever it is that prodded it to begin with) go out there and find some more sources to prop it up? Let's give the documentary, the article, and the contributor(s) who created the article the benefit of the doubt. LordAmeth (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It gets a complete review at one media source found, and most likely others, since his other notable documentaries receive greater coverage. Dream Focus 12:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The documentary appears to have been used as a source for a Doctoral dissertation undertaken by a student at the University of Tennessee. This isn't quite the same as peer-reviewed material and the dissertation concerns Prussian Blue not the documentary itself. Does this help establish notability at all? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also a review from the TV section of The Guardian and another from The Times. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep simply notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article has television review which demonstrates significant coverage it merely needs better writing and editing. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:28, 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 speedy delete (G3, hoax) by Fribbler. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- D P Kut-Moi-Cheung (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 person WuhWuzDat 16:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article needs some work, but it says "the all-time leading scorer for the Mauritian National football team" - have you done your WP:BEFORE and checked to see if there are any sources to confirm that? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seeing as an IP added this character to the Mauritius national football team article as the top scorer today, I'm gonna go with this is all a hoax. Grsz11 17:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I'll be happy with deleting it as a hoax. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seeing as an IP added this character to the Mauritius national football team article as the top scorer today, I'm gonna go with this is all a hoax. Grsz11 17:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the subject isn't so much non-notable as completely fictitious. No google hits, no sources, and wasn't included in Mauritius national football team until he was mysteriously added earlier today. ~ mazca talk 17:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my comments above. Grsz11 17:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as
likelyobvious hoax (zero g-hits except for the wiki article). I also removed some blatant BLP violations from the article. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Speedy delete as a hoax. Absolutely no sources. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:57, 4 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Erich Albrecht (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)
Msrasnw (talk · contribs) made some edits to the article page, after it was nominated during a prior AFD. Bringing back here to main article space, for assessment at a fresh AFD discussion by the community. Procedural nom, no stated opinion by nominator on deletion. -- Cirt (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Have added another ref (in German) to a biography of him in Internationales Germanistenlexikon and a note that now indicates that he meets WP:Prof 5 - Named chair at Univ of Kansas. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Msrasnw (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, significantly covered by RS. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well referenced and notable. Cullen328 (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This time around it's a clear pass of WP:PROF. Thanks to Msrasnw for the improvements. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 6 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Louis and the Brothel (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)
Tiny article (one line) about a noted documentary artists' much less known documentary. No encyclopedic value, as Wikipedia is not the TV guide. Would not be opposed to a merge with Louis Theroux, although there is only one line of content here, so there is little to actually merge. Would not be opposed to a redirect to Louis Theroux if merge is rejected. Sven Manguard Talk 16:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Subject is also covered adequately at Louis Theroux's BBC 2 Specials. Content is mostly the same. Would not object to merge or redirect to that page either. Sven Manguard Talk 16:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep found a source and I am sure there are more per WP:BEFORE Dwanyewest (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong confess 00:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You found a source proving the documentry exists, you still have not demonstrated notability, IMO. This is not TV Guide, being on TV in and of itself is not inherently notable enough. Sven Manguard Talk 03:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You just have to click on the News search link above to see that there are numerous sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Article has been inproved since AfD listing and is shown to be notable per WP:N requirements with reliable sources. - Hydroxonium (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 5 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Louis Theroux: Gambling in Las Vegas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced, tiny article about a noted documentary artists' much less known documentary. Little to no encyclopedic value, as Wikipedia is not the TV guide. Would not be opposed to a merge with Louis Theroux, although there is little to actually merge. Would not be opposed to a redirect to Louis Theroux if merge is rejected. Sven Manguard Talk 16:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Subject is also covered adequately at Louis Theroux's BBC 2 Specials. Content is mostly the same. Would not object to merge or redirect to that page either. Sven Manguard Talk 16:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep an abundance of GOOD sources[33][34] [35] [36][37][38][39][40] Dwanyewest (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong confabulate 00:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note None of these sources are in the article, and no mention of them was made until now anwhere else. Also, just because something appeared on TV does not automatically make it notable. That needs to be demonstrated, and in the current article, it isn't. Sven Manguard Talk 02:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would they mention them before now? And the point of an AFD is to prove the subject is notable. If you want something added to the article, do it yourself. AFD is not cleanup. It is the last thing you do, not the first, and never to be done just to improve an article. The subject is notable, they not going into detail like that for every show, and it not just some brief generic paragraph mention. Dream Focus 05:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This article has been expanded since the AfD listing and has references to reliable sources that show that it meets the notability guidelines in WP:N. - Hydroxonium (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Rather than seeing this as a series of separate made-for-TV movies, it appears as if it should be considered more as an episodic series. Given a lack of coverage for each one meeting EPISODE, covering them all together in Louis Theroux's BBC 2 Specials seems appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Because it gets ample reviews. Read the one in the Times [41]. Dream Focus 20:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per above.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:14, 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 keep. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The City Addicted to Crystal Meth (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)
Tiny article (one line) about a noted documentary artists' much less known documentary. No encyclopedic value, as Wikipedia is not the TV guide. Would not be opposed to a merge with Louis Theroux, although there is only one line of content here, so there is little to actually merge. Would not be opposed to a redirect to Louis Theroux if merge is rejected. Sven Manguard Talk 16:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Subject is also covered adequately at Louis Theroux's BBC 2 Specials. Content is mostly the same. Would not object to merge or redirect to that page either. Sven Manguard Talk 16:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or Merge, per above. WuhWuzDat 16:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well sourced and has reviews. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong comment 00:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Same as the others. Click the Google news link at the top of the AFD, plenty of notable news sources reviewing this documentary. Why not just combine all these nominations together, since the argument is all the same? They all get ample coverage, and are made by the same person. Dream Focus 02:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Same as others, the point is not "is it cited", the point is "is it notable" and I don't see that. Sources do not equate to notability, and just because it appeared on TV does not mean that it is notable. Sven Manguard Talk 03:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its notable enough for major news sites to give detailed reviews about it. That is how these things work. Dream Focus 05:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, every major newspaper has staff members that review television specials for a living. Just about every documentary, straight to tv movie, special episode, ect. gets reviewed. What I want to see is some sort of lasting impact. Did it cause a political scandal, inspire community action, heck, did the documentary win any awards? Even being played again isn't a sign of notability per se, but was it brought back for popular demand? Did school systems across the country buy copies for their libraries. Give me so meting other than "It was played on TV" and "reviewed by the TV review people." Please? Sven Manguard Talk 06:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't seem to understand our notability guideline. Neither fame nor importance is required. Just sources. If these sources are written by professional journalists then they are ample for our needs. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From N: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.
- My interperetation of existing policy, backed up by many other examples, is that episodes in a series do not get pages unless they are notable independent of the series or have a substantial individual importance to the series. Look at List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. That shows how few episodes get pages. Now look at Louis Theroux's BBC 2 Specials, of which this documentry is part of the series. This article should be a part of Louis Theroux's BBC 2 Specials in the way that any non-key episodes of SG1 are in List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. This article, for all intents and purposes, is an episode in a series of documenteries, and should be treated as a non-key episode. That means no page, and a redirect/merge. It isn't notable, even with the sources. Sven Manguard Talk 20:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't seem to understand our notability guideline. Neither fame nor importance is required. Just sources. If these sources are written by professional journalists then they are ample for our needs. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, every major newspaper has staff members that review television specials for a living. Just about every documentary, straight to tv movie, special episode, ect. gets reviewed. What I want to see is some sort of lasting impact. Did it cause a political scandal, inspire community action, heck, did the documentary win any awards? Even being played again isn't a sign of notability per se, but was it brought back for popular demand? Did school systems across the country buy copies for their libraries. Give me so meting other than "It was played on TV" and "reviewed by the TV review people." Please? Sven Manguard Talk 06:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its notable enough for major news sites to give detailed reviews about it. That is how these things work. Dream Focus 05:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This article is notable per requirements of WP:N and has been significantly expanded since the AfD listing. - Hydroxonium (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep noteability well established. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:03, 6 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn, no delete !votes standing. The nominator's withdrawal notice seems to be followed by a "but" but as this "but" actually was added in the same edit I'am going to be bold and close (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A Place for Paedophiles (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)
Tiny article (two lines) about a noted documentary artists' much less known documentary. No encylcopedic value, as Wikipedia is not the TV guide. Would not be opposed to a merge with Louis Theroux and/or Coalinga State Hospital, although there is only two lines of content here, so there is little to actually merge. Would object to redirect to Coalinga State Hospital if merge is rejected. Would not be opposed to a redirect to Louis Theroux if merge is rejected. Sven Manguard Talk 16:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Subject is also covered adequately at Louis Theroux's BBC 2 Specials. Content is mostly the same. Would not object to merge or redirect to that page either. Sven Manguard Talk 16:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep overwhelming reliable sources to verify notability and this article needs further expansion clearly. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it amazing that before the AfD there was two sources and one line of text, and afterwards, there are eight sources and an additional hefty paragraph. Please actually state that you have begun working on the article in an effort to save it. By not mentioning it, it undermines the credibility of me, the submitter, anyone (in this case no one) who had already voted, and the AfD process itself. I am overwhelmingly happy that you have decided to improve the article. I am unhappy that you did not extend us the courtesy to mention that fact. In light of this,
Motion to suspend AfD proceedings for 48 hours on the grounds that the article creator is working on improving the article to save it.Sven Manguard Talk 20:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it amazing that before the AfD there was two sources and one line of text, and afterwards, there are eight sources and an additional hefty paragraph. Please actually state that you have begun working on the article in an effort to save it. By not mentioning it, it undermines the credibility of me, the submitter, anyone (in this case no one) who had already voted, and the AfD process itself. I am overwhelmingly happy that you have decided to improve the article. I am unhappy that you did not extend us the courtesy to mention that fact. In light of this,
- AFD is not for deleting stubs or short articles. AFD is for deleting unworthy subjects. Dream Focus 01:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When I said "no encyclopedic value" I was saying "no notability." I will be clearer in the future. Sorry. Sven Manguard Talk 03:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD is not for deleting stubs or short articles. AFD is for deleting unworthy subjects. Dream Focus 01:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Motion denied - Objection, your honor! Sustained. Note that AfD's run for 7 days. You have until October 11 to improve the article. If you make any more motions, I will find you in contempt of court. You do have the option of withdrawing your nomination, however, since there have not been any delete votes yet. SnottyWong converse 00:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn Creator has demonstrated the indecency to make changes to the article without informing AfD and acting like the changes were always there. I am done extending kindness to him. If he is going to try to go it alone without bringing the community in the loop, even after politely being asked to, I see no reason to extend him further assistance. Sad, but it is his choice. Sven Manguard Talk 03:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would they tell you? You seem to be confused on how these things work. Everyone works on an article during AFDs, to fix any problems it has. Assume good faith. He wasn't acting like anything was always there. He just didn't think to mention the ongoing changes he was making. And you didn't extend kindness to him, by nominating his article for deletion without discussion first, like you are suppose to WP:BEFORE. And didn't you send it to AFD on your own, without bringing the community into the loop, and discussing it first? Dream Focus 05:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong soliloquize 00:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD, and you get ample coverage. The first is a review from the Times. [42]. Dream Focus 01:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note I would like to point out that just because something appeared on TV does not automatically make it notable. In this case the sources he added are reviews (acceptable occasionally) and TV Guide like sites that announce the broadcast and nothing else (not acceptable). I still think that the best solution is the page Louis Theroux's BBC 2 Specials. Sven Manguard Talk 03:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not everything on television gets a full write up like the one I linked to. Dream Focus 05:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So lets get this straight its not notable User talk:Sven Manguard in spite of the fact I have nationally syndicated newspapers to demonstrate that they reviewed the program and that Louis Theroux won a major television award as a result of the program it is not notable? Dwanyewest (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
____________________
Statement for the record after the official closing of the debate
This statement was placed after the debate was formally closed and is not part of the debate proper. It was added for clarification and historical accuracy purposes only. Please do not remove it.
I am making a statement for the record that contrary to the close rationale, at no time did I withdraw the nomination for AfD I only withdrew the offer to extend the article creator extra time. That being said, the article creator has used the time well and greatly improved the article. It still needs extensive work, but may not qualify as an AfD anymore. As is my existing policy, I am not formally withdrawing the request for deletion, however I will no longer actively fight to have it removed. It works, barely, and that's enough for me to move on. Sven Manguard Talk 16:14, 5 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- America's Medicated Kids (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)
Tiny article (one line) about a noted documentary artists' much less known documentary. No encylcopedic value, as Wikipedia is not the TV guide. Would not be opposed to a merge with Louis Theroux, although there is only one line of content here, so there is little to actually merge. Would not be opposed to a redirect to Louis Theroux if merge is rejected. Sven Manguard Talk 16:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Subject is also covered adequately at Louis Theroux's BBC 2 Specials. Content is mostly the same. Would not object to merge or redirect to that page either. Sven Manguard Talk 16:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep found a source and I am sure there are more per WP:BEFORE Dwanyewest (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong converse 00:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Click the Google news link at the top of the AFD and you see ample coverage in notable news sources. Wikipedia is not paper, there no shortage of space. No reason why the information can't be in more than once place. Here in its own article, it can be expanded. That's normally how things are done. Dream Focus 01:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument borders on WP:NOHARM which I don't think is exactly persuasive. Sven Manguard Talk 03:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, you prove that it exists, and that it got basic coverage from sites that give basic coverage to every single program that appears on televison. Still have not demonstrated notability. All the sources in the world can be added and if the article still does not demonstrate notability it is going to be rightfully deleted. Sven Manguard Talk 03:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Sun and other articles give ample coverage, it not just a brief mention. Dream Focus 05:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, you prove that it exists, and that it got basic coverage from sites that give basic coverage to every single program that appears on televison. Still have not demonstrated notability. All the sources in the world can be added and if the article still does not demonstrate notability it is going to be rightfully deleted. Sven Manguard Talk 03:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now there more than adequate sources for this article to assert notability. Such as reviews from reliable newspapers and coverage of the subject matter for it to be kept. All this article needs is better writing. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not how notability works. Did the show have any lasting effects, force changes, cause a scandal. Did it become a best seller? Everyone notices a gunshot, but if all the bullet ever does is fly through the air, and never causes any damage, ten seconds later everyone moves on. Media outlets notice documentries, but if they are don't do/cause anything special, they aren't notable.
- Think of this as how Wikipedia handles popular shows like The Simpsons. There exists a list of episodes with short summaries, but only the best know, most popluar, and award winning episodes have their own pages. For the equivalent here Louis Theroux's BBC 2 Specials is your episode list and The Most Hated Family in America is that special once in a season episode with its own page.
- Do you see where I am coming from, at least? Sven Manguard Talk 07:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, being a bestseller doesn't make it notable, only reviews in at least two places make something notable according to the ridiculous notability guidelines. Bestselling novels have been deleted because no one could find any reviews of them. If the documentary was notable enough to get ample news coverage, then its notable. This isn't someone in the news once for running over someone famous, or killing a thief with a sword. This documentary was reviewed. Dream Focus 07:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it says that the sources mean it is presumed notable, but leaves editors room to say it isn't. Since my premise is that this is an episode in a series of documentaries, and that the series is notable but individual episodes are, with few exceptions, not notable, I am also within the guidelines. I also find the concept of bestsellers not being sourced preposterous. At the very least, there will be sources tracking its sales, which are just as valid as many of the sources in this series of articles. Sven Manguard Talk 20:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, being a bestseller doesn't make it notable, only reviews in at least two places make something notable according to the ridiculous notability guidelines. Bestselling novels have been deleted because no one could find any reviews of them. If the documentary was notable enough to get ample news coverage, then its notable. This isn't someone in the news once for running over someone famous, or killing a thief with a sword. This documentary was reviewed. Dream Focus 07:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you see where I am coming from, at least? Sven Manguard Talk 07:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article has been expanded and shown to have significant coverage in mainstream news media and satisfies WP:N with reliable sources per WP:RS. - Hydroxonium (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 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 Dinobots. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Slag (Transformers) (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)
Disputed prod (though no reason for the dispute was stated). Another Transformers character of unclear notability. J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (or merge to an appropriate aggregate article, if such a one exists). "Sources" are either in-universe or trivial and do not sustain a full article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge to Dinobots. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Dinobots. --Divebomb (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or at least Merge to Dinobots. Notable MAJOR characters in a major TV series. Also, wasn't there some real-world scandle about his name being a dirty word in the UK? They had to change his name and all in the new series to Snarl. I don't suppose anyone can find an article about that to cite? I'd say upsetting parents by an offensive name counts as effecting the real world though. Mathewignash (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There was no scandal, just Hasbro realizing that the name was a dirty word and changing it. Simple as that. --Divebomb (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KeepNeutral, leaning towards Merge Really not my field, but seems like a legitimate, all be it poorly written, article. Needs to be completely overhauled (its current form appears to be written by a fan with a ten year old's vocabulary, and is encyclopedic in several ways. That being said, it can be saved with a rewrite.) At least the first refrence seems good, although area will improve as the article does. I say just give it the work tags and come back in six months. Sven Manguard Talk 01:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- That's simply not how these articles work. Articles on this subject have languished for years with next to no improvement, despite many discussions about how generally terrible they are. This one has been around since 2005- this isn't something some newbie has just thrown together. J Milburn (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are the first two paragraphs. Tell me this isn't "just thrown togther" by a ten year old fan:
- That's simply not how these articles work. Articles on this subject have languished for years with next to no improvement, despite many discussions about how generally terrible they are. This one has been around since 2005- this isn't something some newbie has just thrown together. J Milburn (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Slag (Scories in Quebec, Canada, Tricex in Italy) is very tough, strong and possesses impressive firepower.[1] In dinosaur mode, Slag can spew from his mouth a bolt of 3,000 degrees Celsius flame up to 80 feet (25 m) 2 degrees to left. He possesses enormous strength and can shatter a brick building with a single blow from his armored head. His horns can also shoot high powered lasers. In robot mode he carries a high-energy laser rifle, an energo sword and a rocket poom.
- Slag's biggest weakness is his over-aggressive behavior, which can cause problems relating with other Autobots. He is also noticed for being the only Dinobot who would dare argue with the leader Grimlock over his commands (ironically, he is usually seen as the group's second in command). He joined the Autobots in the cartoon and comics in their first year (1984), but his toy wasn't released until 1985.
- I'm sorry if you don't agree with me, but I think bad writing in and of itself is not an excuse to kill an article. It has appeared in multiple mediums, has a commercial value, and is sourced. I can't in good faith advocate deleting it. Sven Manguard Talk 01:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the problem with the inclusionist mentality they always scream notable. But won't do anything about to improve the article save the article like add reliable sources. One of the recent ADF's I participated in when The Most Hated Family in America when it was nominated for deletion. The inclusionists at least have the decency to find GOOD reliable sources and rewrite the article. Something Sven Manguard you seem unwilling or unable to do. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just involved in a lengthy battle with another user who decided to focus less on arguing points and more on arguing people. Keep your comments civil and avoid treading on the boundry of personal attacks. I don't need to add sources or work on the article. I say it meeds WP:N and WP:V and that is enough for me to vote keep. Watch your words and tone please, and for the record, I vote delete at least 95% of the time, I'm not at all an inclusionist. Sven Manguard Talk 06:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge looked at the sources but they're wholly inadequate to WP:verify notability. Merge is a fair compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly two published books is a lot for most of the fringe nerd/children's entertainment articles I've seen. You are right, that it is not enough, and I agree that the other sources are garbage, but if we do settle on a merge, let's try very hard to protect the two actual sources we do have. Sven Manguard Talk 16:23, 4 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, -- Cirt (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Same notability issues as many other Transformers AfDs...sourced to toy books, comics, fansites. Tarc (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:FICT. Isn't there a Transformers Wiki for this?--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into whatever (Dinobots, I think) genre of Transformer this character this is. The proliferation of Transformer character pages is reaching Pokemon levels. Speaking of which, if I'm remembering right, wasn't there a similar rash of Pokemon related AfD's not too long ago? How was that handled? Mtiffany71 (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oy. Looks like the Pokemon Test is about to be reincarnated in a newer, uglier, robotic form. Fan-tastic! Mtiffany71 (talk) 05:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as many have stated. Cruft, cruft, cruft. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge as compromise due to a lack of third-party sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:11, 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hesketh Bank Silver 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)
Non-notable musical group per WP:BAND. Google turns up only local event listings and similar. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I could only find this, the others are just passing mentions, thus they are a non-notable band. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. Sven Manguard Talk 03:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 5 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2010–11 Hyde F.C. season (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)
Originally proposed deletion via PROD with the following reason:
As agreed here and confirmed here, clubs lower than the Conference National are deemed below the notability threshold for season articles.
User:Liamtaylor007 contested prod with the following reason:
i think it is a suitable page and therefor [sic] should not get deleted, why should it get deleted, does it matter if its not a notable team. —Half Price 15:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —Half Price 15:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not a notable season. GiantSnowman 15:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. This article does not meet the includsion criteria for season articles. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even ignoring the consensus for these type of articles for a second, most of the sources are to the club's own websites and the others are just transfer news. However, I want to also note that the creator and sole editor is just 15 years old as shown on his user page, and the juxtaposition of the two rationales, though totally standard, looks a bit mean in this case, along with the sic tag. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Fair comment. I think it was right to list both the reason and the contest, but the sic probably was a tad harsh! —Half Price 22:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What has the article creator's age got to do with anything? And besides, can't 15 year olds spell nowadays? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Comment. Delete per "sources are to the club's own websites and the others are just transfer news", which just falls under WP:V#SELF and WP:ROUTINE, respectively. However, we've had issues like this before that were kept because the club formerly played at a professional, national level of competition, but I'm still not sure I understand why that distinction matters. The conversation in the first link provided by Half Price, WT:WikiProject Football/Season article task force/Archive 1#Notability, doesn't provide a clear conclusion, and WP:FOOTY/SEASONS has never published even a recommended notability criteria or competition threshold for season articles. For example, one of the two examples provided in Half Price's second link, WT:WikiProject Football/Season article task force#Notability - July 2010, is Newport County A.F.C., who are currently playing at a national level for the first time since they were expelled from the Football Conference in 1988–89—see the list of Newport County A.F.C. seasons for an overview—but they have a season article for all 21 seasons between. Because of cases like this, I feel that FOOTY's policy and implementation in regards to notable seasons is rather flimsy. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable season. --Carioca (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with much of what Johnny Polo says above. Whilst I can see some debate has already occurred on this, and it's not sensible to keep re-opening a full debate each time an issue comes up, I can't help feeling that going with a cut-off of Conference National is a bit arbitrary. Surely it's down to the sources available e.g. would AFC Wimbledon's last season in Conference South not have gained more coverage than some teams in League Two? Eldumpo (talk) 10:59, 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 Speedy Keep as the nomination was withdrawn and there are no delete votes. (non-admin closure) Yoenit (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- House organ (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)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Somewhat pointless stub which hasn't improved in the four years since it was created. Entirely unreferenced and unsourced, except for a link to an answers.com page, which is similar enough in wording and structure as to make me believe this is a copyvio. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn, but thanks to Pointillist for trying to make me not feel like an idiot. This was mostly an over-reaction to the part about The General being the cannonical example. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Editing policy, we don't delete articles because they haven't improved. Many articles have taken years to be written, including articles on whole sections of the planet. We only delete articles because they cannot be improved, because no sources exist. What did you do to check that no sources exist? You don't tell us, and you don't tell us what you did and didn't come up with as a result. I suspect that you didn't check even half of the many names that these things are known by. ☺ This is not least because if you had, you'd know that plenty of sources exist and that this is a valid stub with scope for expansion, which we keep. Uncle G (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Somewhat pointless nomination. I have restored the content about the General which the nominator removed. I myself have many copies of the General and was referring to it just the other week. Small world.... Colonel Warden (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable topic that needs more references, which presumably could be extracted from the extensive reading list. Cullen328 (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Always click the Google news search BEFORE you nominate something for deletion. There are plenty of results that appear, the first two from the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times. Dream Focus 20:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've heard of and witnessed this term and the object it describes. Sources are good and while it's not on the track to being a GA it does communicte the point. Hasteur (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but I'm glad RoySmith nominated it. How else are pathetic pieces of work like this ever going to get fixed? I'll try to improve it over the next few days. - Pointillist (talk) 21:34, 4 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) 00:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Championships of the New York Yankees (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)
List cruft, a reproduction of material from New York Yankees. Muboshgu (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also duplication of History of the New York Yankees. At best, merge into that article somehow. Wknight94 talk 14:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposal Move article to Template:New York Yankees start boxes (delete redirect), remove the non-succession box parts, then place it in {{Navboxes}} and add it to History of the New York Yankees as a navbox, just like {{Roger Federer start boxes}}. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the point of a template if it's only being transcluded in one place? Same for {{Roger Federer start boxes}}. Wknight94 talk 18:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be transcluded to New York Yankees too. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Seems redundant. Although now I'm thinking of doing a similar article about the Cubs. Except it will be a lot shorter. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- HA! That made me lol, thanks Bugs. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Easy to read the information in this manner. Much easier than having to look through a long article of just text scattered about in many places to find the information. Dream Focus 04:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets what seem to be the emerging community standards for lists: Notable subject matter, coherent criteria for inclusion, sufficient content to make list treatment worthwhile, finite length I wish it were more finite than it is, ha ha., and usefulness as a navigational tool by providing bluelinks. Does it duplicate information found elsewhere? Possibly. Does it constitute a content fork for this reason? No, because the criteria for inclusion is specific and there is no interpretative apparatus that may evolve on a competing tangent. I hate the layout myself, but that doesn't matter five cents' worth... —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.
- Should be retitled List of championships of the New York Yankees, I note. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.
- I renamed it List of championships won by the New York Yankees at 04:52, 7 October 2010. I also asked for comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York Yankees. Dream Focus 17:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be retitled List of championships of the New York Yankees, I note. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.
- Merge - the succession boxes are useful navigational tool, no doubt, but do they need to be in a separate article? No, I don't think so. Thus, the best course of action here is to merge, either to New York Yankees or to History of the New York Yankees.—Chris!c/t 01:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How would you fit something that large over there? It'd be a problem. This is a valid content fork. Dream Focus 15:03, 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Harry Gouvas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm nominating this article for deletion as it appears to be solely designed for self promotion (evident from its history) and is in violation of Wikipedia:Notability. The page lists a number of unverifiable reference and a search for Gouvas, H, purported to be an orthopaedic surgeon, on Pubmed returns zero hits. Malljaja (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is surprising to see no response to this nomination. I would have thought this is an open and shut case — if one searches Google books for this individual, only one turns up. Have we lowered our standards for notability? Malljaja (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the only reference is to the greek version of wikipedia, and I do not see any coverage in reliable sources in a search on google. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The information in the article is unverified. The article lists a dozen or more books he supposedly authored, but nothing by this author can be found at Amazon or Google Scholar. (From the awkwardness of some of the titles it's possible they were published in Greek and the titles given are translations.) In any case, he does not appear to meet the notability guideline, at least not under the name Harry Gouvas. --MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just tried searching under "C. Gkouvas" which apparently is another spelling of his name, but I still found nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 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 keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:SNOW. It needs better citations per WP:RS, but the clear consensus is that the topic is clearly notable and can be sourced easily. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bible study (Christian) (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)
Fails WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Of course many people study the Bible, and it's important to them. However the expression "Bible study" seems to mean different things to different people. The general concept should be mentioned in Bible itself. The practice some churches have of a weekly Bible study meeting could be mentioned in some article on the general topic of religious devotion or habits, etc. Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.
- Keep. I'd agree that this article could use better focus on the ordinary meaning of the term --- the (mostly Protestant) practice of devotional Bible study in small groups. But that is certainly a devotional practice that can support an article. Entire textbooks have been written seeking to instruct pastors in the art of leading them.[43][44] Article is surely capable of expansion, and should not be deleted as a "dictionary definition". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: just in the same way we have Book discussion club, Boy Scouts, Sunday school etc. Just because something had a dicdef doesnt' mean it falls foul of WP is not a dictionary - which is a dubious rule, even more dubiously applied. Rich Farmbrough, 14:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep and rename to Bible study group or Bible study meeting if that's what it's about. The material on Catholic prayers does not belong at all, of course Catholics also study the Bible. Borock (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree it needs to be clarified and cited, but I believe Catholics use the term "bible study" for prayer groups, hence it's inclusion in this article. Not that one would realize that from the present passage, I agree. -Markeer 23:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep without rename. I agree that refocusing the article is appropriate, but I haven't seen a proposed name change I actually like. Jclemens (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The refocusing suggested would make this very close to the Cell group article. Possibly merge into that, but conceptually a strong keep, as there is much in the secondary literature about it. StAnselm (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: the material in this article about individual Bible study can be merged into the Quiet time article. StAnselm (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but needs to be EXTENSIVELY cited, as in line by line footnotes. It's a common-usage term in the United States, but that simply means there are a number of different shades of meaning, which would all need to be clarified. Absolutely of encyclopedic value, but the article is in very weak shape. -Markeer 23:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Bible study is a notable aspect of observance of Christianity, one reason being how commonly this studying format is used; I don't think it would be necessary to delete this article. However, I do agree that more sources could and should be added to the article. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 00:01, 5 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Game six (baseball) (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)
List cruft. A loose collection of World Series Game 6's that have been notable. More fitting for the descriptions of each particular World Series than its own page. Muboshgu (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:IINFO. There is no clear inclusion criteria, why this 6th games are more notable, than any other. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Random, fan-penned Game 6 moments, nothing more. Once this is deleted, Game 6 (film) can have this article's title. Tarc (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 5 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) 13:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Icelandic space exploration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced student project. No indication of notability. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting for a confirmation on this being the first man-made object sent into space by an Icelandic group of people for research purposes, i dont know about you.. but in context to the world this is a pretty daring step for Iceland, and to any civilization for that matter. Valur (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename This is not an article on the general topic of Icelandic space exploration, but on one event. Give sources that show that event is notable, should be fairly easy. Then rename the article to reflect what it's really about. Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It may be a first for Icelandic students, and a valuable project - especially if it worked (I have doubts about the value of a cellphone at that distance...) - but it's hardly 'space exploration'. 32km is a bit below the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale line at 62 km (see Outer space, and the balloon couldn't have reached the astronautics level. If decent sources are found, it could make an article (with a bit more about the results - one hopes...), but under a different title. Peridon (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but without prejudice against recreation with better sources, and under a different name. Most of the actual content in the page was a copyvio (which I've blanked, leaving the page even more useless than it was before...), and the rest is almost content-free, or could be easily reconstructed from sources. The subject may be worth an article; but that isn't it, and that isn't the right title. --ais523 17:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete and recreate as an article about the specific balloon-spacecraft mentioned, if it proves to be notable according to reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or as suggested by rename and rewrite an article about the specific balloon-spacecraft mentioned. Otherwise, waiting for an event to happen to see if its notable fails WP:Crystal ball. Heiro 01:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article states that "Icelandic space exploration" has not occurred. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or rename if enough sources are found about the student project. :pepper 10:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 5 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transformation recruitment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to be WP:ESSAY and WP:OR, lacking WP:RS. — Timneu22 · talk 13:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Good advice but not ready for the encyclopedia yet. Title seems to be a neologism and the material would be better covered in more general articles, on retraining maybe? Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't see how improving the skills of your workforce is 'recruitment'; it's always been called 'training' or 'retraining' up to now. I CAN see a reference to a particular 'recruitment' company which has adopted or originated this new bit of business jargon. I may be (am!) cynical, but I do wonder if 'transformation' costs more than 'training'..... Article is basically advising what is plain common sense - but that does seem to be lacking in many branches of business as they welter in bonuses and jargon, and wonder why they are losing money. (Told you I was cynical). Peridon (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. You don't understand at all. You give your entirely ordinary and obvious method some kind of vague but glittery label, and a lucrative career as a consultant can be yours. The trick is not to give away how obvious it is before you get their money. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Without diving into the subject of recruitment, it sounds like this may be better suited by adding a section to the recruitment wiki page. I agree with the assertions of WP:OR and lack of WP:RS. --Artlovesyou (talk) 05:30, 6 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 United States Air Force Academy. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Bird (mascot) (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 and non-notable per WP:NOTABLE and WP:MILMOS/N. Should be upmerged to United States Air Force Academy. Anotherclown (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: as per nominator's suggestion. Doesn't seem independently notable to me, but would deserve a mention on the USAF Academy article, IMO. It would need significant referencing to establish significant coverage to warrant a separate article, I feel. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: surely not on the same level of independant notability as, say, Brutus Buckeye; however, surely worthy of mention on the main article. In fact, it seems like most of the traditions listed in the navbox could probably be merged into the main article, or maybe a standalone History and traditions of the United States Air Force Academy (there is a similar redlink in the navbox already). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to United States Air Force Academy per above. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Barely deserves even that. Figureofnine (talk) 15:24, 6 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) 00:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Showroom of Compassion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:CRYSTAL —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Not wp:crystal as tracklisting, name and release date have all been confirmed here. Yoenit (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sure, it might be slightly premature, but I haven't even done any extensive searching, and I've still found several articles online regarding this upcoming album, including here and here. DeadpoolRP (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is an album by Cake (band) that's set for release in early 2011. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the first song "Sick Of You" has charted, look here: http://www.billboard.com/column/chartbeat#/column/chartbeat/chart-highlights-dance-club-play-alternative-1004118866.story GD1223 (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the first single has charted, the tracklisting has been released, the cover art has been released, and it is set for release in 2011. Totally not wp:crystal.--Gen. Quon (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep album is available for pre-sale 134.76.223.1 (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - This nomination is an incorrect use of WP:CRYSTAL, which says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." If a near-future event, like the release of this album, is certain to take place, then saying so in an article is not the "unverified speculation" that WP:CRYSTAL seeks to prevent. With that being said, I'm not sure if the third party notice of the album is strong enough yet to make this article viable. But the nominator is responsible for using a rationale that makes sense. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:38, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What if We Were Real (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:CRYSTAL —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no tracklisting yet, so delete per WP:NALBUMS. Yoenit (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mandisa, per TenPoundHammer's Law: there is no tracklist and cover, but this confirms, that the album is being recorded. Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article has absolutely no sources. (As to the Twitter link, that isn't a source, I can't see how Twitter can ever have a positive or constructive impact on Wikipedia) Also, I quite like HAMMER's Law. Sven Manguard Talk 03:02, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- John Parris (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 can't find significant coverage of Parris at independent reliable sources. None of the links (apart from the one to the Parriss Cues website) work, and this appears to be just advertising for Parris Cues. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Informed WP:CUE about this discussion. Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 15:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unfortunately there is no substantial coverage in reliable sources. I can only find passing mentions about him, making cues for professional snooker players. Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. I came here looking to keep, but the sources are lacking beyond "renowned cuemaker" and "x snooker player uses a John Parris cue". He's well known as a cuemaker and has some claims under point 2 of ANYBIO but clearly fails the GNG. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think that we need to worry about this being advertising, because anyone who plays snooker seriously enough to get a hand-made cue will be well aware, without having to read a Wikipedia article, that Parris is "the world's leading cue maker" (The Daily Telegraph) or, if you prefer, "the game's leading cuesmith" (Irish Independent). Like Christopher Connor above I'm rather bemused by the lack of coverage findable online. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious keep since Phil Bridger immediately above just fulfilled the GNG with multiple, independent reliable sources, with apparently trivial effort. This case is, incidentally, a great example of a) how it can be a poor idea to nominate topics for deletion if you are not intimately familiar with the field to which they pertain, and b) why the Internet and search results more specifically are not always a good indicator of notability. Parris is covered, non-trivially (in detail, in fact, including construction methods, price ranges, etc.), with a full-colour illustration and a pull-quote, in Stein & Rubino's Billiard Encyclopedia, the most important reference work on cue sports. Copy-pasteable full citation: Stein, Victor; Rubino, Paul (2008) [1994]. The Billiard Encyclopedia (3rd ed.). New York: Balkline Press. p. 108. ISBN 9780615170923.
John Parris is one of the leading custom cue makers in England. His hand-made snooker cues are used by top players around the world.
— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 15:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Keep because although the sources may be poor, they are certainly sufficient to give the article credibility. As has been mentioned anyone involved in snooker will most likely have heard his name as one of the leading cue makers. Samasnookerfan (talk) 22:32, 6 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 National Express Coaches. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2007 National Express coach accidents (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 time of these accidents, especially the main one, there was a whole bunch of news coverage. Coach accidents aren't very common in the UK; our roads are generally quite good (even if I grumble that accross on the English side of the border the A1 still isn't dualed...) and so news coverage was inevitable. It looked likely to remain big for some time. However, there has been no lasting impact and there is no long-term notability. WP:NOTNEWS applies; yes, a coach crash is gonna get news coverage. But no laws changed, no anything changed, and - tragic or possibly beautiful though this fact is - life goes on. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No historical significance. --Diego Grez (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would only support this if the information contained therein was merged into National Express Coaches and used to expand the relatively small Incidents section so that the info/sources aren't lost. WillDow (Talk) 08:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above. No objection to properly merging over any sourced info to the National Express Coaches article. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per massive coverage in WP:RS more than sufficient for WP:NOTE; as the nominator observes, incidents such as this are quite infrequent, which also suggests notability. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply, because this subject isn't "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" which the policy proscribes. Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EFFECT. No lasting impact. Bus crashes may be rare but it's still just routine news, like any other rare accident that is news worthy but not encyclopedia worthy.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (with some pruning of excessive detail) to National Express Coaches. The incidents fail WP:NOTNEWS and infrequency does not equate with notability. Jimmy Pitt talk 20:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above and possibly Transwiki the details to Wikinews. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is a classic case of recentism I like this subject matter not news and no lasting notability. The article fails on each of the above policies spectacularly and prime for immediate deletion on those grounds.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - to National Express Coaches per Jimmy Pitt above. Keristrasza (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:EVENT requires significant coverage, lasting coverage and lasting impact. This certainly has significant coverage, and it appears to span two yeras until November 2008, so it meets the first two. That leaves impact. This BBC report from February 2010 says that NatEx added Alcolocks its entire fleet as a direct result of the event, which for me is a lasting impact. On this basis it meets all three requirements so is notable. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply as this is by no means routine coverage. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:32, 4 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, -- Cirt (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS concerns. No lasting significance or historical impact, a one-time event. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Not notable on its own, but too good to waste. Sources and all should mosy on over to National Express Coaches per willdow. Another case of "All N are V, but not all V are N" Sven Manguard Talk 20:28, 4 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sabbatic Witchcraft (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 does not seem notable as distinct from the claimed originator of the term, Andrew D. Chumbley. I note the debate on the talk p. about what term best describes his practices, this or "Sabbatic Craft" . I do not consider either a suitable redirect, given the assertions that they may not be specific. (Though I accept Chumbley is borderline notable, the article on him seems disproportionate to his importance.) DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: in reference to the Cultus Sabbati, it would be "Sabbatic Craft", thus the non–identical name, and also at Contemporary witchcraft#Sabbatic, (presumably).—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Request:Unless there are any objections based on WP:REDIRECT and what I've explained below, I propose this discussion should be moved to WP:RFD (redirects for discussion). This is an undeveloped 3 week old stub undergoing an AfD.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Andrew D. Chumbley. Yworo (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge - I couldn't find any reliable sources covering this term and if there's debate over whether the term is even applicable then it definitely doesn't need an article. Sources don't appear to support notability at this time. If it's decided that it's an applicable term then it should perhaps be merged. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable even to those who study these things, and without wishing to get into an argument about the title of a non-notable product, I would be very surprised if one could turn up a writer on the subject of witchcraft who would refer to the Cultus Sabbati as such.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I should probably clarify that comment...but arguing about flavours of Tradition is not for this AfD :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC) (who fluffs no bunnies)[reply]
- Re User:Elen of the Roads: Because I used the word "flavor" you're not going to clarify? What, exactly, would you say this AfD is for? It's become rather unclear... Astonishing you're calling someone a fluffy bunny? Please clarify whom.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can confirm that the remark was not directed at anyone in this AfD, but was apropos of sources. I think in this case your sensitivities are probably not my problem, but I did not intend to disturb you and shall make no more references to cuddly toys or emo bands in your presence.(<-that was me --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Re: Didn't notice your reply here too (no sig).
- Now now, my sensitivities have nothing to do with fluffy bunny being insulting... but if you'd be so kind as to review my last reply, and thoughtfully clarify your !vote, I really would appreciate it. Thx—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of "delete: Not notable" do you want clarifying? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re User:Elen of the Roads: Frankly, I don't understand the part that fails to address WP:R, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. No reply is necessary.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of "delete: Not notable" do you want clarifying? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can confirm that the remark was not directed at anyone in this AfD, but was apropos of sources. I think in this case your sensitivities are probably not my problem, but I did not intend to disturb you and shall make no more references to cuddly toys or emo bands in your presence.(<-that was me --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Re User:Elen of the Roads: Because I used the word "flavor" you're not going to clarify? What, exactly, would you say this AfD is for? It's become rather unclear... Astonishing you're calling someone a fluffy bunny? Please clarify whom.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Contemporary witchcraft#Sabbatic with redirect.Doubtful it's notable enough to stand on its own, but safe to say it warrants inclusion in the larger context of Traditional Witchcraft. Per the article's creator, it wasn't supposed to be about either Chumbley or the Cultus Sabbati... so in accordance, I've changed the Cultus Sabbati redirect to point to Andrew D. Chumbley.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: Just the redirect... hardly qualifies as a merge... Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable, wrong name, and the material already is on the Chumbley page. Question: I don't seem to be understanding the post above. Why is there a Cultus Sabbati page that is merely a redirect to the Chumbley page? Lulubyrd (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
- The redirect automatically sends searches or requests for "Cultus Sabbati" to the Chumbley article instead. I hope a redirect to Contemporary witchcraft#Sabbatic Current would be of no concern for "Sabbatic Witchcraft"...
- Using Google hits as an estimate, for every 10 requests/searches for one of the two terms, we might expect 6 to be "Sabbatic Craft" and 4 to be "Sabbatic Witchcraft":
- As I've indicated in detail on the article's talk page, Chumbley stated that "Sabbatic Craft" is a proprietary term applicable to associates of the Cultus Sabbati only. He suggested "Sabbatic Current" for public use but the public doesn't use it (for whatever reason). Instead, people use "Sabbatic Craft", "Sabbatic Witchcraft", and sometimes even "Cultis Sabbati" (though rarely). Both "Sabbatic Craft" and "Sabbatic Witchcraft" should redirect to the Contemporary witchcraft#Sabbatic section, which I've changed to "Sabbatic Current" (and anchored "Sabbatic" etc. too). I've explained the distinctions using the source from the article's talk page, (the interview in The Cauldron) and generally expanded it. I've also incorporated the 2009 material that was removed from Contemporary witchcraft#Sabbatic Witchcraft two weeks ago.
- I don't expect many respondents will read the talk page or note that this article stub has simply got off to a slow start (WP:DEADLINE), but
User:DGG's andUser:Lulubyrd's comparisons of the 4 humble sentences written thus far to the Chumbley article aren't entirely accurate, (try finding "Via Tortuosa" for example). More importantly, the Chumbley article does not duplicate the stated intention of this stub, which is to address non–Cultus Sabbati practitioners, (top of the talk page).- Sorry User:DGG, that was just on your user talk, not here.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The talk got bogged down with a discussion of the title, but there's much less to worry about in terms of WP:REDIRECT, (as opposed to a WP:TITLE).
- Regarding User:DGG's premises, the talk page discussion was most emphatically not about the best term for Chumbley's practices, and I don't see how such mistaken "assertions that they may not be specific" would lead you to believe this is not a suitable redirect. About 4 in 10 users can realistically be expected to search on "Sabbatic Witchcraft" rather than "Sabbatic Craft", so if any issues regarding WP:REDIRECT have not been addressed, I'd prefer the discussion to take place in the RfD forum. Also, I can't find a guideline for calculating kilobytes from notability, how notable is 20K of thoroughly referenced wikitext?
- Although I wish there were a better option than redirecting Cultus Sabbati to Andrew D. Chumbley, it doesn't seem appropriate to redirect a specific group to Contemporary witchcraft, even though information about what the group practices, (as well as some of their influences and associates), still comprise the bulk of this sub–genre of Traditional Witchcraft. However, I don't think the sub–genre should be treated differently or isolated from the rest of Contemporary witchcraft, where it's been listed since 2009.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I believe Cultus Sabbati is also the name of a goth band. I suspect they are even less notable.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re User:Elen of the Roads: Please don't make sarcastic comments here. There's no call for it. Are you not an admin? A relevant, civil and thoughtful contribution to the discussion, grounded in policy and guidelines, would have been very welcome. This AfD has become absurd, there's no reason to forbid a redirect, so please just close it as a redirect and we can all go have our wiki fun, thx—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cultus Sabbati the goth band. I believe this fails WP:MUSIC (so we are not in danger of requiring disambiguation between this and Cultus Sabbati which currently redirects to Andrew D. Chumbley, the reason I mentioned it), even more badly that in my opinion the topic of this AfD fails WP:GNG. Your view may vary. Mine will vary if
you(replace with a person who wishes to retain the stand alone article) find substantial references to the subject in reliable third party sources - so far I've only found forums and websites relating to Cultus Sabbati, and none of the books in my possession refer to the subject. And what on earth makes you think I'm an admin? Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Cool, thanks! And thanks for letting me know what I'm trying to say about the redirect reads clearly enough. I was hard to know for sure without a second set of eyes. Much appreciated.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, Cultus Sabbati the goth band won't be an issue, fair enough. My fault for having mentioned Cultus Sabbati the redirect. The topic of this AfD is what, exactly, if not the existence of a redirect from "Sabbatic Witchcraft" to Contemporary witchcraft#Sabbatic Current? (If it's about a 3 week old undeveloped stub, close this AfD per WP:DEADLINE and prod it so I can change it to a redirect right now).
- From "In a nutshell" on the General Notability Guideline WP:GNG: "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence." I urge you to refer to WP:R, the guideline on Redirects instead, (which I've addressed at some length). If you feel the contemporary witchcraft article lacks "substantial references to the subject in reliable third party sources", or that the sourcing of my recent edits to the page fail WP:RS in the context of that topic, the appropriate forum would be that article's talk page.
- You're welcome to your own opinions, of course, but I've said I doubt (a fully developed article) would even meet the notability requirement. Yet, you say "my view my vary", by which I take it you meant "my view may differ", (I believe I've been consistent), and although our opinions regarding notability may differ in degree, it's not fair to imply we disagree. The other paragraph I was responding to, the one that capriciously refuses to clarify your delete !vote, strongly implies a polemic stance against my view (and that's assuming good faith about "flavor" and fluffy bunny not implying you find me annoying, intractable, and oblivious to my total ignorance of witchcraft). I should thank you for acknowledging the !vote needed clarification, you're the only one who has done. And sorry, my mistake, I forget why I thought you might be an admin.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Machine elf, your anxieties - ?about what kind of witch people perceive you as? - are getting in the way here. "Your view may vary" is standard internet speak for "I am only speaking for myself here." I am not particularly concerned with your view, I am only stating mine. You must form your own view. I take the view that it is not notable, and that editors will not find reliable third party sources that discuss this topic, such as are required to verify content and demonstrate notability. I have stated this above, I see no reason to clarify further at this time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That crosses the line once again User:Elen of the Roads. This has nothing to do with my perceptions, WP:NPA. This is English Wikipedia, not "internet speak" Wikipedia. I fail to how the remark wasn't patronizing and vapid based this explanation, perhaps that's exactly what it was.
- Why are you commenting on the notability of my view? It's not an AfD on Machine Elf's view. A view, I'll repeat, that is effectively the same as yours on the question of a "Sabbatic Witchcraft" article's notability. We don't have that article however, we have a tiny stub. A stub that no one is suggesting we should keep because it's ludicrous to pretend that's on the table. However, if it's turned into a redirect, it does not need to meet those impossible requirements.
- Unlike the ad hominem attacks and repeated claims of exhaustively researching WP:RS, I've offered a reasonable demonstration that we should expect a large minority of the users looking for "Sabbatic Craft" to search for the misnomer "Sabbatic Witchcraft". As a simple courtesy, those users should be sent to Contemporary witchcraft where a "Sabbatic Witchcraft" section has existed since 2009.
- Again, I ask someone to please send this to redirects for discussion or simply close it as redirect based on what I've explained. Thx—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Machine elf, your anxieties - ?about what kind of witch people perceive you as? - are getting in the way here. "Your view may vary" is standard internet speak for "I am only speaking for myself here." I am not particularly concerned with your view, I am only stating mine. You must form your own view. I take the view that it is not notable, and that editors will not find reliable third party sources that discuss this topic, such as are required to verify content and demonstrate notability. I have stated this above, I see no reason to clarify further at this time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But Machine Elf--that doesn't seem to be the consensus.Lulubyrd (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I'll use a different redirect. Wikipedia is only too happy not to return Create new Sabbatic witchcraft article.
- By the way, when you deleted most of Contemporary witchcraft#Sabbatic Witchcraft, because the quotes were allegedly unverifiable, you could have just referenced An Interview with Andrew Chumbly in The Cauldron.
- Or just tag it: {{citation broken}}[full citation needed] —Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:17, 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, -- Cirt (talk) 11:07, 4 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Boyd Au (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)
Fails wp:bio. No refs. Appears autobiographical. Beach drifter (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Appears to be an autobiography, and the references do not appear reliable.Cullen328 (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Noting notable here Vrivers (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 5 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) 10:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rileah Vanderbilt (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 BLP that cites many unreliable sources such as IMDB, Official Star Wars Fan Film Challenge Web Site, Break.com, Action Flick Chick, MrDisgusting and ShockTillYouDrop.com. Google search cannot return reputable sources. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:16pm • 09:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not only are there no reliable sources, the roles are all trivial. Edward321 (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 5 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) 10:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This Is a Family Tour (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 concert tour. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. The limited references provided serve only to advertise the tour dates and in no way satisfy the requirement for "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". Nouse4aname (talk) 09:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I read the concert notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Music#Concert tours and I didn't see anything wrong...and all 4 support acts are obviously notable... HeyJohnWhatsYourNameAgain (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- i agree with hey john whats your name again. the tour guidelines are fit 72.10.103.142 (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Really, then where's the "significant coverage in independent reliable sources". Simple publication of tour dates is not sufficient. The coverage must actually review or describe the tour in detail, not just act as an advert. The fact that the bands are notable does not mean that the tour itself is notable. Take a read of WP:GNG also. Also interesting that the IP address posted only 3 minutes after HeyJohn, and has also edited various other articles that HeyJohn has too.. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I read the concert notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Music#Concert tours and I didn't see anything wrong...and all 4 support acts are obviously notable... HeyJohnWhatsYourNameAgain (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that IP is my school's IP and my friend was sitting next to me and decided to drop me a line. Sorry if that makes me suspicious...:P HeyJohnWhatsYourNameAgain (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:Music#Concert tours and WP:GNG per nom: no significant coverage online yet from WP:Reliable sources, which makes sense since the tour hasn't actually started yet. It may well be notable in a month or two: best to move this to a WP:User subpage, and if it becomes notable then it can be move back to mainspace. Top Jim (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Possibly WP:CRYSTAL comes in, but otherwise per nom and per TopJim. Peridon (talk) 22:29, 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. delete; the political career is not notable; otherwise, it is a clear BLP 1E situation. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bruce Barclay (Commissioner) (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 BLP violates WP:1E. The subject is solely notable for one event. Two years later, his trial is only being reported in the local press. He is not an admirable person but that does not make him notable. Will Beback talk 06:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Will Beback talk 21:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Will Beback talk 21:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — Will Beback talk 21:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep per WP:BARE - most local politicans are not notable per WP:POLITICIAN, but he was commisioner of a county with a population of over 200,000 residents. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A city or county official with one scandal is a classic definition of a 1E. Size doesn't matter when trying to find an exception to WP:POLITICIAN, (hmmm, given what he's charged with I should probably rephrase that...) Unless there's anything else he did that was noteworthy, I can't see this article surviving. And I'm sorry, but while changing the property assessment schedule might be a landmark political coup in Cumberland County, it isn't that noteworthy to the global Wikipedia userbase. -- RoninBK T C 06:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability really isn't there. 200k is not a lot of people, well below the 100 largest counties in the country. RayTalk 16:24, 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 keep. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tactical reload (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable, unencyclopaedic HOWTO. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, while the current article is in bad shape a tactical reload is a well known concept and discussed in many books on the topic, like [45] [46] [47] or any of the other 98 gbooks hits [48]. The concept therefore meets the WP:GNG and should not be deleted. I would also support a merge to an article like firearm loading techniques (not to be confused with handloading), but none seems to exist. Yoenit (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The subject is more than adequately covered in the sources produced above, I don't see any violation of WP:NOTHOWTO. The reader has to know why and how something is done for the article to make sense. Someoneanother 17:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I added a bunch of reliable sources. It still needs more copyediting, but in no way qualifies for deletion. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. —AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: it needs a cleanup (tone, second-person narrative), but it's notable and shouldn't be just a how-to guide. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 23:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It look like there are many who want to keep it and it look like it is worthwhile topic. Can someone undertake a good re-write of this article? There should be some here who at least did some PPC shooting etc. Or merge it into a tactical shooting entry, might be more appropriate. DeusImperator (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, how about we merge the pages Tactical Reload and Speed reload into one article, such as "firearm loading techniques" as suggested earlier? Mr.M.Smith (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like a reasonable idea. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, sounds swell. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like a reasonable idea. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:14, 6 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indrit Sulaj (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)
He is an Albanian and as a member of WP Albania I should work to keep this articles. However the subject IMO completely lacks notability and I don't feel comfortable in having it under WP Albania.Sulmues (talk) 05:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO. The most evident claim of notability appears to be creating the webpage for a city of 82,000 people. Article lacks independent references and is almost surely going to lack them in perpetuity, given the obscurity of the subject. --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 5 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 all. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeff Preston (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 is a third "mass deletion" of rugby league players who fail notability guidelines (WP:NSPORTS#Rugby league), following on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyer Allen and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Cohen (rugby league). These players have played international rugby league but for a country that plays at such a low level it does not meet notability requirements (eg USA or Japan). I have also discussed the matter at the WikiProject. Mattlore (talk) 05:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because none of these players play, or have played, at a notable level - either international test or World Cup football or in the NRL or SL:
- Roman Igorevich Ovchinnikov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ivan Pacho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Cory Simms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Adam Kambouris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kosta Kouparitsas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Leo Berngruber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Josh Madeley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Tom Kimble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Marc Simon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Shunsuke Tamura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Benedict Pender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Yasunori Oshima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Masanori Kazaoka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Hirofumi Kita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ryo Kondo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Mitsutaka Inuoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Masamichi Itagaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Hiroshi Miyazaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Narihisa Ushida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jin Iguchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kazunori Ijuin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Delete all To make one thing clear in advance: playing international rugby league is not an automatic conferral of notability like it can be in some other sports. Only a few nations take rugby league seriously. Having reviewed this list on the Rugby League wikiproject a few days ago, I am very confident that these players are entirely amateur, ordinary people. The articles should be deleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All - as per nom and Mkativerata, none of these meet WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all except for Roman Ovchinnikov he has played for Russia, who are members of the RLIF and has had some experience with the Wests TigersYoundbuckerz 11:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that on the face of the article WP:NSPORTS#Rugby league would suggest that he is likely to be notable, however a Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL on him turns up very little, and with the only ref (if you can call it that) on the page is to the Russian RL, (in Russian) there is no independent reliable sources on him. Do you have anything that could be added ? - if not then, at this time it should still be deleted (as fails WP:GNG) with no bar to re-creation if independent reliable sources on him are found. Codf1977 (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there an english source to say he played for the Russian national team in a competitive international match? Trialling with the Tigers isn't notable - only NRL games. If so, i'll remove him from this list. Mattlore (talk) 20:46, 5 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Daemon (astrophysics) (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)
All sources are to one author, which calls the credibility of this article (and the hypothesis behind it) into question. notability is dubious too, and the creator is essentially a single-purpose account. This looks like fringe science to me, especially given that Planck-sized black holes like those mentioned here are usually believed to be highly unstable (due to Hawking radiation), not "eternally living" as claimed here. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Do either of those sources even count as reliable sources in any event? At best, they're primary sources, and at worse are less than that. I'm not wholly familiar with astrophysics publishing practices, but I thought that "Letters" articles in most fields aren't considered to be fully peer-reviewed. The other source is to an Invited Talk, which again, often doesn't rise to the full level of peer review we'd like for a Wikipedia science source. To me this looks like a non-notable scientific idea that could possibly be covered in brief in another article, if at all. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I considered nominating this article myself, but nominated the related article on Edward Drobyshevski (the author of this theory) instead. This concept is not remotely notable as the papers are rarely cited by anyone other than the author. Furthermore, they are not published in a peer reviewed journal, but rather on arxiv, which lets anyone publish if they are at an academic institution. I found this article myself after reading one of the papers and trying to figure out if it was a fringe idea. I think I can now confidently state that to be the case. Sailsbystars (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The second cited paper was published in Modern Physics Letters A, and the first paper (albeit that one wouldn't know it from the citation after all of the relevant information was removed from it) was a conference paper at DARK 2007. Uncle G (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but conference papers are not peer reviewed, therefore such papers don't "count" as published papers.
This guy has one published paper on the subject and and several unpublished papers.Actually, it looks like a decent number have been published in MPLA, but the citation count clearly shows the subject to be non-notable. The one published paper is only cited by the author himself [49]. Lastly, published scientific papers do not rise to the level of notability unless they are covered in the media, which these are not. On an unrelated note, I think I know enough about the subject now that I can explain why the theory is fringe, if anyone is interested. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but conference papers are not peer reviewed, therefore such papers don't "count" as published papers.
- Comment—There is one paper[50] on the same subject with authors other than EM Drobyshevskia, and Drobyshevski's works do get cited by other authors. I don't know enough about the subject to determine whether it is pushing the envelope fringe or over the edge fringe. So I'm neutral.—RJH (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cite count for the article in question [51]. 12 cites by the authors, 3 cites by others. Definitely not enough to qualify as notable. For an example of what a notable paper looks like, check out the cites for the groundbreaking paper of Marcy and Butler, reporting one of the first extra-solar planets [52]. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even ignoring the Fringe issues with the article, it just doesn't rise to the level of notable. There are dozens of astronomy papers published every day proposing new theories. Heavy citation or media coverage is required for a scientific paper or series of scientific papers to be notable. Sailsbystars (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on sources Astronomical and astrophysical transactions is a peer reviewed journal. How rigorous the peer review is likely to be another matter.It is a very minor journal, not included in either Journal Citation Reports or Scopus. Princeton cancelled its subscription years ago, & it's a field in which we collect very intensively. Modern Physics Letters is a fairly low quality journal also, but at least it is in JCR, (by the way, "Letters" in physics journals is not a sign of lack of quality or peer review. --Physical review letters is the highest quality physics journal in the world. ) DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the concept has to have some significant degree of citation from other people, and it does not. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 5 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 consensus and as a poorly sourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- David Ian Jolly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. I am concerned about the ambiguous notability. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's nothing in the article to establish notability; nor is there anything to meet BLP requirements of a new article. The sole "reference" describes the book (which it is selling) but says nothing about the author so cannot serve as an adequate BLP ref. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. Keristrasza (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No substantial coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not yet notable. Cullen328 (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 5 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 Fargo, North Dakota. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of tallest buildings in Fargo (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 general notability of these buildings has not been established with reliable sources. Dawnseeker2000 03:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Listcruft. Toddst1 (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hmmm, of course we have tons of these articles for different cites, i don't know what the past history of AfDs has been, i'll have to look. Though not on this list, I noted this AfD because the nearby KVLY-TV mast for a Fargo TV station was the world's tallest structure for many years.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The following past debates seem worth perusing: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Amarillo (nomination of 10+ of these articles, July 2009, all kept); Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Lubbock (July 2009, merge to city article); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Burlington, Vermont (September 2010, merge). It seems the typical outcome is either to keep or to merge to the city's article, with the determining factor being the amount of sourcing/coverage--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: - City with only four tall buildings doesn't need such a list; anything useful should be merged to the city article. I must say the the determining factor is not souring per se since most references on skyscrapers are from SkyscraperPage and Emporis.—Chris!c/t 04:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Fargo, North Dakota. As stated above, these lists are only useful for cities with several tall buildings, and Fargo isn't one of those cities. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 05:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Fargo, North Dakota. There are not enough tall buildings to justify a standalone article. Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; merging does not seem necessary beyond possibly mentioning those buildings that are most important in the article for the city itself. The city is small and not known for its skyline. Kansan (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Fargo per the above, without prejudice to splitting out into its own article again if there are multiple reliable sources dealing with "tallest buildings of Fargo" as a specific topic. Jclemens (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Kansan. Any useful information should be transferred to Fargo, North Dakota. --Elekhh (talk) 22:23, 5 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 Withdrawn It would've been nice if someone had PUT THE CHART POSITION in the damn article first. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Shake (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 song, absolutely no sources. Suggest deletion over redirect, to make way for a notable Neal McCoy song with the same title. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at the actual article's Discussion page when I happened to see the AfD notice, and saw the Australian portal infobox/badge & references to WikiProject Australia & Australian music article project(s). Could TPH's "non-notable song" remark be viewed in the light of a non-Aussie's viewpoint? Perhaps some Aussie editors can weigh-in with a better perspective on this, since ArticleAlertbot failed to flag it on the WP:AUSMUSIC Article Alerts page. DennisDallas (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it charted in Australia. Is that an argument for notability?--Shirt58 (talk) 10:20, 4 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles for deletion/History of video game consoles (eighth generation)
- Articles for deletion/History of video game consoles (eighth generation) (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/History of video game consoles (eighth generation) (3rd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/History of video game consoles (eighth generation) (4th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/History of video game consoles (eighth generation) (5th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/History of video game consoles (eighth generation) (6th nomination)
- History of video game consoles (eighth generation) (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 determination of what consoles belong to what generation - or more so when the next generation starts - is something that has to be done by secondary sources. While the 3DS does represent a significantly new unit, and is being called "the next generation" of the DS console, it does not equate that this is an eighth generation console. The sources provided in this article do not assert this fact, simply just an announcement of the 3DS and the PSP 2. MASEM (t) 01:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also as I note this is #5 AFD, I strongly recommend salt and full protection until such a time the WP:VG community asserts it is necessary to have an article. --MASEM (t) 01:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need to delete - Yes, this article is mostly about the 3DS and the PSP 2, it also points to Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft talking about there next gen home consoles. How do you think the 7th Generation article started? It was only about the PSP and the Nintendo DS. Unlike the previous 8th generation articles. This on has sources and has a great start to become a bigger article. Furthermore, Nintendo has stated that the Nintendo 3DS will succeed the Nintendo DS Series, which are currently 7th Generation Handhelds. A Major Successor usually states the beginning of a new Generation. I am not saying things like the release of the Nintendo DSi is "next gen" hardware. Microsoft said the Xbox 360 will succeed the original Xbox, Sony said the PlayStation 3 will succeed the PlayStation 2, Nintendo said the Nintendo DS will succeed the Game Boy Advance Series. Nintendo said the 3DS will succeed the Nintendo DS series, so it clearly belongs in a new generation. It uses different hardware than the Nintendo DS Family, the graphics are incomparable to the Nintendo DS. The 3DS is NOT 7th generation because it uses different media and is considered "Backward Compatible" To the Nintendo DS. If it was current generation, the DSi would be able to play 3DS Software. That's like asking "Why is the Dreamcast in the 6th Generation" or "Why put the Game Boy Advance in 6th Generation and Not 5th?". The 3DS belongs in the 8th Generation. Again, how do you think the 7th generation started? It was the Nintendo DS and the PSP. Every Article has to start somewhere. SBPBYABYXWAGDMKMID (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything you've stated is original research. Is it reasonable? Sure. But is it allowable on Wikipedia? No - we have no source that says "the 3DS and the PSP2 are the first two consoles of the eighth generation". We know it's coming, but this is a case of WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:HAMMER as per the 4 previous AFDs for this. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - clear case of WP:CRYSTAL.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete yet again WP:CRYSTAL. Vodello (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt per WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While you can only write 3 paragraphs, since the corporations are keeping a tight lid on releasing more than teasers on what will be available beyond the Nintendo 3DS, those teasers are very well referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a matter or sourcing or length. It still comes down to the fact that it is not just a new console that defines these "generations" but industry sources when they feel the next gen of consoles is upon us. Maybe tomorrow, they'll say "Hey, everything has motion control, we're going to retro-activity call the Wii, Kinect, and Move as 8th gen", we'll worry about then.. Is it likely that the PlayStation 4 or whatever the Xbox 360 successor will be 8th gen? Sure. But to say that now screams CRYSTAL. --MASEM (t) 05:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing math isn't original research. (Previous generation) + (new generation) = (next generation). It is the same for Ipods, and Hondas, and Intel and AMD chips (where the number of processors doubles in the case of chips). "New generation" and "Next generation" are clear synonyms for whatever the new generation number is even if the article doesn't use the magic number 8 in the text. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that it is a term of art used by gaming journalists, we cannot define the onset of that term. Most importantly to this case: not one reliable third-party source calls the 3DS or the PSP2 an eighth gen system. They may be treated at 7th gen for all we care, even if their revamped hardware. Shouldn't the DSi or the PSP Go been considered 8th gen relative to the DS or PSP (1)? Basically, the term is not strictly defined by hardware that we cannot make that extrapolation. --MASEM (t) 12:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing math isn't original research. (Previous generation) + (new generation) = (next generation). It is the same for Ipods, and Hondas, and Intel and AMD chips (where the number of processors doubles in the case of chips). "New generation" and "Next generation" are clear synonyms for whatever the new generation number is even if the article doesn't use the magic number 8 in the text. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:BALL: "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it." Keristrasza (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Where in this article do you see speculation, I don't see anything like "The Next xbox will have a 200 core processor with an Nvidia 6000 GTX, and will have 5GB of RAM..." The statements here have references to them, therefore, this article should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SBPBYABYXWAGDMKMID (talk • contribs) 14:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The specs for the next Xbox, for example, are not speculation - or at least because they're sources, it's not a problem. What is speculation is when "8th gen" will start. We have no assurance it will be the 3DS/PSP2, it may not even be the next Xbox. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The use of the term is backed by reliable sources which support the notability of this article as part of the series. Alansohn (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it is original research and crystal-balling to start calling 3DS and PSP 2, 8th generation console, when there are no source supporting that. Until then, this has to go.—Chris!c/t 17:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also salt the article title to prevent re-creation. Unsalt only when there are reliable sources on 8th generation console.—Chris!c/t 17:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant delete – without anything confirming that stuff like the Nintendo 3DS is 8th generation, all this is is a dumping ground of gossip and speculation. As Masem pointed out, while there are sources about what the consoles are planned to be like, there is nothing from any reliable sources or from the video game industry itself referring to these as 8th generation; that is not our job to do that for them. As an alternative/2nd choice however, I would weakly support a merge to either 2010s in video gaming or History of video games#2010s; certainly as a stand-alone, it's not even history. –MuZemike 17:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again: Doing math isn't original research. (Previous generation) + (new generation) = (next generation). It is the same for Ipods, and Hondas, and Intel and AMD chips (where the number of processors doubles in the case of chips). "New generation" and "Next generation" are clear synonyms for whatever the new generation number is even if the article doesn't use the magic number 8 in the text. Even if my math was off and 7 + 1 is not equal to 8, then all it needs is a name change, not deletion, to: History of video game consoles new generation; or History of video game consoles next generation, if Wikipedia doesn't allow synonyms. Note that there are a half dozen synonyms for the War in Iraq. All are used in the article as a reference despite not using the magic one that was chosen as the title of the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a problem with the math, it is a problem based on the assumption a new hardware cycle will necessarily start a new generation. It has pretty much always in the past but there is no guarantee of that. The designation of "eighth generation" is a term of art we need to let secondary sources settle on for its definition, and they may go on the obvious definition, or they may throw us for a loop. Either way, attempting to discern that definition now is crystal-balling, period. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is why we have sources: "Video game giant Nintendo on Wednesday slashed its annual profit forecast, citing the recent strength of the yen, and said its new-generation handheld 3D console would miss the Christmas shopping season." and "Now Xbox UK director Stephen McGill has poured some cold water on a successor to the console appearing anytime soon and stated that there is still life in the Xbox 360 and they're still years away from contemplating what comes next."(my emphasis added) --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See: "new generation" + Nintendo DS in Google News Archive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See: "next generation" + Nintendo DS in Google News Archive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See: "successor to the Xbox 360" in Google News Archive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)
- You're still missing the point, granted that it is very subtle. The industry, as a whole, will decide when we enter "the 8th generation". Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft can shout all they want that they're releasing their "next-gen" system (and yes, math tells us that 7+1=8), but it is not their place to decide it, it is the whole industry including those that report on the industry. Mind you, if all them are saying their next consoles are next gen, it's a good chance the industry will recognize them as 8th gen, but that is crystal-balling it. It is very important to note that "seventh generation" (as with all previous ones) are terms of art as created by the industry, we cannot create it outselves, and right now, there's no-one talking "eighth generation". --MASEM (t) 19:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise, "new generation" is not a denotion of "8th generation". There were previous "new generations" of the DS, there are "new generations" of the Xbox360, there were "new generations" of the the PS2, there were "new generations" of the 2600 (6 generations to be exact). None of those were/are definitions of being in the literal next generation, i.e. raising the industry generation bar to the next generation. Literal next generation lines are defined by the industry and media. Always have been. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're still missing the point, granted that it is very subtle. The industry, as a whole, will decide when we enter "the 8th generation". Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft can shout all they want that they're releasing their "next-gen" system (and yes, math tells us that 7+1=8), but it is not their place to decide it, it is the whole industry including those that report on the industry. Mind you, if all them are saying their next consoles are next gen, it's a good chance the industry will recognize them as 8th gen, but that is crystal-balling it. It is very important to note that "seventh generation" (as with all previous ones) are terms of art as created by the industry, we cannot create it outselves, and right now, there's no-one talking "eighth generation". --MASEM (t) 19:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again: Doing math isn't original research. (Previous generation) + (new generation) = (next generation). It is the same for Ipods, and Hondas, and Intel and AMD chips (where the number of processors doubles in the case of chips). "New generation" and "Next generation" are clear synonyms for whatever the new generation number is even if the article doesn't use the magic number 8 in the text. Even if my math was off and 7 + 1 is not equal to 8, then all it needs is a name change, not deletion, to: History of video game consoles new generation; or History of video game consoles next generation, if Wikipedia doesn't allow synonyms. Note that there are a half dozen synonyms for the War in Iraq. All are used in the article as a reference despite not using the magic one that was chosen as the title of the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: RAN attempted to move the page to "History of video game consoles (next generation)"; moving of articles under discussion at AFD is very much frowned on so I have moved it back. Moreso, the (next generation) moniker is even worse, and really evokes CRYSTAL and HAMMER. --MASEM (t) 19:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:CRYSTAL/WP:HAMMER Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Delete, per all the reasons mentioned above, and per my comment above as well. Additionally, generations have never been defined by handhelds, which are on a separate tract from consoles. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unless sufficient reliable sources are found describing and specifically noting the 8th generation. This is G4 candidate, no? –xenotalk 20:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. people always comment on new generation, but that does not make it worthy of an article in this context.LibStar (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Salt - clearly a point of dispute over and over, but it comes down to sourcing, and there just isn't any sourcing saying the 3DS and PSP2 are "eighth gen". Salt for now - when proper references come along someone can work on this in a sandbox, then ask it to be moved and creation allowed. --Teancum (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As with all numbered generations, the number "8th" is an invention of Wikipedia editors. This article could just as easily be called "List of video game consoles released in 2011." Let's get out of the business of making up names for hardware generations and stick to the facts. White 720 (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Every article has to be created somehow. The seventh generation article was created in the same ay. The information on the article is reliable, with Sony and Nintendo stating about their new consoles. Besides, the 3DS is confirmed, and its an 8th gen console. I just think the article could do with a bit of a cleanup and some more references. Technoguy123 (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please re-read through this nomination. None of what you mention provides a valid reason to keep the articles or counters any of the points and guidelines raised. 1) All the articles recently added regarding Sony's and Nintendo's consoles are purely speculative in nature which once again violates WP:CRYSTAL, and most of the sites (glorified blogs) cited are questionable on meeting WP:RELIABLE. 2) Handhelds do not define console generations (which is what they are), they are on a separate tract. 3) Even forgetting point number 2, the 3DS is not stated as an 8th generation handheld. All the references mention it as a "next generation" or "succesor", which is how every upgrade to a line is referred to, whether it's "generation defining" or not. There were previous "new generations" of the DS, there are "new generations" of the Xbox360, there were "new generations" of the the PS2, there were "new generations" of the 2600 (6 generations to be exact). None of those were/are definitions of being in the literal next generation, i.e. raising the industry generation bar to the next generation. Literal next generation lines are defined by the industry and media (and always in relation to point 2). Always have been. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Rename The article is 6 days old. Let it develop for 2 more weeks or so before complaining about the content and sourcing. If after 2 weeks, it isn't any better, then deleting it may be reasonable. The best option, however, is to rename the article "Future of video game consoles". I don't think anyone denies that there are facts on this page. I think the major 'debate' is whether or not it is a new generation. By simply calling it the future of video game consoles, there is no need to define what a new generation means. Vince220 (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is not 6 days old, this is the 5th recreation of this article. It's not simply about the content or sourcing. There is no verifiable 8th generation yet, per the reasons everyone mentioned above. Whether or not these are facts about these specific proposed consoles are not in question, it's whether or not these facts are supportive of the topic - which they are not. Likewise as has been pointed out by all the other editors voting delete, we do no allow content or article subjects (including your suggested article title) based on WP:CRYSTAL/WP:HAMMER. Once again, there's a reason why this is the 5th time up for deletion (and by the number of delete votes, it appears the 5th time it will be deleted). And I for one agree with the others that this should be seeded to prevent recreation until such time the video game project can undeniably (with full conensus) state (and reliably back up) that the "8th generation" is in swing. Handhelds do not define the next generation of consoles, and speculative info about unreleased and unannounced regular consoles do not define it either. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The fact that this keeps getting recreated suggests we are wasting too much time on deleting it--content that people want will always come back. Surely we can reach some agreement on where the key content can go. I don't play videogames or care about them so I have no comment beyond that.--Milowent • talkblp-r 00:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, that is exactly why I think the article should be salted to prevent re-creation.—Chris!c/t 22:58, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alejandro de la Vega Zulueta (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)
Yet another article of a person that graduates from XYZ University. Don't see any reliable source to back this up. I am almost sure this is an attempt by the very same Alejandro to promote himself on Wikipedia. Diego Grez (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See also my refs review and my conclusion on this article: User:Diego Grez/Alejandro De la Vega Zulueta refs --Diego Grez (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Entirely non-notable. When doing my first pass of the article, I looked at the cited refs too, before reading nom's summary of them, and was quite astonished by what I found (or rather didn't find)! The references mention the projects, but fail to mention the architect. This article looks like a wikipedia page, until you scratch the surface. Keristrasza (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-notable architect, no reliable sources discuss him in detail. Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete nothing in gnews [53]. LibStar (talk) 12:19, 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) 01:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Marvin Eugene Smith (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 does seem to be some notability of this subject. Having wrote "hit singles" for RCA and being nominated for a Grammy Award, I believe that might satisfy WP:CREATIVE and/or WP:ENTERTAINER. However, the article does not cite reliable sourcing to verify any of that information, and I can't find any sourcing to help verify claims. Akerans (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He does appear on page 89 of Chicago Soul (1992) by Robert Pruter, and he is mentioned in passing in a couple of magazine articles, such as the one in Living Blues, Google Books search. I suspect that given the rather loose notability requirements for musicians, that that is more than many of them have. He is not to be confused with the WWII hero or the Harlam photographer of the same name. --Bejnar (talk) 05:30, 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, 27 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, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I don't understand why this wouldn't just be deleted via a BLP-PROD. The one "reference" isn't a reliable source, as it's to a commercial site of which subject is involved (I assume, I can't load up such a graphics heavy site at the moment). As such, this is an unreferenced BLP, and should be deleted until such time as we can reliably verify it's contents. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:34, 4 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) 01:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hugs and Hope Foundation for Sick Children (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 standing by my initial nomination. nothing in gnews [54]. and I'm not convinced by existing sources. renominating to get greater consensus. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 27 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) 00:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, references are from a local newspaper. Per WP:ORG this is not enough to establish notability. The interview on Todays-woman.net link is not working and what I can find on google news don't seem to be independent reliable sources either. Unless more references pop up this should be deleted. Yoenit (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Trivial coverage, name-drops in some sources are not enough to meet WP:N. Tarc (talk) 13:48, 4 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) 01:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comenius Hall (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 building. Totally unreferenced, and there's not even an attempt to show notability. Previously deleted, but the recreated. GrapedApe (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Moravian College. Seems to be a unique enough name as to be a reasonable search term - but the notability is not there. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 03:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 27 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) 00:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No information offered to indicate that the building itself is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 20:34, 4 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- T Power (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 musician bio Orange Mike | Talk 03:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I've added enough sources to support notability under WP:GNG. I think there's enough on the label they created for it to qualify as notable as well. All sources (I added at least) are significant reviews in major publications which discuss him and his work. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:59, 27 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) 00:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Panyd supplied enough coverage for me. I've also added stuff about a duo he was part of. The Times also had an article saying he was the son of Labour Party liaison officer Phil Royal, trying to get comment on T Powers musical career (P.H.S (19 December 1996), "Jungle drums - Diary", The Times). duffbeerforme (talk) 11:24, 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) 10:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BlueScope Steel Youth Orchestra (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)
fails WP:BAND. 2 of the sources supplied are primary sources. one is youtube. hardly anything in gnews [55]. LibStar (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 27 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) 00:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found little coverage on gNews, and the article itself shows nothing to suggest notability. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:35, 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 no consensus. Even after relisting, the consensus is unclear at best. Almost as many wish to retain in some format or another, either through outright keep or merge, as favor deletion - and secondary sources have been provided and recommended during the course of the AFD. It is indeed possible that a merge outcome might be the best idea, but that could be something to discuss in more depth and at more length, over a greater extended period of time than a simple AFD, at the talk page of the article in question. -- Cirt (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Double-Tongued Dictionary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced website article that does not claim notability. But the article has been around since 2006, so I'm bringing it to AFD instead of speedy deleting it per A7. A Google search indicates that the website may be notable. Sandstein 21:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep amongst other links found, per [56] and results in book searches. Shiva (Visnu) 22:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete one reference on an Indian blog does not make it notable. - Selket Talk 20:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it necessary to say "on an Indian blog"? What if it were on an American or British blog? Saying so seems to subtly put Indians down and might come across as offensive. The nationality of a blog doesn't affect notability in this instance. Kansan (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it can't get a reference from its country of origin (in this case the United States). I would have said the same thing if it were a British or Australian blog. Please don't be so quick to accuse others of bias. -Selket Talk 14:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it necessary to say "on an Indian blog"? What if it were on an American or British blog? Saying so seems to subtly put Indians down and might come across as offensive. The nationality of a blog doesn't affect notability in this instance. Kansan (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge to Grant Barrett. Per probable notability via google book and google scholar searches. (I have no time to devote to this, this week, otherwise I'd dig deeper). HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:50, 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) 00:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Grant Barrett seems reasonable to me, if this is a project of his. There does not seem to be much in-depth information on the dictionary itself. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the one blog doesn't seem to establish notability (if every website ever linked to on a blog became notable, what blog or website wouldn't pass the threshold?), and "probable notability" isn't a reason to keep, especially after the user who mentioned it admits that they did not look into it. Kansan (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I did in fact add 3 references to the article yesterday, taken from Google Scholar results. However I do agree with Kotfoxxe that a merge is probably preferable, as there doesn't seem to be sufficient information at this time, to get much beyond the current size. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While I understand the urge to keep as much information as possible, I disagree with the merge, and there isn't enough coverage to keep this as is. The author's page says that this is an award winning site, but I can't find reference to the award, even on the website itself. Sven Manguard Talk 02:51, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 17 (Sky Ferreira song) (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)
Fails WP:NSONGS. Fixer23 (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 27 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) 00:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "Refrences" are laugable and include a Youtube video. Content is not notable, and reads like a fan posting rather than an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a site for fan postings. Sven Manguard Talk 00:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd argue that MTV.com isn't necessarily a "laughable" source, (though their televised product is certainly a matter of debate.) Certainly the addition of another non-trivial source would meet WP:BARE, perhaps including the source of the "generally positive reviews from critics" mentioned? -- RoninBK T C 06:53, 5 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 2010 Commonwealth Games. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Shera (mascot) (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 subject of the article does not deserve a seperate article so should be merged into 2010 Commonwealth Games#Symbols. Saqib Qayyum (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:17, 27 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) 00:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge some of the material. A lot of it is OR, and all of it is unreferenced. Really, his "posture" has it's own section? Nolelover 17:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge with 2010 Commonwealth Games Per the apparent OR (at the very least the whole "no sources at all" thing. Sven Manguard Talk 21:33, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Third Strike (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Should be reinstated when there's more information available, now it's merely a cache for the singles released and some possible songs for the album. Fixer23 (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 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) 00:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to be speculation to me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:36, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12 (copyvio of http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Life-Style-People/Dadas-second-innings/articleshow/6172572.cms) – sgeureka t•c 15:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dadagiri Unlimited Season 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:N Œcolampadius (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 28 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) 00:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Cruft. --Tagtool (talk) 15:23, 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) 10:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dexfest Music Festival (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)
Minor music festival of questionable notibility. Majority of sources fail WP:RS nad WP:V (MySpace, other wikis, etc), or are primary sources. Only on source could be considered good, but that appears to be a local advance press-release based notice, not a critical review or proper story on the actual festival. Contested PROD. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I deprodded it and found some cites. I leave it up to you folks to decide if the cites are good enough. Bearian (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete- the sourcing is very poor on this article. The majority of the cites are to the festival's home page, two refer to electronica music in general and don't mention the subject (why is that section even in there???). There's really only one source I would regard as independent, relevant and reliable and even that is just a bare announcement in the local newspaper. I'd need to see more before I'd be convinced that this is notable. Reyk YO! 19:49, 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) 00:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Three cheers for Dexter, for managing to turn his birthday party into an annual event, charge $85 for a ticket, and get a blurb about it printed in the metro area newspaper. However, that one news item and a few event listings on music websites are not sufficient to cause this event to pass WP:GNG, and the Wikipedia article itself is nothing more than a promotional piece. If this event takes off in the future, it might become notable, but it's not there yet. --Orlady (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per Bearian. Notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bare assertions without evidence are unlikely to be given much weight by the closing admin. Can you show anything that would support the notability of this event, and do you have a response to the finding of Orlady and myself that the "coverage" is neither independent nor substantial? Reyk YO! 06:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The sources don't do it for me, I'm afraid. Without anything more than one local news source the article is liable to be promotional, as it so rampantly is right now ("The event boasts state of art...", "new and unique digital meditation experience...", "Dexfest goes green...."). --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Did both a google web and news search and found nothing useful for satisfying WP:N. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 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. Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Renata Ceribelli (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)
Disputed prod (not entirely sure why). The single source cited in the article (even if it is reliable, I am unsure if it is or not) is only a single paragraph blurb. Other "sources" I am able to find are at [57], and while four show up, all of them mention the subject only in passing (one only in a photo caption), none of them giving even a single paragraph about the subject. Given this, I do not believe there is sufficient sourcing in existence to sustain this article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That search is only for news articles published in the last month. Try clicking on the word "news" in the spoon-fed links provided in the nomination to find plenty of articles that provide more than a paragraph about the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Phil, if you can provide a different link, I'd quite appreciate it. When I click that link, it defaults to "All Time", and the "News" link is unclickable. Could you please link to what you're talking about? Or just link to some of the sources you've found, if the search is causing difficulty? Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really not see 118 news articles when you click on the word "news" in the line "(Find sources: "Renata Ceribelli" – news · books · scholar · images)" at the top of this discussion? If not then I doubt if reproducing it will make it any better, but here it is anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'm certainly not fluent in Portuguese, machine translating the ones that looked the most promising hasn't resolved the issue. All the sources I've translated thus far (though not all 118) still mention her in passing—in a photo caption, or in passing that she interviewed someone in a source about someone else. Do you have a source that does more than mention her in passing? Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really not see 118 news articles when you click on the word "news" in the line "(Find sources: "Renata Ceribelli" – news · books · scholar · images)" at the top of this discussion? If not then I doubt if reproducing it will make it any better, but here it is anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Phil, if you can provide a different link, I'd quite appreciate it. When I click that link, it defaults to "All Time", and the "News" link is unclickable. Could you please link to what you're talking about? Or just link to some of the sources you've found, if the search is causing difficulty? Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I've looked at some of these sources, every one thus far is passing mention--as a reporter her name does appear in reliable sources, but I see no significant coverage about her. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:15, 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) 00:00, 4 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.