Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 10
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BrutallyH (talk | contribs) at 18:15, 10 May 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect to Thabal chongba per nom (and as it is already redirected, but for the AFD tag)). No need to futz for another 7 days, consensus seems clear and it's a simple thing. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thoubal Chongba (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)
Reforming the AFD article to come through on the listing. Original text is "The title of the article should be Thabal Chongba. This is a simple typo on the article's creator's part. There is already an article with the correct title to which this one redirects()Thabal Chongba". I have no opinion on the matter and register as neutral, I'm just doing cleanup. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it seems like a possible search term. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Comment - I'm sorry, I don't understand the deletion rationale - it seems like a perfectly reasonable redirect? - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Unless I'm missing something, this seems like a perfectly reasonable redirect. --LP talk 05:00, 17 May 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) 14:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CustomerGauge (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 about a company that does not meet either the general notability guidelines, nor the one specifically for companies. The 4 references in the article are (1) not a reliable sources, (2),(3) press releases, (4) the company's web site. I can find no independent coverage myself. -- Whpq (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. Nothing but press releases at Gnews. Nothing on Google but the company's website and this article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 11 May 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. kurykh 05:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Velveting (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. Wikipedia is neither a cookbook nor a how-to. The term could be merged into Chinese cuisine but I would find a redirect "velveting" far too unspecific to be associated with cookery. De728631 (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this is a cooking technique, then it's possible that this could be written about without sounding like User:Betty Crocker was the author. It's supposed to be a method of cooking meat so as to keep it from getting dry. I've heard of velveting rabbit, so perhaps notability can be established. Mandsford (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It turns out there is a ton of information out there about this technique; it is highly notable. I just rewrote the article so that it is no longer cookbookish. I added three sources but there were dozens more I could have added. The article is a stub but could be expanded. Nice pun on the Velveteen Rabbit, Mandsford. ;-D --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep And good work on the improvements by Melanie. Mandsford (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While the article is no longer a recipe I still don't think we need a standalone for this. Let's merge it to Chinese cuisine. De728631 (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What is your specific rationale for deletion, now that it is no longer a cookbook/how-to article (your original rationale)? Notability? There are a ton of references in reliable sources. Brevity? The fact that an article is a stub is no reason to delete it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, I liked it better when De728631 was advocating delete. Merging to Chinese cuisine strikes me as one of the odder suggestions that I've read. Let's improve the article on aspirin and then merge it to drugstore while we're at it. Mandsford (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the general opinion here seems to be that the subject as such is notable enough, but leaving it as a stub implies that the article can be extended beyond stub quality. And I for one don't see how there is much more to say than what has already been written. If it turns out one day that velveting is the non-plus-ultra cooking technique for whatever reason, we can always break it from Chinese cuisine for a new standalone, but better have it in a proper context now than all alone. That's why I now think it should be merged. De728631 (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the good work to improve the article. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:29, 12 May 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 75th Fires Brigade (United States). Merging to the only existing article, but if someone wants to create an article at 18th Field Artillery Regiment and merge this to it feel free. Tim Song (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2nd Battalion, 18th Field Artillery Regiment (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 unit. Even 18th Field Artillery Regiment does not appear to exist. Does not appear to assert any notability in terms of unit history. SGGH ping! 17:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that the article was created by Charles432 (talk · contribs) combining both Public Domain and copyrighted text and then speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G12, I merely recreated a clean stub using the PD text. No opinion on the merit of the deletion request, although I have reverted the article text to the initial stub state, restoring the attribution template and the EL that was accidentally removed on the May 2 addition of unsourced content. MLauba (Talk) 17:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sign of significance for this particular unit. De728631 (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge to 18th Field Artillery Regiment and Keep. We have a growing number of articles at Category:Artillery Regiments of the United States Army and the best way is to keep all the regimental data together - it gets too complicated if we have separate articles for each battalion. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume the 18th has notability of its own? SGGH ping! 14:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Our general position is that battalion-sized units or greater are notable; you can see the other artillery regiments deemed notable in this category, and there are just about thousands of battalion/regiment articles over various wikis. Short answer: yes. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, I have no objections to this. SGGH ping! 10:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Our general position is that battalion-sized units or greater are notable; you can see the other artillery regiments deemed notable in this category, and there are just about thousands of battalion/regiment articles over various wikis. Short answer: yes. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume the 18th has notability of its own? SGGH ping! 14:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge up to 18th FAR or 75th Fires Brigade (United States). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you look at 75th Fires Brigade (United States), it has several battalions 1st-17thFAR; 2nd-18th FAR (this one); and 3rd -13th FAR. Thus, I wonder if what they mean is that this is the 2nd Battalion (of the Fires Brigade), otherwise known as the "18th Field Artillery Regiment". If so, "merging" this to an 18th FAR wouldn't make a lot of sense. Renaming it and (possibly) redirecting the current name, might. IF this is a regiment itself, as I am beginning to suspect it is, then it should have its own article, but it should be properly named. David V Houston (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi David, if you want to learn about how U.S. Army regiments are organised, take a look at U.S. Army Regimental System. 'Line' battalions of armour, infantry, artillery, and cavalry are battalions of regiments, not battalions of brigades. Regiments have several battalions - some had up to seven or eight in the 1980s. I continue to support an upmerge which will be able to cover all the battalions of the 18th FAR though all the time it's been active. Kind regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. That helps. OK, upmerge as proposed by others. I know a bit more about military organization in the mid-19th century than in the early 21st, but not much about either, really. David V Houston (talk) 23:02, 18 May 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) 14:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark Baer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not sure how this family divorce attorney is notable. He writes for one publication. So? This article is written as an advertisement, and I can see no reliable third-party coverages that makes its inclusion worthy on WP. — Timneu22 · talk 16:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable--Epeefleche (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Mark Baer doesn’t remotely have the notability sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. His article was created by a red-text, single-purpose account. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Greg L (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I deleted the "practice areas" section because that was the part that was flagged as sounding like an advertisement. I can't see what else could be an issue, as I've tried to make the article objective. She Rusty Wake —Preceding unsigned comment added by She Rusty Wake (talk • contribs) 18:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC) — She Rusty Wake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The fact that the editor has only edited this page is highly suspicious of advertising. — Timneu22 · talk 20:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Completely non-notable. No independent coverage at all, references are primary sources or directories. There are 200,000 attorneys in California; we don't need an article on each of them. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 11 May 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. I cannot see that evidence of the band passing the notability guidelines for articles in general or music bands in particular are met. The first keep vote acknowledges that the article fails the WP:BAND guideline, and contains research, and the claim that an article built on such a foundation can be cleaned up and improved is not substantiated. The rationale behind second keep vote is also not well substantiated has been rebutted successfully. My conclusion is therefore that the arguments heavily favor the side advocating deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Armen Firman (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)
no real claim to notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. (the Herald Sun review is on the trivial side). prod and prod2 removed saying "references support notability". i don't see which references do that. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - They are listed on AMG, have released one album, and had their music released on iTunes. They do seem to fail much of the criteria of WP:BAND, and the article does appear to have a lot of original research, although I see no reason that it can't be tagged for cleanup and improved. I see no reason to delete it at this point. HarlandQPitt (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The allmusic thing is only a listing, it was an ep and that is less than the two asked for by wp:music and selling music on itunes is nothing special. I searched for sources to improve the article (and added the one trivial source I found) but didn't see enough to convince me this article was worth keeping. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Trivial sources do not show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 20:01, 26 April 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) 00:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, meets #1 and #11 of WP:BAND. -Reconsider! 02:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- no pass on #11, being played twice is not rotation. what coverage do you think meets #1? I can't see it. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Delete, I'm going to have to disagree with the above editor, I do not see how they meet any of the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. The existing sources are trivial or non-independent (so they don't meet #1), and being played a few times on Triple J and community radio isn't good enough to count as "rotation" in my opinion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to University of Colombo. kurykh 05:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Department of Chemistry, University of Colombo (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 find no precedent for offering a wikipedia article to a department of a university, especially since this department doesn't seem to have done anything notable. This reads more like an advertisement (or a brochure) for the department; it does not read as an encyclopedic article. — Timneu22 · talk 16:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to University of Colombo. LadyofShalott 16:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - regarding precendent, the nominator should see Category:University and college departments. (That being said, I maintain my vote above of merge is the correct action for this mostly unreferenced article.) LadyofShalott 16:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was suggesting that this university dept had no reason to have a page, as it doesn't seem to have accomplished anything notable. — Timneu22 · talk 20:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that seems to be your general reason for deletion, but my precedent comment was directed to this part of your statement: "I can find no precedent for offering a wikipedia article to a department of a university". :) LadyofShalott 21:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See rename comment below. That's why I couldn't find an article that was similar. — Timneu22 · talk 21:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that seems to be your general reason for deletion, but my precedent comment was directed to this part of your statement: "I can find no precedent for offering a wikipedia article to a department of a university". :) LadyofShalott 21:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was suggesting that this university dept had no reason to have a page, as it doesn't seem to have accomplished anything notable. — Timneu22 · talk 20:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I do agree this looks more like a advertisement. It could be redone to reduce the flare. Cossde (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest to rename if kept, one reason I couldn't find a precedent is that everything else is school-dept, not dept-school. See Eastern Michigan University's Department of Special Education, not the other way around. Also, if we rename, this article name should not be kept as a redirect. — Timneu22 · talk 21:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While university then department is the majority style, it is not as universally true as you imply. LadyofShalott 21:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like a good place for a new policy, then. — Timneu22 · talk 22:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While university then department is the majority style, it is not as universally true as you imply. LadyofShalott 21:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- merge and redirect - no notability indicated. UtherSRG (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to University of Colombo. Few Google News hits; I found no indication of notability. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 03:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect back to university page. It's a great example of content that may belong on Wikipedia, but doesn't warrant its own article. tedder (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to University of Colombo. Not each of the departments of each university needs a separate page in Wikipedia. A valid solution would be to merge the page with University of Colombo, where it fits more. Pradeeban (talk) 18:05, 14 May 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) 14:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chiefsplanet (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 does not establish verifiable notability per WP:N and WP:WEB. Jminthorne (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: I don't claim to know anything about Wikipedia, but there are several pages for other high-traffic internet forums on here. Just thought there should be one for a forum that's been around for a decade now. I was inspired by the Wiki page for SomethingAwful, which has been around just one year longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfett81 (talk • contribs)
- Delete. Can't find any third-party coverage for this forum. (BTW, Bfett81, what you said isn't quite enough to keep an article on Wikipedia; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Here is a Kansas City Star article wherein Chiefsplanet was mentioned by nationally syndicated Sports Columnist Jason Whitlock: http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=6732254#post6732254 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfett81 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's only a trivial mention of the forum on the forum. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but I had to post a link to the article on the forum because the article itself, which was in the Kansas City Star, is now a 404 link. I could prove that the article does indeed exist, but I would have to pay 2.99 for the KC Star archive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfett81 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chiefsplanet is also referenced here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kansas_City_Chiefs_quarterbacks#cite_note-What.27s_up_I-38 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfett81 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other Wikipedia articles aren't third-party sources. Erpert (let's talk about it) 23:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's only a trivial mention of the forum on the forum. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Here is a Kansas City Star article wherein Chiefsplanet was mentioned by nationally syndicated Sports Columnist Jason Whitlock: http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=6732254#post6732254 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfett81 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response: How about this? This charitable foundation references the forum: http://www.family-source.com/cache/356442/idx/0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfett81 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC) I think wikipedia trying to get infomation on everything i think that this site is important metioning cause of the 37 forever foundation.[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 16:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:WEB. In response to Bfett81, SomethingAwful has more than 10 times more members than "chiefsplanet", so it isn't particularly wise to try to compare the two. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:48, 10 May 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) 01:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Triton Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable local event-management business. Orange Mike | Talk 20:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 16:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I saw some news hits, but based on the edit history, it looks like this is an article for promo purposes. It's already been called out as an orphan as well. -- doorautomatica (talk) 06:25, 11 May 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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Artifakt (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 band. A previous deletion discussion in 2008 was inconclusive, but I can't even find the coverage discussed there. Annalise (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unsigned band, no third-party sources. No evidence of meeting WP:BAND. --LP talk 04:57, 17 May 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. Like LadyofShalott, my impression after reviewing this discussion and the article, was that there were possible original research by synthesis concerns, but I have registered that she too has landed on the "keep"-side which has a reasonably clear majority in the discussion. Looking at the article, it appears that the specific facts in the article appear to be sufficiently backed up by the footnote references. The main concern is whether there has been a general concern about islamist militancy in Uyghur guest houses; rather than just unrelated concerns on specific, unrelated, guest houses. It is not all that easy for me to render judgement on that question since I don't have access to the sources, and I must therefore let the voice of the community control here, and in this discussion at least, I cannot see that the community has reached any consensus to delete the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to islamist militancy (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)
Attack page that has been put together in a misleading way and in violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. The same author has created similar pages targeting the Uighur ethnic group and that were recently deleted. Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_2#Uyghur_guest_house.2C_Jalalabad, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_2#Uighur_guest_house.2C_Pakistan IQinn (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]
- Keep -- The wikipedia is not a hagiography. Contrary to the speedy deletion justification our nomator offered, that this article "specifically target[s] the Uyghur ethnic group", it references and reports, using a neutral point of view what WP:RS which single out specific Uyghur guest houses as suspicious had to say. Nominator and I have had numerous discussions. I have found that when they challenge material as "misleading" they don't seem to distinguish between wikipedians lapsing from the neutral point of view, and contributing material that doesn't neutrally report what WP:RS say, and neutral reporting of WP:RS where, in their personal opinion, they consider the original WP:RS to be misleading. This is a serious mistake. When an article neutrally reports what WP:RS say it should not be described as misleading, without regard to whether individual wikipedians regard the WP:RS as misleading. Geo Swan (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please understand WP:RS is only one of our core policies and this policy has often been often misused as justification for people who are WP:GAMEing the system. Sure all WP:RS but it has been put together in a misleading way and in violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV to an extend where it should be speedy deleted because it is just unencyclopedic. IQinn (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but I don't fully understand this reply. We have many policies, including deletion policies. As I understand it, the merits of covering the topic is what matters. Accepting, for the sake of argument, that your unexplained WP:OR and WP:NPOV concerns hold merit -- a weak current version of an article on a topic that is worth covering is a solvable problem. A perception of biased passages in an article on a notable topic is a solvable problem. A perception that passages in an article on a notable topic contains original research is also a solvable problem. Perceptions of these kinds of concerns are supposed to be addressed on the article's talk page. I welcome you offering civil, meaningful, substantial explanations of your concerns -- on the talk page.
- WRT your WP:Unencyclopedic concern. This not a policy, it is a redirect to a section of the essay WP:Arguments to avoid. It is a cautionary note of an argument the essay's author(s) consider frequently misused in deletion discussions; problematic; circular; one that should be avoided. Geo Swan (talk) 03:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You know i am not a fan of WP:Wikilawyering what is a form of WP:GAMEing the system.
- Please understand WP:RS is only one of our core policies and this policy has often been often misused as justification for people who are WP:GAMEing the system. Sure all WP:RS but it has been put together in a misleading way and in violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV to an extend where it should be speedy deleted because it is just unencyclopedic. IQinn (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I always prefer to fix article rather than deleting them but i highly doubt that this is possible here as there are quite a lot of fundamental problems that even touches BLP issues and violate a few core policies. Let's start with WP:OR WP:SYNTH a fundamental problem that you well know. You have ask another user about this issue and i am going to post his/her answer to the issue of WP:SYNTH, i think it may be a good start to discuss this topic:
...It looks to me like this article takes a number of individual incidents and ties them together with the thesis that Uyghur guesthouses (in general) are suspected of ties to Islamic militancy. I do not see that any RS has already discussed this phenomenon as a whole. Perhaps it has; if you can show that there is some book or magazine article, or whatever good source, that has discussed this as a gernaral phenomenon linking different occurences of it, then I'll withdraw my concern.
- Can you please show some RS as requested by this user? IQinn (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I always prefer to fix article rather than deleting them but i highly doubt that this is possible here as there are quite a lot of fundamental problems that even touches BLP issues and violate a few core policies. Let's start with WP:OR WP:SYNTH a fundamental problem that you well know. You have ask another user about this issue and i am going to post his/her answer to the issue of WP:SYNTH, i think it may be a good start to discuss this topic:
- Comment - this looks like it may violate WP:SYNTH. LadyofShalott 15:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The lack of articles from "mainstream" media is somewhat troubling. Also, the selection of refs that are used appear to violate WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV .Nomen Nescio talk 16:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: Responding to a question on my talk page I think some clarification is warranted. First, pointing out the lack of MSM does not mean I believe they are more reliable than the smaller ones. It does, however, reflect the notability of the report. If the MSM fail to report certain stories one has to wonder: why? Second, I find the sources used are not entirely randomly chosen. Which, to me, constitutes a red flag.Nomen Nescio (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WRT confirmation bias / non-random choice, if you are concerned that I cherry-picked references, excluding WP:RS that described Uyghur guest houses that were not suspected of ties to militancy, please take my word that I have not. All the references to Uyghur guest houses I could find describe them as tied to militancy. Are there Uyghur guest houses that aren't suspected of militancy? Maybe, but there don't seem to be any WP:RS that cover them. Anyhow, they would be off-topic, since the title of this article confines it to those Uyghur guest houses that are suspected of ties to militancy. Geo Swan (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article notes that the US Executive branch chose to no longer defend the allegations it had offered for its justification for holding the Uyghurs, (which included the stays in Uyghur guest houses), when the SCOTUS ruled captives were, after all, entitled to challenge those allegations through habeas corpus. It is probably fair to assert the USA dropped its allegations in late 2008. I would like to find an RS that specifically says the USA dropped its allegation that a stay in a Uyghur guest house was justification for continued detention. I can't find one. Geo Swan (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: Responding to a question on my talk page I think some clarification is warranted. First, pointing out the lack of MSM does not mean I believe they are more reliable than the smaller ones. It does, however, reflect the notability of the report. If the MSM fail to report certain stories one has to wonder: why? Second, I find the sources used are not entirely randomly chosen. Which, to me, constitutes a red flag.Nomen Nescio (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. This will be short, as am under time pressure, but will likely augment it later. I already commented on a similar deletion effort elsewhere. Somewhat silly. Perhaps someone's idea of sport. First, there is no BLP issue here. Second, even with BLPs, we have perfectly lovely articles such as FBI Most Wanted Terrorists. No problem with those. This is just the "house" version. As much as I sympathise with "houses", I think the interests of the project are best served by not deleting these. Can't imagine a good non-POV reason to delete. Nor, incidentally, is it synth. Though there is a not uncommon misunderstanding that leads one to consider that. Synth is when Source a says A, and Source b says B, and you combine them to state conclusion C. Here, only A and B are stated. Which is of course what we do all the time -- it's classic combinging sources to write an article. Without saying anything more than what the sources say. That, I see, is what the editors of this article have adhered to quite carefully.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Did you see that there is already an ongoing discussion about WP:SYN? Could you please address these concerns in detail.
...It looks to me like this article takes a number of individual incidents and ties them together with the thesis that Uyghur guesthouses (in general) are suspected of ties to Islamic militancy. I do not see that any RS has already discussed this phenomenon as a whole. Perhaps it has; if you can show that there is some book or magazine article, or whatever good source, that has discussed this as a gernaral phenomenon linking different occurences of it, then I'll withdraw my concern.
- Do you know any RS as necessary and requested by this user? IQinn (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've addressed this point directly in my prior edit. BTW -- why are you copying over the comment multiple times on the same page? It makes it difficult to discern whether you are making a new point. And is confusing, as
they are not party to this AfDit was not clear, by looking at the edit, whose edit it was. Posting it the second time serves to needlessly fill up the page with repetition.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Yes, I am - it is my comment from my talk page that has been quoted twice now. LadyofShalott 02:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply here, thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You all will notice that I specifically refrained from saying either keep or delete previously. I am not completely convinced that there is no synthesis here, but it is marginal if at all - especially in light of the comments that Geo Swan has made on my talk page. I think the article could be improved to make clear the extent of what RS have said, but in the balance, I think it should be kept. LadyofShalott 13:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I am - it is my comment from my talk page that has been quoted twice now. LadyofShalott 02:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've addressed this point directly in my prior edit. BTW -- why are you copying over the comment multiple times on the same page? It makes it difficult to discern whether you are making a new point. And is confusing, as
- Do you know any RS as necessary and requested by this user? IQinn (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sufficient sources and a notable topic. I'm glad it was possible to work out a suitable article title for this material. It seems a little pointy to keep emphasizing other people's questions elsewhere; an answer has been given, but whether it is sufficient to satisfy people is up to them individually, and one person here should not act as an umpire of the discussion. This is not SYN, but presentations of sourced material. Editing intrinsically consists of selecting sources and content. Readers then draw their own conclusions. The sources are appropriate for the subject. WP:RS is just a guideline for the application of WP:V, which is a very general but very important policy--what sources are enough to meet it is always a fit matter for discussion, but we are neither limited nor prescriptive. this has been explained; whether it is detailed enough to satisfy anyone is up to them. There is no conceivable way this defames a racial group--any racial groups will have people involved in various ways in Afghanistan,and whether or not one regards any particular person as a hero or a villain is a matter of perspective. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:OR and WP:SYN. The topic as such is not notable (the title is simply weird), and could be well integrated into existing articles. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We measure notability by coverage in RS sources. Given that, how do you deem it not notable? Also, I'm not sure how what you view as a weird title relates to whether it is notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perceptions of NOR or NPOV are not grounds for deletion. I will welcome your explanation of what portions of the article you consider lapses from NOR or NPOV -- on the talk page. Please feel free to suggest an alternate title there too. Geo Swan (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Optionally, a merge to Uyghur people#Current Events might be possible if the sourced material was sufficiently condensed. SnottyWong talk 20:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per nom? Are you agreeing the article is an attack page? An allegation no-one here has defended? The other elements of the nomination are counter to the deletion policy. As I noted above a perception of NOR or NPOV in an article that is on a topic that is otherwise are supposed to be addressed through discussion -- not deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The issue here is not the coverage, but whether it is significant enough to warrant the organisation having an article on Wikipedia. The consensus seems to be that the coverage of Horasis is not significant enough to meet WP:ORG, and so the consensus is to delete. Should significant coverage at reliable sources be forthcoming in the future, the article can be recreated, but the coverage is not there at the moment -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Horasis (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)
Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horasis however G4 deletion of the current incarnation was declined on the grounds that the article is substantially different. Whilst it is true that some of the text is new I do not believe that the issues of raised in the last AFD have been satisfactorily addressed and cannot see any that any element of WP:ORG is satisifed. The majority of the sources cited are primary and those that are secondary mention Horasis only in passing, usually just being namechecked as a sponsor of the events. Taking the first five non-primary sources cited in the article:
- "Interview with Frank Jurgen Richter and Pamela C. M. Mar" Horasis not mentioned at all (it is an article on a book written by one of their employees)
- "Enthusiasm, Tempered With Concern, About Business in India" The New York Times, July 8, 2009 - Horasis mentioned once "...sponsored by Horasis"
- "Germans fear backlash as China ties cool Financial Times, November 21, 2007 article behind paywall
- "Meeting aims to boost EU-China business" USA Today, November 5, 2007 - Horasis mentioned once as the employer of a person giving a quote "...said Frank-Juergen Richter, president of Horasis, a Geneva, Switzerland-based group that is organizing the gathering"
- "Global Bailout" Newsweek, November 9, 2007 Horasis mentioned once as the venue for the interview "...he spoke with NEWSWEEK's George Wehrfritz at the Horasis China Europe Business Meeting in Frankfurt"
Indeed I could find no non-trivial mentions in all the sources supplied so it is no surprise that a Google news search draws a complete blank as well. It is possible that some of the individual Global Summits have standalone notability but I am convinced that there is none for the sponsoring body. Nancy talk 15:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That Google News search is only for the last 30 days. Try clicking on the "news" link spoon-fed at the top of this discussion for a proper search, which finds 81 news articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Phil, my error although in the 81 I am struggling to find anything non-trivial. Nancy talk 16:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep – According to the last AFD this article is completely new and not only some of the text. So the decline of G4 deletion was correct.
Cited sources are not trivial or incidental coverage according to WP:ORG. They reflect the notice which Horasis has attracted with its work. Here the evaluation of the criticized sources according to their content and their citation in the article:
- "Interview with Frank Jurgen Richter and Pamela C. M. Mar" – cited as source for the fact mentioned that the founder of Horasis was a former Director at the World Economic Forum
- "Enthusiasm, Tempered With Concern, About Business in India" The New York Times, July 8, 2009 – here the full quote: At the opening reception last week of the Global India Business Meeting, a two-day conference sponsored by Horasis, a kind of junior league World Economic Forum for the emerging market set; the entire NYT-article is about the Horasis Global India Business Meeting, which was organized by Horasis
- "Germans fear backlash as China ties cool Financial Times, November 21, 2007 – this article is not behind a paywall, but you have to register at FT.com to read it for free
- "Meeting aims to boost EU-China business" USA Today, November 5, 2007 – as the title states: the article is entirely about the Horasis Global China Business Meeting 2007 and its’ results, Horasis is mentioned as the organizer of it
- "Global Bailout" Newsweek, November 9, 2007 – cited as source for the then upcoming financial crises which influenced the meeting
- So the sources cited are not just passing or namechecking Horasis but significant coverage according to WP:N. For NYT, Financial Times or USA Today no one can doubt the reliability and independence of Horasis. In addition to the cited sources here the [Google news search] – obviously not blank.
- One aspect of notability hasn’t been considered yet at all: the participants at the Horasis events. There are Prime Ministers, the Secretary-General of UCTAD, and many Ministers, influential politicians and CEO´s of major global corporations who Horasis gathers at its events. So according to WP:N Horasis has been receiving significant attention in the political and economic sphere globally for many years, an unmistakable sign for notability according to WP:ORG.
[
- As you find on the Horasis talk page many of these arguments had already been given there without any reply. The request for it was answered with this AFD.Dewritech (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC) — Dewritech (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- None of the sources you articles you refer to above amount to more than trivial or incidental coverage. As I said in the nom, it may be the case that some of the individual Global Forums may have independent notability but Horasis itself does not. Nancy talk 08:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But you can not separate the Summits from Horasis – these meetings are the results of their work. So if you consider these meetings have notability (e.g. because of the participants) then it’s the work of Horasis which obtains notability, without them no such meetings.Dewritech (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sources you articles you refer to above amount to more than trivial or incidental coverage. As I said in the nom, it may be the case that some of the individual Global Forums may have independent notability but Horasis itself does not. Nancy talk 08:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree with Dewritech. The current article on Horasis should not be deleted as it portays an organisation that brings together some of the decision makers at the global level. Many of the sessions at such events take place behind closed doors and it would not be easy the the regular media to report on them. In fact that is one of the strengths of Horasis events- to provide a platform where decision makers can speak their mind.Candyisdandy (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)— Candyisdandy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I can absolutely understand why you admire the work of the organisation but can you show any grounds in Wikipedia policy for keeping the article? Nancy talk 08:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia policy does say that smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations. Candyisdandy (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC) — Candyisdandy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- True, but they still need to meet WP:ORG Nancy talk 17:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia policy does say that smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations. Candyisdandy (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC) — Candyisdandy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I can absolutely understand why you admire the work of the organisation but can you show any grounds in Wikipedia policy for keeping the article? Nancy talk 08:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (copied from the talk page)Hi everyone, I am the Deputy Editor-in-chief of the Spanish Magazine Global Asia "Global Asia". I know Horasis since several years, it is a notable organization hosting peer-to-peer events for CEOs. We carried several articles (in Spanish language) about meetings held by Horasis. I myself have written articles on the "Global China Business Meeting 2009, Lisbon: Globalizing Chinese Companies (Spanish)" and I have interviewed several of the participants. We find these Meetings very attractive as we can interview top CEOs from around the world, but specially from emerging economies such as China, Brazil, Russia, etc. In our currently issue, there is an article written by the Director General of the Spanish Asia House (Casa Asia) on "The 2010 Global India Business Meeting will be held in Madrid". I strongly believe that the current article on Horasis should not be deleted, Horasis is a first-class organization which gathers top CEOS, decision and policy makers as well as global media leaders. Thanks to Horasis I have met several editors and journalists from leading business and economic magazines.Mbolekia (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC) — Mbolekia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- (copied from the talk page) Hi all I don't often comment. But an entirely different search shows Wiki pages for Chatham House, OCDE, Fabian Society (etc) are indeed similar to that of Horasis - without looking into the 'depths' of Wiki definitions. As noted above, and in the further discussions, Horasis simply 'gets people [top people] together for discussions about the future'. TV commercials in the UK says of "Ronseal" - it does what it says on the tin - - This may seem a trivial comment to make - but Horasis is a mechanism for meetings creation at very senior international level that address global issues: it does what it says on the tin ie just what it says in the Wiki entry. I vote for it to stay, yet be updated as new facts are found, such as new meetings announced, and old meetings sumarised. Bye - John —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbkidd (talk • contribs) 10:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewritech (talk • contribs) — Dewritech (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Whilst being basically verifiable, I've yet to find the significant independent coverage required to justify an entire article. I have no objection to the organization being covered in a broader article, with a depth proportional to the sources. It seems that the coverage is largely that of the various meetings sponsored by Horasis. The press are using the meetings to write pieces that are ultimately useful sources for our economy-related articles (USA Today for example, and probably with the Global Asia links above; alas they require a subscription). But I don't think there's enough directly about the meetings or Horasis. Marasmusine (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi Maramusine, according to WP:N: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material – Horasis doesn't have to be necessarily the core issue. And According to WP:ORG: When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education – with the participants coming together at the meetings organized by Horasis it has notabiliy. Dewritech (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC) — Dewritech (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Yeah, I think I am leaning towards a "keep" actually. There's suddenly a lot of new accounts from people in related groups (no disrespect intended; they're making valid arguments) so for balance I'd also like to see the opinions of established editors too. Marasmusine (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I know the people of Horasis from previous events and while looking into the Horasis meeting in Ljubljana this weekend I discovered this discussion. Of course my personal experiences with Horasis and my conviction that Horasis is an organization with notability are absolutely irrelevant according to WP:ORG. But I found a source that is not: the Government of Slovenia: “Global Russia Business Meeting”. Horasis with all the top-level meetings it is putting together certainly merits a Wiki article.Documentarybuff (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC) — Documentarybuff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Last weekend the President of Slovenia, Danilo Türk, attended the Horasis Global Russia Business Meeting in Ljubljana - another prove of notability (which will be added to the article next week as over this weekend I’ll have only limited web-access). Dewritech (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC) — Dewritech (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: I have notified the participants of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horasis about this AfD. Having reviewed the deletion nomination and the sources, I cannot find nontrivial coverage in reliable sources, with the exception being this article from mzz.gov.si which reads like a press release. Therefore, delete. Cunard (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As stated below there are many good references. And you can not decline a significance of this governmental statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Slovenia just because of its style! Dewritech (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. There are many good references, but many of those appear to be trivial to me. It is up to the community to decide whether that matters. Traditionally, many sources meant notability. However, the consensus seems to have changed recently to require not just good sources, but significant mentions. Bearian (talk)
- Comment: Hello Bearian, thanks for your approval of the references. As you wrote it’s the open question whether they are sufficient or not to make Horasis notable. But what is with the fact, that Horasis obviously is notable enough for e.g. several Prime Ministers or the Secretary General of UNCTAD (besides of many others) to attend the meetings? The weekende before last the President of Slovenia spoke at a meeting. And isn’t it a significant effect according to WP:ORG if Horasis brings together influential politicians and CEOs from different parts of the world for years now? Dewritech (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm sorry to all the people who want to see this article kept, but I'm simply not seeing significant coverage in independent reliable sources: all the sources that have been provided only mention the company briefly. What's needed is a source that focuses on them directly. The only ones which do that seem to be press releases, which are unreliable. It's not a clear-cut case, as there are indications of notability here - in particular, the business meetings have received some attention from independent sources - but there just doesn't seem to be enough to write an article on the company itself. Robofish (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Horasis as an organization which is able to gather at its meetings high-profile people from all around the world, who obviously believe in the notablility of this organization (otherwise they wouldn't come). There are many reports in different newspapers (also many non-English). And now it's the question of notability... I'm new here and this is my first article (for those who constantly points out the number of my contribs). Also I learned a lot about Wiki standards over the last weeks I still wonder, looking at the meeting-paricipants, why this organization should not obtain notability. And in some ways I had expected a different culture of controversy. Beeing nominated for AfD because of asking a critic questions on the talk page was a little surprise. Hopefully this is not the standard answer. I will see in the future - maybe here or at at least at my next articles. Thanks to all who like this article and thanks to all the critics - although I still don't agree. Dewritech (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't see significant independent sources to establish notability, This version of the article still reads spamy, and if kept, should be rewritten by someone who does not have connection with the organization. Racepacket (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Request: Hi Racepacket, which of the given sources do you deny reliability? What in particular makes the article spamy in your eyes? And indicates your recomendation "if kept" that you actually see that there is notability? Where do you see the NPOV beeing violated? Dewritech (talk) 08:21, 26 May 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) 14:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- North american solutions (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)
Unable to find any third-party notability on this company. (Note, it's difficult to adequately search "north american solutions" as these are pretty generic words.) Exhaustive search showed no notability. I'm not sure if this should be redirected to Cougar Mountain Software or not; there was a link to its blog or something. Overall, this nomination is due to the lack of notability or third-party sources, and mild advertising tone that isn't verifiable (first POS to use cloud computing? really?). — Timneu22 · talk 15:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The original author claims to have some references in the discussion page - "I have additional sources on this company which will add a bit later," but there's nothing yet. I couldn't find anything either. Hopefully Silver163 can deliver before this afd expires... ErikHaugen (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got references but the problem is that its not entirely done by all the third parties. The technology is intriguing and new but CNN, Fox or MSNBC or NBC haven't picked it up, that's the issue. Silver163 (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unreadable advertising: regardless of notability, this would require a complete rewrite not only to become an encyclopedia article, but for that matter to give a clear picture of what this business makes or does, something the current text fails at: a privately-held company based in Chicago, Illinois that manufactures and markets point of sale, retail software and business software to small to mid-sized companies. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 11 May 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. — Scientizzle 14:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deck of 52 (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 does not assert notability of any sort, and pretty grossly violates WP:GAMEGUIDE. Really all that one can say about the article in a positive manner. Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only external links lead to websites which also are game guides. Not notable and WP:NOTGUIDE. -- doorautomatica (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Normally I don't use this, but "per everyone else". Everything that needs to be said has been. Its WP:GAMETRIVIA and fails WP:NOTGUIDE. If the subject had any significant coverage (which it doesn't) I'd be more lenient, but even then it would need a 100% total rewrite. --Teancum (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and move to whichever gaming wiki needs this. No notablity ascertained. Clearly fancruft/guide. No developmetn or reception sections. — Hellknowz ▎talk 15:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:GAMECRUFT: take it to Wikia Gaming. Marasmusine (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 07:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaron Clapham (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 WP:BLP, previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Clapham. I closed that one, no comment on notability of this page about same individual. -- Cirt (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clapham will be part of the World Cup squad in South Africa, should be enough notability for now. --Ureinwohner (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've added a reference confirming his inclusion in the 2010 NZ World Cup squad -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as nominator of the previous AfD. He's going to the World Cup. That's notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I supported previous deletion but I believe he now fulfils WP:GNG with some in-depth coverage which will no doubt increase over the next couple of months. I'm happy he has now done the "if and when"--ClubOranjeT 07:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - He's been selected for the national team to play in the world cup in South Africa. It's notable enough. He's also played a fair bit for the domestic team. Nath1991 (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm sold!--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We need to keep this page. A player cannot play at a higher level than the World Cup. Nzfooty (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It really saddens me that any editor upon seeing the assertions in the original unsourced article [1] would place a BLP unsourced tag on the article and bring it here, rather than try to source it. That's the way to tear down the encyclopedia, not to build it. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Tracy Beaker Returns. and protect. kurykh 05:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Amy-Leigh Hickman (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 child actor who does not yet meet notability criteria as outlined at WP:ENT. Attempts to redirect the article to Tracy Beaker Returns, as has been done with other AfD Tracy Beaker candidates such as Jessie Williams, have been reverted repeatedly, so that doesn't appear to be an option. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 14:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if redirect were the consensus, it could be protected to prevent reversal. LadyofShalott 17:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect & Protect if not, delete. Just another one of these troublesome articles. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and protect this problematic fan magnet until such time as this youngster's career grows and she merits a seperate article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and protect per WP:BLP. I would also suggest that the closing admin protect Jessie Williams, also per WP:BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 16 May 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. No consensus to delete outright after Alexbateman proposed a rewritten version, which most people seem to like. Sandstein 05:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick Robinson (origami) (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 since 2007. Author of origami books, but all the hits at reliable sources were about the giant origami penis he constructed to publicise one of these books, hints of WP:BLP1E here. No significant coverage beyond this one event. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with the nominator's analysis above. Subject fails WP:CREATIVE. Pcap ping 05:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Nick Robinson seems to be a published author and origami expert, his books are translated and recommended even in my country [2]. In my opinion, the erotic origami is not WP:BLP1E case, but an interesting addition to his other activities. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 05:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - Technically it fails the BLP Prod criteria... no assertion is referenced. Instead there's a laundry list of further reading. That might reference this individual (with the common name), or it might just be... further reading. I found some books [3] and some other references. I would probably entertain the notion that this individual is notable in the origami circles, but technically it fails the BLP criteria badly. I'll drop a note at the rescue squad about this article. Shadowjams (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the author in question, sadly far from a wiki-expert. I feel 33 origami books with sales of well into the millions probably ranks me along with several other origami experts who have uncontested wiki pages. I've been awarded a Sidney French medal for services to origami and recently made an honorary member of the British Origami Society, one of only 8 living folders to receive such an honour. I've been invited as a "star guest" to conventions in America, Japan, France, Italy, Germany, Austria and Switzerland. The web has typically fastened onto one notable publicity stunt related to a seaside-humour book, but that's *far* from what I'm about. If you can advise me what evidence you need to keep this article, I'll gladly see if I can provide it. Apologies for just "pasting" this here, I don't know what the procedure is or who to contact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsonnick (talk • contribs) 18:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unreferenced autobiography. Nick, if you are important enough, someone will write a WP article about you. Please read WP:Autobiography. Wikipedia is not about advertising yourself. SnottyWong talk 23:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @Snottywong: Creating an article about yourself is "strongly discouraged", not "forbidden". Mr. Robinson could be interested in Wikipedia guidelines describing using of independent and reliable sources.--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - I agree that this does appear to be autobiography, but actually I think that Nick Robinson is a notable origami author. I would say that the article probably needs a ground zero rewrite to bring its content stylistically into line. Alexbateman (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now had a go at a rewrite of this biography, see User:Alexbateman/Sandbox. I think that this should remove concerns of autobiography and is more focussed on notability. I have kept the further reading section, but given it a new heading to make it clearer what it represents. If others think this is reasonable then I propose to replace the existing article with the new version. Comments please. Alexbateman (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work, Alex. The COI issue seems to be settled now and I agree with replacing the article with the new version. I've added more sources, hope you don't mind. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with replacing the original with the userfied version, !vote is to keep this version.J04n(talk page) 14:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that you have done good work, Alex - but I still feel that the reference there seems to show that this is a BLP1E - I am not convinced that there is sufficient coverage of Robinson to show that he meets the Notability criteria- the coverage I can find is almost all connected with the giant penis stunt. There is one reference; and of the three external links, one is the same as the reference; one is his own website; the other is the British Origami Society's "Honours" - and Robinson is/was the editor of the BoS's magazine, so not totally independent. I would be more convinced that he meets WP:AUTHOR if I could find significant coverage of his books (rather than the penis publicity stunt) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google news shows he gets coverage, his books mentioned, and his giant penis stunt as well. [4] Dream Focus 21:12, 23 May 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. Nomination withdrawn, with no "deletes" -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tom Samek (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 since 2007. No reliable sources of information found (most news hits seem to be about an American miner who led a strike) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A quick search for "Tom Sameck" and "prints" turned up a number of sources. Most are short mentions, but do indicate a recurrence of coverage in articles about art in Tasmania. Significantly, he is included in a 100 year survey of state artists by the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery.[5] Other sources: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] (and duplicate [17]) [18][19][20]. Ty 15:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above...Modernist (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources found and added by Ty. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawal of AfD nomination I am satisfied with the references provided - good work - and so as there are no other "delete"s, I am closing this AfD as "Withdrawn" -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:55, 24 May 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. kurykh 05:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Orthodox Church of the East (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)
Okay, this is going to be hard to follow for anyone not familiar with the subject. This article asserts that claim that there was an Oriental Orthodox church in Persia named the "Orthodox Church of the East" that spread Christianity to India. In reality, there was a historical body of Oriental Orthodox Christians in Persia (the Maphrianate of the Syriac Orthodox Church), but this was not a distinct church and it was never called the "Orthodox Church of the East". Additionally, this body had nothing to do with the spread of Christianity to India - this was done by the Church of the East. Oriental Orthodox Christianity was not brought to India until the 17th century. Another editor later added some cited material about what is actually known about Christianity in India that refutes the original claims, which ironically gives the impression that the article as a whole is well sourced. But it's an irreparable mess. Returns for the phrase "Orthodox Church of the East" on Google Books are references to the Orthodox Church, and very occasionally to the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church of India. Cúchullain t/c 12:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Cúchullain t/c 13:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Cúchullain t/c 13:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support deletion. Esoglou (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Whilst much of the articel is sourced the key claims are not. The only sources I cn find all refer to the Eastern Orthodox Church.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. David V Houston (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I find the arguments of the nom convincing. If this is about anything, it is about a church in communion with the Patriarchs of Antich and Constantinople. If so, it is probably about how an Orthodox church outside the boundaries of the Roman and Byzantine Empire was governed. The article seems to jump several hundred years from events, probably of the late 1st millenium, to Marco Polo to a book of 1507: this is the sign of a poor article. This is unless it is really the case that nothing else is known, in which case the article should say so. Several articles on eastern churches were some time ago tagged as needing the attentions of an expert. Nevertheless, I wonder whether this article should not be converted to a redirect, rahter than deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:52, 10 May 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) 14:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sean Twist (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 since 2007. No significant coverage of Twist found at reliable sites. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. Freelance writer who occasionally places a column with a mainstream source, but mostly writes for fanzines and blogs. --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 12 May 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. 17:47, 10 May 2010 Paulmcdonald (talk | contribs) moved L. William Caine to User:Paulmcdonald/L. William Caine (Userfy to build up article sources to better level) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- L. William Caine (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 coach of a defunct college football team is not notable per the guidelines for amateur sports people. The references are not specific, and any biographical data that might be obtained does not look like it will go beyond repeating statistics. Depending on the consensus for deletion, all the coaches in the Texas–Arlington Mavericks football coaches category may not be notable and should be deleted along with the navbox. Maybe the names of the coaches could be added to the UT Arlington Mavericks football article. EMBaero (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Fails WP:ANYBIO as article does not get reliable sources and he made no lasting contributions to his coaching record. --Morenooso (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keepyou guys are kidding, right? Very first head coach of a program at the highest level of American football at its time. The NCAA didn't have divisions until 1955, the NFL wasn't formed until the next year (and even then it was considered a "bush league" for quite some time), and the NAIA didn't form until 1937. I'm sure that we could do better for sources, but most would be offline for something from the 1920's. And where the program is now is of no concern. The notability of the individual is as clear-cut as can be.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Actually I thought about this for a while. Before attaining a four-year college status, the University of Texas at Arlington football program was at a junior college level until 1959. This is clearly not the highest level of American football at the time since, for instance, the NFL started in 1920 and the Big Ten Conference already had football championships involving teams from different states. Consequently, I do not see how L. William Caine is the least bit notable using the Wikipedia biography standards. Coaches Duval, Edens, Moore, Lambert, Holmes, Milch, and Zapalac should also be deleted in my opinion, but I'll wait to see what the consensus is here before nominating the articles. Most of those coaches don't even have first names as the pages stand today. I think they would have been deleted earlier if not for the professional-looking info boxes and generic references. I see you have created many football-related articles of high quality, but I think this article has no chance of getting past a couple sentences. I would rather see a list of the early coaches in the Mavericks football article with a few quality references. EMBaero (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It does require thought, I'll give you that. I would 1) lean back to the precedence set up by Boise State and other programs that have been "junior college" levels that became top level, and 2) find out if "junior college" or "two year college" existed as an athletic classification in 1919 (the NJCAA didn't start until 1937 or 1938, depeding on what your definiition of "start" is) so it is very likely that although the program only had "freshmen and sophomores" on the squad, that they competed against other 4-year colleges and thus were at the "highest level of the sport" by default.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I thought about this for a while. Before attaining a four-year college status, the University of Texas at Arlington football program was at a junior college level until 1959. This is clearly not the highest level of American football at the time since, for instance, the NFL started in 1920 and the Big Ten Conference already had football championships involving teams from different states. Consequently, I do not see how L. William Caine is the least bit notable using the Wikipedia biography standards. Coaches Duval, Edens, Moore, Lambert, Holmes, Milch, and Zapalac should also be deleted in my opinion, but I'll wait to see what the consensus is here before nominating the articles. Most of those coaches don't even have first names as the pages stand today. I think they would have been deleted earlier if not for the professional-looking info boxes and generic references. I see you have created many football-related articles of high quality, but I think this article has no chance of getting past a couple sentences. I would rather see a list of the early coaches in the Mavericks football article with a few quality references. EMBaero (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An article about Grubbs Vocational College would probably be kept without a doubt. UT-Arlington has an interesting history as Arlington College, Carlisle Military Academy, Arlington Training School, Arlington Military Academy, Grubbs Vocational College, North Texas Agricultural College, Arlington State College, and, since 1967, UTA. The school had a football program from 1919 until 1985, and UT Arlington Mavericks football is also something that would be kept beyond a doubt (it needs expansion beyond its current list of 1959-1985). I won't suggest a merge, because we have some admins who twist that around as an excuse to keep. However, there's nothing here that merits a separate page. The entire article is built around a statistic (a combined record of 2-7-0 in the 1919 and 1920 seasons). Having been the head coach of a college football team is not, by itself, automatically notable. Mandsford (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article has two external links used as sources. However, the College Football Data Warehouse has incomplete data on UT-Arlington and doesn't mention that Caine was the coach during the years at issue. The other link is to the front page of UT-Arlington's main athletics web site. If Caine is mentioned somewhere on that site, I can't find his name. I also tried looking him up in the Google News Archive but could not find anything relevant. Unless some source is found to confirm this information, I don't see how we can keep the article on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy the more I look at this myself, the more I believe that better sources are needed. I'm encountering several "busted links" through my research from when I originally put the article up. I am going to userfy thie article to User:Paulmcdonald/L. William Caine and any objection can be on that talk page. Can an admin or someone else please close this out properly?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will head over to the UT Arlington library sometime soon and look through their archives for good sources. I'll get together an early history section for the UT Arlington Mavericks football article. EMBaero (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Wicked Tinkers per weak consensus and per WP:BLP. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaron Shaw (piper) (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 since 2007. A search for sources found minor mentions (usually along with a list of other musicians, rather than specifically about Shaw), plus an article written by himself about playing the bagpipes. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Wicked Tinkers. I was about to add this source to the article but he really isn't notable outside of the band. J04n(talk page) 19:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 05:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per WP:MUSIC (Kurykh's argument) --Joe Decker (talk) 17:03, 23 May 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) 01:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of characters from Beverly Hills Chihuahua (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)
Completely unsourced and makes no real claim for why this should be a stand-alone list and not just have the major characters in the film article. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or smerge. Films with one-time characters don't need a separate character list - the characters can be covered in the main article just fine. In this case though, I wouldn't mind seeing the descriptions of the main characters moved over to the main article. Just don't keep a separate article/list. – sgeureka t•c 16:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a brief summary of characters in the main article makes sense, but this is huge and overly-detailed, with a lot of material extremely unlikely to be covered in independent reliable sources (there's even a whole section for characters who only appeared in the deleted scenes!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete None of these characters have any impact in the wider popular culture. Joal Beal (talk) 16:59, 11 May 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. — Scientizzle 14:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mocha Frapucino (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)
Page about a soon-to-be-released film. Minimal budget, no known names, and no reliable sources about this movie. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N.Google: [21]. Google News: [22]. Fram (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my original PROD nom. (GregJackP (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nearly every claim made in the article fails WP:CRYSTAL. --LP talk 19:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per too soon. While willing to believe that this amateur film probably exists and that it will be screened in Budapest, Hungary on May 2010, there are no reliable sources that show any particular notability. Let it be screened... let it be reviewed... let it win awards... let it get some coverage (even if only in Hungary)... and then we might consider the return of the article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. -- doorautomatica (talk) 06:32, 11 May 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. — Scientizzle 14:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Poojah (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 article is about an individual famous for one event only, an internet forum post (though there has been a second post receiving some interest on the web). The assertions of notability are based upon news reports of this single post and the honour of being linked from a variety of football websites. Not notable for more than one event, which in itself was barely more than a few small news reports. It is unlikely that this article could be expanded into a quality encyclopaedic article. Pretty Green (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Pretty Green (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as classic example of WP:BLP1E. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above then recreate as a redirect to Pooja (this article actually being a double-redirect in its original form) as it is a plausible search term for either the forms of worship or the name. Keresaspa (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - barely famous for one event? No thank you! GiantSnowman 20:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:BLP1E. This person is notable for one event only. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If it's "classic BLP1E", then the solution is to rename the article appropriately, not to delete. Despite the references to two major publications, it is admittedly a barely notable event. It probably doesn't need an article, and Pretty Green is right that it is unlikely it could be expanded into a quality article. However, I have this horrible gnawing feeling every time I come across "Delete for BLP1E!" repeated over and over again in an AfD, when the solution for the 1E concern is to rename/move... so my comment squeeks out from my fingertips anyway. - BalthCat (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hardly notable. ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate ( talk ) 01:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A BLP1E where the event isn't notable either. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - neither the event nor the specific person behind it is notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 14 May 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Blue-necked (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)
Partial title match lists. They aren't dabs and they aren't valid list articles. See also:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dusky
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of things described as painted
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of things described as pied
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lurking
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of titles with "Darker" in them
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of placenames containing the word "new"
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places beginning with Costa
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designated
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On wheels
- User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 7#In space and In space
- User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 2#Breaking and List of phrases including breaking
--JHunterJ (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the same kind of partial title match list:
- Blue-ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Blue-rumped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Blue-spotted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
-- JHunterJ (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —JHunterJ (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as partial title match lists, as nominator. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Since you are the nominator, I have line-struck your "delete" vote as redundant.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorrad (talk • contribs) 14:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the nominator is not prohibited from !voting, I have unstruck my comment. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Since you are the nominator, I have line-struck your "delete" vote as redundant.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorrad (talk • contribs) 14:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There is no need or reason for these pages to be deleted. They are useful disambiguation pages. Gorrad (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created: "On a page called Title, do not create entries merely because Title is part of the name" -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom. None of the articles are ambiguous with the adjective. older ≠ wiser 14:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all These bird are known as the "blue neck" in the short form. The Wikipedia rule is: "If there is disagreement about whether this exception applies, it is often best to assume that it does." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your !vote says "keep all" but your explanation only (possibly) applies to Blue-necked. But your explanation really only indicates that they should be added to Blueneck, and then only if your claim that they are known as the "blue neck" can be added to the articles where the other Wikipedia rules of reliable sourcing and verifiability can be applied. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: we should also keep in mind the eventual impact of deleting or not deleting this: readers who enter "blue-necked" in the search box and hit "Go" (or Enter) will land either on Blue-necked or on a search results page. In this case, since there appear to be no actually ambiguous articles, the search results seems to better serve the readers, and that will only come up once the partial-title match list is deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all: Blue-necked, Blue-ring, Blue-rumped, and Blue-spotted, as per JHunterJ's valid objections, immediately above. This isn't the way partial title searches for articles are accomplished on Wikipedia; we really need to keep to our consistent, longstanding policy on this. Ohiostandard (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per above two. David V Houston (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per JHunterJ – I don't see a reason to change the longstanding guideline about partial title matches. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MuZemike 02:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note The AFD was closed as delete by Kurykh on 18 May 2010 [23], but per the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 5, I have restored the deleted articles for the time being and have relisted this AFD for another seven days discussion. –MuZemike 02:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. Longstanding consensus, and with the advent of the pull-down search option, a timewaster for readers. Abductive (reasoning) 06:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per above, Boleyn2 (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all, agree with Abductive in particular. Shadowjams (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all - Longstanding consensus is exactly the opposite of what Abductive suggests. There have already been two discussions about disambiguation pages of this type and both lead to the preservation of the pages in question. These two discussions can be found here and here. These four pages are disambiguation pages listing animals. Birders in particular commonly refer to birds by their "colour-part" names alone, therefore there is a need for disambiguation. Disambiguation pages do not require reference sections; written sources demonstrating that "colour-part" names are employed for a given bird may be difficult to find, but the employment of such names is a widespread convention that is not restricted to specific birds but is generally applicable. Dusky, List of things described as painted, List of things described as pied, The Lurking, List of titles with "Darker" in them, List of placenames containing the word "new", List of places beginning with Costa, Designated, and On wheels are not comparable to these "colour-part" disambiguation pages because the others are partial title matches while the "colour-part" names are not; they are terms used independently of any further title. The pull-down search option is insufficient to perform the required disambiguation for two reasons. The first reason is that not all the options will be listed. This is because there are too many entries to fit in the pull-down menu (there are 14 entries on Blue-spotted) and also because some of the entries start with "Blue-spotted" and others start with "Bluespotted" and, depending on whether the space or hyphen is included or omitted, a user will be presented with only the article titles that do the same. The second reason is because the pull-down menu provides no context; disambiguation pages provide a short summary of each article that has an entry, but this is not possible in the menu. "Colour-part" disambiguation pages play an important role on Wikipedia that cannot be performed by the pull-down search option. Neelix (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The pull down menu seems to ignore hyphens. For example, typing blue ring yields Blue-ringed octopus, Blue ring anglefish, Blue Ringtail, Blue-ring Danio, Blue-ring topsnail and Blue-ring. It even sorts the list by popularity, so the topmost is, of course, the venomous octopus. Abductive (reasoning) 18:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "problem" of the pull down menu presenting different results between bluespotted and blue spotted can be approached in several ways. First, if the usage in the real world always is Bluespotted stingray, then that's what people will type. If Bluespotted stingray and Blue spotted stingray are both used, then create a redirect. Worrying about people who have typed only Bluespotted and not kept going with grouper or whatever is underestimating their intelligence. Abductive (reasoning) 18:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The other problem with relying on the pull-down menu to perform the functions of a disambiguation page is that many users search Wikipedia in ways that do not make use of the pull-down menu. This occurs on slow computers, many handheld devices, and external search engines. Neelix (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - per JHunterJ and Abductive.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per JHunterJ and Abductive; these are not useful, let alone necessary, and instead only get in the way of valid searches. postdlf (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per JHunterJ and Abductive. While it is true, as stated above, that birders and similar use colour-part names, they do so not as "a widespread convention" but only as informal shorthand, in contexts where there is little or no likelihood of confusion, and thus no need for disambiguation. Two birders might, say, refer to "the blue-necked" (jacamar), as distinct from, say, "the white-chinned" (jacamar), when there is no ambiguity, but they would be most unlikely to refer to "the blue-necked" (jacamar) in situations where there was the possibility of confusion with the blue-necked lory. The argument that there is a need for disambiguation fails to recognise that colour-part names are only used in restricted contexts; in a wider context they are not used independently of the rest of the title. - Jimmy Pitt (talk) 23:20, 20 June 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) 14:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Francis turczyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article written by the subject. Prod and other tags have been removed. Not sure of notability, other than he was represented by F Lee Bailey at trial. But only the first paragraph is about subject, and even that is just rambling talk about life and movie deals, and complaints about the legal system. The restof the article, about 50 pages or more, seems to be a list of all major criminals in 1960s USA. Dmol (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A search for the subject's name gives page after page of irrelevant links - those ones that contain the most unlikely keywords considering their real purpose (drawing the unwary in...). Little of any interest. As to the article, somewhat Proustian in length (as Wikipedia articles go) but rambling in a manner more reminiscent of Joyce. Definitely not encyclopaedic. I'm not at all sure what the point of it all is, either. Is it about Turczyn or Bailey? There already is an article on Bailey. Do we need one on Turczyn? I think not - even if it is shorn of the majority of the current version. Peridon (talk) 00:13, 13 May 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) 06:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kitsuné Maison Compilation 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)
no notability shown for this compilation album. having a bunch of notable artists does not make a compilation notable. no coverage in independent reliable sources. prod removed saying "This is a ridiculous delete IMHO - Kitsuné are a reputable label and the artists involved are, in most cases, noteworthy (as expected for a compilation album)." duffbeerforme (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the next compilation in the series for the same reason:
- Kitsuné Maison Compilation 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) duffbeerforme (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated when I removed the prod notification I strongly disagree with the deletion of this article, the established notability of the artists involved in the creation of the compilation combined with the Wiki verified notability of the label that released/created the compilation warrant its inclusion. Compilations like this by their very nature aren't going to be easily verified through the internet, they're from a time period when internet coverage for this kind of release was scarce, that doesn't mean they moved less units or involved artists less important than a comparative release which would warrant inclusion today; infact, it's probably the opposite. It's been categorized correctly and fits within the confines of that categorization well - perhaps a less destructive move on your part Duff would have been attempting to source the article rather than prod marking? Stevezimmy (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- notability is not inherited. stuff from 2006 not written about on the internet? fitting in a category is far from a reason to keep (I'm a living person, we have a category for that). and discuss the subject, not the editor. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, re time period I thought it was 96, not 2006. Regardless my other points stand; notability of artists/record label/international distribution/presence on amazon, torrent sites, etc. indicates it's a popular release. You are a person and quite obviously you are allowed on Wikipedia, is there a prod marker I can put on you? Stevezimmy (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just use the regular prod, but I will remove it before I get deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, re time period I thought it was 96, not 2006. Regardless my other points stand; notability of artists/record label/international distribution/presence on amazon, torrent sites, etc. indicates it's a popular release. You are a person and quite obviously you are allowed on Wikipedia, is there a prod marker I can put on you? Stevezimmy (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NALBUMS, albums normally should have the same level of sourcing expected for films/video games or pretty much anything else. Since this is a compilation, not an artist album, it's even more important that it's sourced with significant secondary coverage. I couldn't find any such sources, none have been presented since the article's creation. Someoneanother 22:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no sources whatsoever, and a quick Google search didn't seem promising. Fails all relevant notability guidelines. Huon (talk) 15:08, 17 May 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. Existence is not notability. I've looked at every link provided in this debate, and not one of them satisfies the requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources to establish Mr. DiMuccio's notability. This is a discussion, not a vote, and I find the arguments in favour of deletion much more convincing. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Brian DiMuccio (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)
Proposed deletion because "This writer hasn't received any attention and fails WP:BIO. he is mentioned in film lists for Little Witches, and that's it." Contested without improvements or reason in edit summary. 66 distinct Google hits for name plus ScriptGirl[24], no Google News hits for same search.[25] Fram (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. No awards or honors to indicate that his writing work has distinguished him as a notable one. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I heard this writer speak at a SXSW Festival panel. He worked with Cameron creating online content for AVATAR [26] This alone makes him notable in my book. Also, I don't understand "is mentioned in film lists for Little Witches, and that's it" entry when 5 other feature writing credits easily verifiable on IMDB [27] His film The Demolitionist is a cult classic and was directed by frequent Quentin Tarantino collaborator Robert Kurtzman. I also found this animated webseries he wrote for feature film HITMAN [28] --Sophiashredder (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)— Sophiashredder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep- A quick addendum...still baffled as to why this entry tagged for deletion. I followed several links that clearly establish DiMuccio as writer/producer of ScriptGirl show and co-writer of Questionable Advice Column in Script Magazine. He certainly seems to be a writer of some influence. As for his feature films not having garnered awards or honors, that is certainly not the only criterion by which artistic endeavors are judged worthy...as reflected by the bodies of work reflected on countless wiki bio entries. --Sophiashredder —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -The claim that "....he is mentioned in film lists for Little Witches, and that's it" is patently false. Period. Dimuccio is clearly credited on the films listed on IMDB [29] I've seen Voodoo, Little Witches and Moonbase and his name is correctly listed. The wiki article also provides a link to a Yankee Pot Roast article on the creation of Script Girl [30] and credits Dimuccio and Dino Vindeni. Not sure what all the controversy is - if you don't believe Brian Dimuccio didn't write these films, prove it. You can't just make these wild claims and run off. If Brian Dimuccio and Dino Vindeni didn't write these films, back it up. Syoungs (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)— Syoungs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. }[reply]
- Comment - Nobody is disputing that he has the listed writing credits. What is needed is significant coverage about him. So far, all we have is apssing mentions and credit lists. -- Whpq (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I disagree. Fram was clearly disputing the writer's credits. I think the verifiable credits and the body of work they represent are suitably notable for inclusion here. The notion that "coverage" equals "significance" is hugely depressing. By that standard, Paris Hilton is the most significant human being of the 21st century. No thank you. --SophiashredderSophiashredder (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - dimuccio is credited as writer & producer of scriptgirl. [31] [32]Ducati749 (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC) — Ducati749 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep - LITTLE WITCHES written by Brian DiMuccio & Dino Vindeni was nominated for Best Film at the International Fantasy Film Festival a.k.a. Fantasporto in Portugal. [33] [34]Jorenee (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC) — Jorenee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep Avatar "character spotlight" of Stephen Lang character "Col. Quaritch" found on You Tube.[35] Brain DiMuccio listed as writer. Looks legit.Kwelles (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC) — Kwelles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - All that is being presented are writing credits. Nobody is disputing that he has done work. What is needed is to establish that he is notable by Wikipedia guidelines. This can be demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources. A link to Youtube that shows a writing credit is not significant coverage. Having writing credits listed in IMDB is not significant coverage. The nomination for an award for one of the film he wrote is not a writing award, and a check of the nominees shows a list so long it looks like every film shown in the film festival was "nominated". -- Whpq (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sadly the above comment reflects an all too common but nonetheless disturbing bias against writers. Why, if "Little Witches" (one of the films that Mr. DiMuccio penned) and its cast all have wiki entries, shouldn't the creator of said material also be noted? There is a disheartening trend, regarding entertainment bio articles, of kow-towing to the almighty actor. How else can one explain the fact that no less than 29(!!!) ACTORS from that brilliant piece of filmmaking "Gremlins 2: The New Batch" have personal wiki bio entries? I've never heard of most of them, yet I don't see anyone clamoring for deletion of their articles. Perhaps the above user would be good enough to provide proof that all 29 are notable by Wikipedia guidelines as demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources? Failing that, I would hope he or she would come to realize that Mr. DiMuccio's body of work, though perhaps not to his or her personal taste, is demonstrably significant enough for inclusion here.Sophiashredder (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - And in regard to the YouTube link [36] to the Avatar short that I included days ago and someone else reposted: I stand by my initial assertion that being the only writer other than James Cameron himself to have written for the characters of the top-grossing worldwide release of all time makes Mr. DiMuccio notable by ANY reasonable guidlines.Sophiashredder (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - For any other editors reviewing this, the writing credit is not for Avatar, the movie, but rather for a 1 minute 33 second character spotlight clip. And the assertion of the above editor that "the only writer other than James Cameron himself to have written for the characters" appears to be contradicted by the very clip referenced as it gives writing credit to another writer as well. In any case, none of this is relevant as all that this proves is that he was hired to do some writing for supplementary material. -- Whpq (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I didn't get that the comment was implying Dimuccio wrote Avatar and the reply to it has a suspiciously vindictive tone.Jorenee (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - nothing in the citations at all about him, a matter of a few words, no coverage.Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 24 May 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) 14:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dino Vindeni (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)
Proposed for deletion because "This writer hasn't received any attention and fails WP:BIO. he is mentioned in film lists for Little Witches, and that's it." Prod removed by article creator without reason in edit summary or improvements. No Google News hits as creator of ScriptGirl[37] either, and only 72 distinct Google hits in total for this[38]. Fram (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. No indication of awards or honours that would distinguish him as a notable writer. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I could not find significant coverage of the individual, or any indication of passing WP:BIO. Jujutacular T · C 07:46, 17 May 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. — Scientizzle 14:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ian Ridpath (Canadian artist) (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)
Proposed deletion because "Fails WP:BIO. No reliable independent sources for this Ian Ridpath (many for the astronomer). The books are self-published, the paintings have not received significant attention." Contested, with addition of a number of articles he wrote for the amateur radio publication Break-In. However, writing for a magazine (or newspaper and so on) isn't an indication of notability. Being discussed, having received significant attention in independent reliable sources is. A search for such sources is hampered by his namesake, the asxtronomer (who wrote the initial article, apparently), but in the end don't result in sufficient returns to meet WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the original entry was added by me (the astronomer). I added it because I found that my own entry was receiving an increased umber of hits and I presumed that a proportion of these were for the Other Ian Ridpath, given his recent emergence on the art scene. Can we leave the entry for a few weeks and see what sort of traffic it attracts? I should add that although we know each other, because of the coincidence of name, we are not related. Ian R (the astronomer).
- That's very modest of you, but I'd guess that whatever traffic is going to the article about you is probably looking for you. This is Wikipedia: after pop culture, science pretty much rules here. Art is way down the list in priorities, let alone an article on an artist with a small, localized profile. freshacconci talktalk 01:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article reads like an advertisement, does not seem encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Nothing yet to support prominence or notability. JNW (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, he gets more page views than this guy [39] 79.65.102.52 (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that's a helpful comment. freshacconci talktalk 01:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability per WP:BIO or WP:ARTIST. freshacconci talktalk 01:00, 13 May 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. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that should have been a delete. I omitted to account for the fact that two keep recommendations were from IPs, probably the same person, and a third was from a new user. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- JC Crissey (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)
Proposed for deletion because "No evidence that he is in any way notable. Co-producer for four movies, none of them partuclarly notable in themselves. No good sources could be found through Google News or Books, and not that many through regular Google search either. Fails WP:BIO." ProD removed because "notable producer of Blinded (2004 film)" However, he was an "associate producre", according to IMDb, not the producer or an executive producer. Not one article about "Blinded" mentioned Crissey[40], while there are e.g. 7 Google news hits for Blinded plus the actual producer Van Heek[41]. No evidence of him being notable could be found. Fram (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - well known in england and scotland -- co-producer role for three films, equal to exec producer or more --134.219.102.208 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is there any coverage in reliable sources to confirm any of this? -- Whpq (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Clearly notable. Coverage in reliable sources is found in the references already in article. Others can be found here [42] and elsewhere if one would take the time to look. Gorrad (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The link you provided is to a directory of films currently being made. That doesn't establish notability. I have taken the time to look and found no coverage about him, so if you know of this coverage, presenting it here would be useful. -- Whpq (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - More references found and posted of films previously made. Loads more if willing to go past several google page searches. BAFTA reference cannot be verified, but that is because members lists are not made public. Strong co-producer credits on at least four films, some award winning. Only updating cuz person known in UK independent film. Should keep since within wiki rules, unless wiki only want Hollywood famous people. TV films mostly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.202.104 (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable. More references on films and background added. Within wiki rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.202.104 (talk)
- He is mentioned in lists of people who worked on some films. He has not received any attention personally beyond such name entries. He is, despite claims made above, neither notable nor well-known. Fram (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you not recognise his own lifetime BAFTA membership. This is big for British film people.[1] If that is not notable, where the local industry accepts, no wiki film listing other than top US awards will be subject to deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.202.104 (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An IMDB biography is not an independent source, but user submitted. They are not reliable at all. Furthermore, if it was such a big deal, where are the sources about it? Anyway, I have checked, and he is indeed one of the 6500 members of BAFTA. I don't think that being a member of such a large group does make one notable at all. Fram (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not notable. Sources provided before and after this AfD do not establish notability. SnottyWong talk 22:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Working in a prominent role on notable films, makes you notable. Producers may not get as much press as actors and directors do, but that doesn't mean they aren't notable. Not as notable as the writers of course, which also don't get much press, despite being the most important people in the film, of course. Dream Focus 01:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Producers get enough attention to meet WP:GNG when they are truly notable. I wrote Mark Canton and had no trouble finding the necessary sources. They don't exist for Crissey though, so your keep is rather meaningless (or at least mere opinion, instead of being policy- and guideline-based). Fram (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -Weakly cited to mere mentions in unreliable citations, no value at all. Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 24 May 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 Maariv. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nrg Maariv (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 on its own, fails WP:CORP, any usable content can be merged to Maariv Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Top ten Israeli website confirmed Feb 2010 [43] and by alexa [44]. Passes WP:WEB. No brainer. Instead of prod and del, more productive and less time to add 'expand' template to the article. --Shuki (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge to Maariv. There's not much here, and adding it to that article will help fill it out. Title will be useful as a redirect, so preserve it and the edit history here. —C.Fred (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Maariv, clearly just an aspect of that. Zerotalk 15:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 05:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Maariv; valid content, but a separate article is not justified. RolandR (talk) 20:09, 19 May 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) 14:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- David W. Woods (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)
Proposed for deletion beacuse "His name plus motocross gives three Google hits, no news or books hits. No reliable independent sources about him are available. Where the new info (post 1977) comes from is very unclear. Fails WP:ATHLETE." Prod removed because "won 1977 National Championship". However, I can't find evidence that the "National Motocross Association" was ever the "highest level of a sport", despite its name. The main body for motocross in the USA is the American Motorcyclist Association. He isn't listed on the "Every champion that ever was" page[45]. So no evidence that he is notable from any available sources, and no evidence that the title he won is in any way notable. Fram (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete based on content. Yeah, content normally isn't a deletion issue, but this article is so poorly written that I believe it does more harm than good for Wikipedia. Further, only offline sources are given thus making it very unlikely that the article will be improved.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:58, 12 May 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. — Scientizzle 14:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nottingham United FC (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)
Amateur club playing at a non-notable level of football -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. – PeeJay 10:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WikiProject Football/Notability is rather vague, but it also seems to fail Notability in any case. No searches, especially news searches, showed any results in a national publication or showed them to have played at a national level. --Triwbe (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think that the page for Nottingham United FC should be kept, because they are one of the biggest amateur clubs in the county by numbers and members and have a team in the Premier Division of the Midland Amateur Alliance which is one of the oldest amateur leagues in the world and the team they run in there(Monty Hind Old Boys) is almost 40 years old. They also run Attenboro Cavaliers in the Long Eaton Sunday League Premier Division(previous Champions) and have a meeting with the grading officer this month to get the Saturday team pushed up into the Central Midlands League, and there are other Central Midlands League Teams on Wiki, so why not Nottingham United? They also have a tour to play professional clubs in Europe this August and recieve frequent local media attention through their on the pitch success, community projects and various charity fundraising events. --Nottsutd (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC) — Nottsutd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- "and there are other Central Midlands League Teams on Wiki" - See Wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the editor (article creator) is saying only that they might get into the CMFL, not that they're already in it...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point regarding the CML, but just the fact they have 6 adult 11-a-side teams sets them apart from other amateur clubs and makes them one of the largest amateur clubs in the East Midlands. Also they have international media coverage, you can read about them on the Bulgarian National Futsal League website here: http://www.blfz.eu/index.php?limitstart=18 on page four, the team in the red kit. The article is about their upcoming European tour and the matches against 3 pro teams will be broadcast on cable TV, again something that sets them apart from other amateur clubs. You can check the photo on the BLFZ site to the ones on the NUFC page. --86.1.178.69 (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "and there are other Central Midlands League Teams on Wiki" - See Wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Since they started in 2008, it's highly unlikely that they've played in the top 10 tiers of the football pyramid, and they've not played in any cup competition that grants them notability. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable team. Recreate if/when they reach a high-enopugh league. GiantSnowman 20:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per the above. Non-notable team. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment - Is the Notts Sunday Football League part of the English football league system? Is this club part of the National League System? If it is, then we should keep this article. If not we should just delete it. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No Sunday leagues are part of the National League System in any way, shape or form -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It is because this club is playing in a league which is not part of the National League System --Siva1979Talk to me 12:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The club has only received local coverage, and doesn't play at a high enough level of the Football League system to imply notability. BigDom 06:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The club has a meeting with two committee members(including the grading officer) from the CML on Thursday morning for a pitch/facilities inspection regarding their application to join. If the club is accepted, would the article on the club have a place on wiki? It looks very probable they will be admitted, can this page by saved somewhere if it is deleted before the club has its confirmation? --Nottsutd (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately the rule of thumb used by the WP:FOOTY project is that a club must play in the top ten levels of the English football league system (the levels which are eligible to enter the FA Cup). Even the top division of the CMFL is lower than that, I'm afraid. The only CMFL teams with articles are those who have previously played in higher leagues..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The club has a meeting with two committee members(including the grading officer) from the CML on Thursday morning for a pitch/facilities inspection regarding their application to join. If the club is accepted, would the article on the club have a place on wiki? It looks very probable they will be admitted, can this page by saved somewhere if it is deleted before the club has its confirmation? --Nottsutd (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I created a new discussion about this in the WP:FOOTY talk page. Please view my comments about this. I feel that it is about time to change this rule to include level 11 clubs as well. I have been waiting more than 2 years for this rule to change! --Siva1979Talk to me 05:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not relevant to this discussion, though. Even if this club does join the CMFL (not guaranteed) they would surely join the lower of its two divisions, which is not level 11) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I created a new discussion about this in the WP:FOOTY talk page. Please view my comments about this. I feel that it is about time to change this rule to include level 11 clubs as well. I have been waiting more than 2 years for this rule to change! --Siva1979Talk to me 05:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The club had a meeting on Thursday with the Chairman and Grading Officer of the CMFL and were accepted. It was also decided by the FA that both the Supreme and Premier Divisions will be step 7 for the coming season and will most likely be changed to North and South Divisions, with the North promoting into the Northern Counties League and the South into the East Midlands Counties League. Nottingham United FC have been put into the Premier Division and would be in the South Division if the changes go ahead. As they are now at step 7, it makes a big difference to their notability as a club.--Nottsutd (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then if it is confirmed that they would be a step 7 club, I would like to keep this article as well! It is because it is also my sincerest desire to include ALL step 7 or level 11 English football clubs to Wikipedia. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not current consensus, though. Current consensus is that only clubs down to Step 6 are notable. You can't say that an article should be kept based on what you think consensus should be..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then if it is confirmed that they would be a step 7 club, I would like to keep this article as well! It is because it is also my sincerest desire to include ALL step 7 or level 11 English football clubs to Wikipedia. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:16, 15 May 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) 14:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Matt Schrader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
vanity article by subject himself Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, vanity article. -- doorautomatica (talk) 06:36, 11 May 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) 14:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CSix (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 only find once source[46] John Vandenberg (chat) 07:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, probably. There articles about CSIX (e.g. [47] EE Times), which is something else, so it's hard to find out anything about this web site. Pcap ping 09:14, 11 May 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. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chaminade College School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been tagged as requiring citations since December 2006. It makes use of no secondary sources to back up any of its claims. No reliable secondary sources appear to exist online, judging by a few Google searches -- Books turns up a few directories of schools, but no substantial coverage, and News turns up nothing. A proposal to merge to a locality article was rejected without comment. Shimeru (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Usually, for North American schools, it seems that High Schools or the equivalent are typically considered notable, while lower grade level schools are not (barring unusual factors or outside notability). So, as a high school, this school should (in theory) be notable. But any school with 750+ students should have some sourcing - and there simply isn't any beyond the usual confirming-existance references. So, hrm. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to consider that line of thinking suspect when an article can be tagged as unsourced for over 3 years without any attention being paid it. Is that too short a period of time? Would we allow an article about a band or a webcomic to sit in a state like this for three years on the argument "sources probably exist, somewhere"? Shimeru (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not likely, no - but there seems to be a firmer precedent with regard to Schools than with webcomics or the like. On point, there's a reason I didn't go Keep or Delete. But if sources are available about the school itself, as the editors below seem to indicate, then we should probably keep. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They aren't, though. Look at the arguments so far. "We have an established policy that all high schools are notable." No, we do not. You won't find WP:ALLHIGHSCHOOLSARENOTABLE alongside WP:V and WP:OWN. "Sources exist." Do they? I see one source about a music teacher that only mentions the school in passing -- trivial. One source about the school's football program changing from one high school sports league to a different one -- pretty trivial, almost all high schools belong to a high school sports league. One source about the river cleanup and trout farming program -- this is at least a solid independent reliable source, but it's still not about the school itself. We have nothing showing anybody has taken note of the school itself as an institution. Nothing on its history, its founding, its mission, aside from the primary source, the school itself. This is a situation that would not stand for a biography, a company, a band.... Shimeru (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact is that consensus is derived from AfDs, and you'll be hard pressed to find a delete outcome in any high school AfD in the past few years. Its about 99.9% keeps, I believe.--Milowent (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but consensus can change. Five years ago, we had many articles "sourced" like this one -- including BLPs. The project as a whole has been moving toward more rigorous sourcing, which can only be a good thing in the long run. It seems that schools are still using looser standards, but I'm fairly confident that will change eventually. If this is kept, as seems likely, I'll test it again in six months or a year. Shimeru (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Test it now on smaller, private schools with fewer mentions. Abductive (reasoning) 22:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The purpose of a bright-line rule, in part, is to avoid meaningless AfD debates trying to split the head of a pin on which high schools are notable and which are not. Myself and other editors think that's a waste of time better spent elsewhere on the project.--Milowent (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am in general agreement with that. I also believe that having articles on high schools is useful for editor recruitment. Editing an article on one's local high school is unlikely to cause anxiety in newbies, who may feel they have less to offer on more technical articles. Abductive (reasoning) 23:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this, and also feel that Wikipedia is better for having these articles. I strongly agree that it would be desirable to "avoid meaningless AfD debates trying to split the head of a pin" in this area; unfortunately, that goal has not been attained, yet.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's unlikely ever to be, as long as some of us value rigorous sourcing. I do, however, respect your effort to improve this article. You are the only 'keep' voter to attempt to do so, to date. Shimeru (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this, and also feel that Wikipedia is better for having these articles. I strongly agree that it would be desirable to "avoid meaningless AfD debates trying to split the head of a pin" in this area; unfortunately, that goal has not been attained, yet.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am in general agreement with that. I also believe that having articles on high schools is useful for editor recruitment. Editing an article on one's local high school is unlikely to cause anxiety in newbies, who may feel they have less to offer on more technical articles. Abductive (reasoning) 23:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The purpose of a bright-line rule, in part, is to avoid meaningless AfD debates trying to split the head of a pin on which high schools are notable and which are not. Myself and other editors think that's a waste of time better spent elsewhere on the project.--Milowent (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Test it now on smaller, private schools with fewer mentions. Abductive (reasoning) 22:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but consensus can change. Five years ago, we had many articles "sourced" like this one -- including BLPs. The project as a whole has been moving toward more rigorous sourcing, which can only be a good thing in the long run. It seems that schools are still using looser standards, but I'm fairly confident that will change eventually. If this is kept, as seems likely, I'll test it again in six months or a year. Shimeru (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact is that consensus is derived from AfDs, and you'll be hard pressed to find a delete outcome in any high school AfD in the past few years. Its about 99.9% keeps, I believe.--Milowent (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They aren't, though. Look at the arguments so far. "We have an established policy that all high schools are notable." No, we do not. You won't find WP:ALLHIGHSCHOOLSARENOTABLE alongside WP:V and WP:OWN. "Sources exist." Do they? I see one source about a music teacher that only mentions the school in passing -- trivial. One source about the school's football program changing from one high school sports league to a different one -- pretty trivial, almost all high schools belong to a high school sports league. One source about the river cleanup and trout farming program -- this is at least a solid independent reliable source, but it's still not about the school itself. We have nothing showing anybody has taken note of the school itself as an institution. Nothing on its history, its founding, its mission, aside from the primary source, the school itself. This is a situation that would not stand for a biography, a company, a band.... Shimeru (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not likely, no - but there seems to be a firmer precedent with regard to Schools than with webcomics or the like. On point, there's a reason I didn't go Keep or Delete. But if sources are available about the school itself, as the editors below seem to indicate, then we should probably keep. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to consider that line of thinking suspect when an article can be tagged as unsourced for over 3 years without any attention being paid it. Is that too short a period of time? Would we allow an article about a band or a webcomic to sit in a state like this for three years on the argument "sources probably exist, somewhere"? Shimeru (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm not sure why others are reporting no coverage for this school: I get 854 hits at Google News archives for the search string <Chaminade Toronto>. Many of these are pay per view but some examples include a Canadian music teacher of the year[48][49], a discussion of the school's status within the Canadian high school football structure[50], and "a student-run fish hatchery [that] grew into a river-cleanup model for the entire city [and] won one of 10 Green Toronto Awards last night."[51] --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Number of Google hits is never in itself an indication of notability, for several reasons, and in any case 854 is a very modest number: a search for a high school I attended gives 64,000 hits, and a search for the high school my children attended scores 23,800. I have looked at the first couple of pages of Google hits for "Chaminade Toronto". The vast majority of them are not reliable sources, not independent of the subject, only a brief mention, or more than one of those. Probably a tiny minority of the 854 are actually useful by Wikipedia's standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I disagree: I am referring to Google News hits and these do show actual news articles. The point of the count is that the school is covered extensively in the media. The bottom line is that this is a significant high school in one of North America's largest cities.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I notice that sources are available to meet WP:ORG. WP:NHS outlines the arguments why high schools should be kept. TerriersFan (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per TerriersFan. --Milowent (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the others above. It's a secondary school and sources do indicated notability. As for sources not being in the article for 3 years, Wikipedia has no deadline. Some articles could go twice that or more without improvements, but that doesn't mean the topic is not notable.--Oakshade (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - We have an established policy that all High Schools are considered notable. This clearly is a 9-12 school, established in the 60's, serving classes in the high hundreds. What on earth makes this an exception to precedent. Worse yet, since people here do quote precedent, how can we start a trend against any high school now? The answer is: of course not. This is a frivolous challenge to this article.Trackinfo (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Once again we are told "We have an established policy that all High Schools are considered notable". Once again no we do not. The extent to which this is consensus' is debated, but there is certainly no such policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge to Toronto Catholic District School Board. Sources exist, and the consensus on en.wikipedia is that high schools are notable, (exception; very small private schools). One example of how our society considers high schools to be notable is that any serious obituary of a famous person will always name their high school. Abductive (reasoning) 08:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (I realize this is a futile !vote). Contra many !keeps, there is no policy or guideline that says North American 9-12 High Schools are inherently notable. In current practice, maybe these article are generally kept, but WP:CCC, and in this case I hope it does. I'm a firm believer in logic behind WP:N: we need independent, reliable, secondary sources if we're going to write neutral article article on something. Synthesizing an article out of primary sources, self-published sources, and trivial, passing mentions in articles about other topics is just that--synthesis. There's a difference between being an encyclopedian and a historian, and we need to be mindful of it. Yilloslime TC 04:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per consensus. "It's ugly and needs cleanup" is a poor rationale for deletion. tedder (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAs has been said above, there is no policy that high schools are automatically notable, and the supposed consensus that they are is largely based on people saying in AfDs words to the effect "we should keep this one because we always do keep them", which is what has happened in this case. The trouble with that approach is that it prevents consensus from evolving. Are there any good arguments why we should regard high schools as automatically notable? If there aren't then the fact that people in the past have taken that line is not very persuasive. If those of us who disagree with this automatic notability idea keep saying so then maybe eventually we will get a genuine discussion, rather than just being told that consensus is for "automatic notability" because it is. The notability guidelines say notability needs substantial coverage in reliable sources. Is there a good reason for ignoring that guideline in the case of high schools? If there is then please tell us what that reason is: don't just tell us we should ignore the guideline because that's what we do. About the only reason which has been put forward is "Editing an article on one's local high school is unlikely to cause anxiety in newbies". In a way that is a good point, but it is completely out of line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to say "we will allow articles on subjects which inexperienced editors will be happy to edit". As for the various editors claiming there are sources, some of them make statements such as "sources exist" and "sources do indicated notability", but do not say what sources or why they are enough to establish notability. The sources are not of sufficient standard to justify the article if it were on another topic, such as a business. Only if we take the line that high schools are exempt from Wikipedia's normal notability standards is there any case for keeping. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The main thing being prevented is easy research, and the things preventing it are Google Snippet View and paywalls. I have added a couple of sources to the article just now. I haven't used this story on nuked feces in the article, but I challenge you to find it in the seaches provided at the top of the AfD. Abductive (reasoning) 20:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The argument usually put forward as to why high school articles are usually kept is because for just about any high school, there are almost always sources somewhere, if not on the net then in local and regional "dead tree" newspapers without online archives (or archives behind paywalls). This assumption is usually correct for any high school in the "western world" so we give it the benefit of the doubt. If the high school in question is somewhere in "South Succotash, Induganda" where such alleged sources are less likely, the argument of avoiding "western world bias" is usually put forward. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Yes, the reason for the convention that all high schools are notable (a convention that I initially fought against, because I tend to be deletionist on local institutions) is that so many of them are, that it isn't worth arguing over each of them. Probably 2 years ago, when this became firmly established, about 90% of those in the US or Canada were easily sourceable, even using the resources available free over the internet to those unwilling to see what their public library had on offer. Now it's probably 98% at least, at gradually getting near that in other countries. Should we debate a thousand of articles, to remove 10 or 20 that might be slightly sub-standard and do not harm? Given the millions of articles remaining to be written, it would be a very poor use of resources. In fact, we'd probably make far more than 10 or 20 mistakes in each direction while trying to do it, and end up with a worse result by anyone's standards than if we took them all. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the arguments outlined in the essay WP:NHS. All high schools are notable. This school has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to verify the information. Cunard (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK, there are some good arguments which I had not seen before for accepting automatic notability, so I have withdrawn my "delete" above. However, I still have reservations, so I am not willing to actually say "keep". JamesBWatson (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As this is heading for a keep close, this is a largely grandstanding delete !vote to support the views expressed by User:Shimeru. This school lacks significant coverage in reliable sources as opposed to the occasional coverage in respect of discrete events. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have altered my notvote to include the possibility of merging to Toronto Catholic District School Board. It is true that the article lacks sources which analyse the school as a whole. Abductive (reasoning) 23:05, 15 May 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) 14:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Banshee PHP (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)
Neither a claim to notablity, nor reliable sources found. I've given the creator a few days to expand the article as he requested, but nothing showing that it passes WP:GNG has been added. Ironholds (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
edited your link to WP:GNG so it works Wickedjacob (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:56, 15 May 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Furthermore, it's been snowing here since day 1. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dance in the Dark (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 article is unnecessary, it is just an aticle created by some gaga's fans that think that wikipedia is a lady gaga encyclopedia. This article is about an irrelevant song, that for no reason, got an article. The whole article is about the not-even single song, and most of its contents are about composition (irrelevant), live performances (already described on her tour article) and "reviews" of the songs that in fact are reviews of her album (most of the "reviews" are one line long, and in the original reviews the song is not even a highlight). It even has a media file, like if the song was really important, and a "cover" that is a picture of the booklet. The whole article is trivia, like the live performances. All the information could be easily mentioned on her tour article or on its album article. This has to be deleted, redirected or merged with any other relevant article. BTW, like with a lot of gaga-related articles, her fans are trying to create irreleant articles, just take a look on speechless, or the indepent article that they wanted for the music video of telephone; Wikipedia is not a fansite, I bet you can have thousand of gaga's articles on a wikia or something like that, but not on a "NEUTRAL" and not "PROMOTIONAL" Wikipedia. Fortunato luigi (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speechless (Lady Gaga song). I don't see a single fancruft in the article. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article is well sourced and written. I think its a great article. Are there copyedit issues? Onefinalstep (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:NSONG, charted single. -Reconsider! 07:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Since when a composition section is irrelevant to a music article? The fact that most song articles dosen't have one dosent't make it irrelevant; and live performances and reviews aren't trivia. Your points are not valid for a deletion. Frcm1988 (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is well written and the song is notable because it charted. Crystal Clear x3 08:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep not a massive hit, but a charting single by a major artist and a well-written article as well. No convincing reason given to delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Invalid reasons for deletions. Highly documented article, charted song, performed live on multiple ocasions. Alecsdaniel (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is absolutely no reason for this to be even discussed, complies with WP:NSONG. It is a charted song with cover and has charted in two countries. I would say delete if it wasnt so well written and sourced ..:CK:.. (talk2me) 16:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Why? Have Reliable Sources, currently Good Article and Did You Know? nominee. There's no reason for delete this. TbhotchTalk C. 20:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not currently a good article. It is trying to become a good article, but the references are a problem. However, still no reason to delete even if it does not become a GA. Xtzou (Talk) 21:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, leaning more towards redirect – has demonstrated notability per both WP:NSONGS and the WP:GNG. However, I don't see how the information here can't be contained in the The Fame Monster, The Monster Ball Tour, and Lady Gaga discography articles. –Chase (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is lengthy enough to have a space in Wikipieda. Plus, the song charted on two reliable charts. Also, I don't know what you are talking about because it's not fancruft. Everything is relevant and how is the composition of the song irrelevant? All Lady Gaga articles are very well written and I definitely think you shouldn't rag on works that are GA. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a GA. Xtzou (Talk) 21:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to my last edit, the image is of it as a digital download in foreign iTunes Stores and reviews do not have to single handedly focus on the song and only the song. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. The nomination statement is fundamentally flawed. 1) As a charting song with significant coverage from secondary reliable sources, this song isn't anything near irrelevant. 2) A song does not have to be a single in order to merit in article, as this article clearly demonstrates. 3) The song's composition is a core aspect of articles about songs need. In fact, it wouldn't pass a good article nomination without it. 4) The article does not read non-neutral or promotional, as suggested by the nominator; even if it did, copy-editing would be the route to take, not nominating the entire article for deletion. This article meets and surpasses the requirements noted in the notability guideline for songs and should not be deleted or merged. — ξxplicit 00:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not currently a GA. I don't know why everyone seems to think it is. Xtzou (Talk) 22:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The reasons have been sufficiently explained. --uKER (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Same arguments as above. -- doorautomatica (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per above; inane nomination. Katerenka (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As above, notable article with no violation of WP:NSONGS, stupid nomination. - ηyχαμς 11:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the song is not notable, the album is notable and her tour is notable, and this article has nothing except pieces of review of her album and synopsys of her tours, this is not an important article. Fortunato luigi (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...didn't you already say this in your nomination? There's no need to repeat this. Anyhow, there are charts and significant coverage which grant it notability per WP:NSONGS. Just because you don't like the artist or the song does not mean it is "not important"; you are not the judge of that, Wikipedia's guidelines are, and according to them this song is important enough. While I'm shaky on whether it should have a separate article, pushing something for deletion by calling it "irrelevant" is just absurd. –Chase (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I won't give a bolded "keep" because I'm not going to waste my time reading the article or looking for sources, but I would point out that the nomination, wordy as it is, doesn't give any policy- or guideline-compliant reason for deletion. The guesswork about the identity of the authors and the subjective opinion of this being a piece of trivia are not reasons for deletion, and the real giveaway that this is a tendentious nomination is the repeated use of the word "irrelevant", which is a meaningless word without it being specified what the subject is irrelevant to. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, is a good article, it need not be here. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- However, it is not a good article in the sense of a GA. Xtzou (Talk) 22:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasn't you who keep with the annoying "it's not a GA" right above? Sparks Fly 23:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, now starting to be biased in the review. I don't know whether the nomination is biasing his points. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Speedy Keep - Absolutely nothing wrong, no idea why there is even a discussion. Candyo32 (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any reason for the article to be deleted, haters of any kind of artists have no policy to decide if the artist's article is "important" or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.199.190.124 (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Nothing SERIOUS, but work needs to be done. There is no need for deletion. Sami50421 (talk) Sami50421 (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There's no need for it to be deleted. I think the article's very complete and well argumented and sourced. If Speechless (Lady Gaga song) has an article, why not Dance in the Dark?. I think that the later of both is even more important because it's thought to be a single by Gaga's label, and in fact it was an iTunes promo single. And, for your information, the "cover" is the official cover taken from the iTunes promo single. I think that you arguments are sometimes immature and teen-like, when you use sentences like: "like if the song was really important", "it is just an aticle created by some gaga's fans that think that wikipedia is a lady gaga encyclopedia". This kind of sentences sound like you're a very angry teenager... Don't take it personal... Just, take it easier and get less stressed. It's a constructive advice. --87.218.192.187 (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; well-sourced and established as a significant song. Tezero (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep* It is clearly a notable song because it has gained a lot of media attention as well as being sung live at a very well know event. it is exactly the same as Speechless in this regard. It's likely to be a single too even though Alejandro was chosen instead, because even though Gaga has said she has written half of her 3rd album, she is still on tour until 2011, so the Fame Monster ear is by no means over yet, a good 6/7 months, which is enough time to released it as a single and promote it further. calvin999 23:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin999 (talk • contribs)
- 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) 14:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Maxwell Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject of article is not notable. WP:SIGCOV Lack of information readily available via internet, online databases, library, etc. Subject of article is afternoon radio show which was cancelled approx 6 months ago. Subject of article is already covered in article sub-section of radio station which carried the show. Apparently, no other station ever carried the show (syndication or otherwise). Only 1 wikilink leads to this article from others on Wikipedia (the show’s former station; see here).
Article is poorly cited. WP:CITE Article only contains 6 citations. Of the 6 citations present: 2 are fan videos on YouTube; 1 supports information which is only indirectly related to the subject of the article; and 2 are from an amateur blog.
Subject of article is not covered in a neutral way. WP:NPOV WP:WEASEL Article was created immediately following the show’s cancellation. Contributors of article appear to be promoting the show in hope of it being picked up for broadcast on some other station. Article also has no talk page. Most contributors are unregistered and unfamiliar w/ Wikipedia. MisterE2123Five5 (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:46, 16 May 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. — Scientizzle 14:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pridmore Corporation (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 article is a stub about an electronic component distributor located in Melbourne, FL. The article reads like a WP:NOTDIRECTORY WP:Advert. There is no citation and nothing WP:N about the company. Onefinalstep (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:57, 15 May 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) 14:31, 17 May 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)
Article violates WP:V and WP:NOR. The main thesis is not directly attributable to any reliable sources. Dancter (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Dancter (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete and Salt - It seems folks have no clear idea about what "Eighth Generation" is. Everyone feels that a Nintendo DS that's bigger/smaller/orange/not portable is a whole new console, or that an addon such as Natal or PS Move is a whole new console. Recommend salting until some real information on the next generation of consoles comes out. --Teancum (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL no systems yet released even if announced. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 13:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt. WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:G4. The previous AfDs were all closed as delete, and the article's conclusions are still not explicitly supported by any of its sources. — Rankiri (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Salt seems a bit much... There are in fact numerous reliable sources that discuss this future generation in a crystal ballish sense. I know Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, but if reliable and verifiable sources can be used to discuss the topic generally then I see no reason to completely delete the article. The article as it stands would probably have to be substantially rewritten to fall on the proper side of WP:CRYSTAL so perhaps delete is the best option at this point, but SALT seems overly reactionary. -Thibbs (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true. Looking at previous AfDs they're all much older, so I've changed to a non-strong Salt - I still feel the article won't be needed until we have actual eighth gen info, not yet another iteration of the Nintendo DS or things like that. It's much safer to just Salt the article than bring it back to AfD yet again. When there's actual info any old WP veteran will know (or be able to learn) the process to ask for unblocking so the article can be created properly. In the meantime any rumors and whatnot can incubate in someone's Userspace. In replay to Thibbs, as far as the reliable sources in the article all of them talk about current gen information. A bigger Nintendo DS, and motion technology for the Xbox 360 and PS3 - there's nothing about a true next-gen, stand-alone system in there. --Teancum (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you mentioned it twice, I should point out that Nintendo considers the Nintendo 3DS a successor to the Nintendo DS series, rather than an iteration of it. That's a big reason why the issue is reemerging now. Dancter (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Per no proper sources. This is a very large topic and event; it is either described with similar appropriate coverage or not crystalled at all. — Hellknowz ▎talk 15:21, 15 May 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) 14:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Summarizing in Abridged Quotation (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)
Nom & ...
- ... opine Del, as Non-notable and OR; plz note that the ProD tag stating the concern
- Non-notable, even if pub'n in "a free content undergraduate journal" were an answer to OR, since there are 30, count'em, 30 Google hits on "Summarizing in Abridged Quotation".
- was removed by the primary ed'r w/o the edit-summary, and -- under any reasonable construction of of this diatribe -- w/o the tk-pg rebuttal the tl requests.
--Jerzy•t 04:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jerzy, as I said on my talk page, the tag said I could remove it. Pluse it was wrong--I checked and Google only has 2 hits for Summarizing in Abridged Quotation. Where did you get 30 from? You can't count every hit unless it's an actual hit.
Jfeen (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jerzy, as I said on my talk page, the tag said I could remove it. Pluse it was wrong--I checked and Google only has 2 hits for Summarizing in Abridged Quotation. Where did you get 30 from? You can't count every hit unless it's an actual hit.
- Comment: The primary editor of the nom'd article, before their routine removal the ProD tag, twice edited the stated reason for removal (tho they had not placed the tag and clearly favor retention); for the sake of completeness of the process, i address those changes here, as if they had been appropriately offered as arguments in the previous (ProD) forum:
- The 2nd contiguous portion of User:Jfeen's 04:06 edit on the 7th to the nom'd article may be simply an objection to the
#count of "30" that i provided, since "30, count'em, 30" was replaced simply by "2" (and i decline the pitfall of trying to respond to any unstated objection to my emphatic wording). I'll stick my neck out to the extent of observing that while the current result of G-test on "Summarizing in Abridged Quotation",whichreads:- In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 27 already displayed.
- That count of 27 differs insignif'ly from my earlier outcome of "30"
,. And the current outcome of "About 206 results", produced when "repeat the search with the omitted results included" is selected, is in the same ballpark with what i recall being promised when i searched (generously ignoring the fact that "Page 7 [out] of 61 [total] results" marks the end of that broader search). Thus "2" may be a typo for 200, 206, or the like. (If "2" was intended, we can defer comment until we hear why "2 Google hits" would be favorable.) Even if those 200, or 206, were not mostly copies of the 30 or 27 (probably made automatically and without credible judgment on the accuracy or significance of the content), they would be insignificantly closer to demonstrating either notability, or status as established knowledge, than are the 30 or 27.
- (We may for now safely ignore the 1st contiguous portion of that edit: it which seems simply to reflect, at the expense of replacing my wording with an ungrammatical and ambiguous one, that colleague's conviction or fear that "prof'l" -- after "secondly" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Summarizing_in_Abridged_Quotation&diff=prev&oldid=360656351 in yet another edit -- and "pub'n" are ambiguous.)
- Their edit 15 minutes later (besides changing the body of the article) destroys the direct quotation from them that i was responding to (made in an IP contribution of 21:33, 5 May 2010, which User:Jfeen as of 04:03 on the 7th now claims to have made -- tho mis-timing it at "11:59"). Perhaps they failed to recognize their own words, construed my direct quote as something i hypothesized they might say, and preferred to blame a hypothetical ProD-nominator for offering a different -- and still more hypothetical -- justification.
- The 2nd contiguous portion of User:Jfeen's 04:06 edit on the 7th to the nom'd article may be simply an objection to the
- If i've missed the point, we clearly need to hear a lot more clearly what the point is.
--Jerzy•t 04:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jerzy, as stated previously, and as I said on my talk page, your "30" count is not only wrong--I checked and Google only has 2 hits for Summarizing in Abridged Quotation (you can't count every hit unless it's an actual hit)--but it is also superflous; what does 30, let alone the actual 2, hits have to do with anything?
Jfeen (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Search engine test#Notability. 2, 30, and 200 would each be an extraordinarily low G-Test for notable topics.
--Jerzy•t 10:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Search engine test#Notability. 2, 30, and 200 would each be an extraordinarily low G-Test for notable topics.
- Jerzy, as stated previously, and as I said on my talk page, your "30" count is not only wrong--I checked and Google only has 2 hits for Summarizing in Abridged Quotation (you can't count every hit unless it's an actual hit)--but it is also superflous; what does 30, let alone the actual 2, hits have to do with anything?
- Comment It looks like WP:OR with no notable google hits or google book sources. I don't quite understand your list btw, might be broken formatting.--Savonneux (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the critique. The insurmountable formatting problem flows from the fact that having indented within a point on the numbered list, you can't out-dent back to that numbered point's same level, without ending the list or going on to the next numbered point -- so sometimes, as here, it looks as if the starting graph w/in a numbered point is an unfinished paragraph. I reworded some, adding cues that may help make the syntax a little clearer.
--Jerzy•t 10:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Savonneux, yes, it does look like that, but it looks like that because it was published in an undergraduate journal. cf. my response to Deor below.
Jfeen (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the critique. The insurmountable formatting problem flows from the fact that having indented within a point on the numbered list, you can't out-dent back to that numbered point's same level, without ending the list or going on to the next numbered point -- so sometimes, as here, it looks as if the starting graph w/in a numbered point is an unfinished paragraph. I reworded some, adding cues that may help make the syntax a little clearer.
- Delete. The article lost me in the first sentence when it said: "A Summary in Abridged Quotation or Summarizing in Abridged Quotation (SAQ or SAQing, i.o.)--similar in appearance to block quotation--is a protologism ...." If the article admits that it is naming the subject by a protologism, we don't need it. If this is a legitimate topic, then don't call it a protologism. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Metropolitan90, I was informed that calling it a "protologism" was a misnomer; I changed it back to "neologism". Also, why would Wikipedia not need it? Everything in academia is a protologism until it becomes a neologism and then, finally, a "technical term".
Jfeen (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, I would have had a slightly less negative reaction if the article had begun as follows: "Summarizing in Abridged Quotation (SAQing) -- similar in appearance to block quotation-- is a recently proposed methodology for abridging texts--a common procedure in academic writing." In other words, the article should indicate that its subject is the methodology or practice of summarizing in abridged quotation, not the term summarizing in abridged quotation. On the other hand, the sources used in this article are largely irrelevant to the topic, so upon further consideration, I would say that a better reason to delete this article is that it is insufficiently sourced and describes an apparently non-notable editing process. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Metropolitan90, I was informed that calling it a "protologism" was a misnomer; I changed it back to "neologism". Also, why would Wikipedia not need it? Everything in academia is a protologism until it becomes a neologism and then, finally, a "technical term".
- Delete. Looks to me like personal instructions for misquoting people—and an extraordinarily bad idea. Deor (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deor, firstly, this talk page isn't for you to discuss the merit of the ideas discussed in the article but rather the merit of the article qua article; secondly, in defence of his idea, it is explicit instructions on how to not misquote people--you must have gravely missed the point; it eliminates all possible bias. If you'd like to read the article where this is actually discussed, I think you can find Mr. Feenstra's article on Grand Valley State University's Philosophy Department homepage in .docx format, but I checked and it is not there, so just asked to be sent it from feenstjo@mail.gvsu.edu. I am in the process of converting the journal it was published in to .pdf in order to deal with the WP:OR and notability tags.
Jfeen (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Copy a writer's words, replacing whatever you deem unimportant with ellipses; then eliminate all trace of your alterations by deleting the ellipses" is a form of misquotation where I come from. Deor (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If i were wavering on deletability, i would weigh in the fact that even tho goofy ideas sometimes become notable, the goofiness of this one reinforces confidence that the G-test is not just a quirk. But i do think that Deor's invocation of OR & NOTHOW as bases for Del are the more compelling part of their opinion.
--Jerzy•t 10:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If i were wavering on deletability, i would weigh in the fact that even tho goofy ideas sometimes become notable, the goofiness of this one reinforces confidence that the G-test is not just a quirk. But i do think that Deor's invocation of OR & NOTHOW as bases for Del are the more compelling part of their opinion.
- It would be a shame for Jfeen to waste energy on those measures, if their only purpose is to qualify the work for sourcing a WP article. They seem confused about what is at issue.
--Jerzy•t 10:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Copy a writer's words, replacing whatever you deem unimportant with ellipses; then eliminate all trace of your alterations by deleting the ellipses" is a form of misquotation where I come from. Deor (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deor, firstly, this talk page isn't for you to discuss the merit of the ideas discussed in the article but rather the merit of the article qua article; secondly, in defence of his idea, it is explicit instructions on how to not misquote people--you must have gravely missed the point; it eliminates all possible bias. If you'd like to read the article where this is actually discussed, I think you can find Mr. Feenstra's article on Grand Valley State University's Philosophy Department homepage in .docx format, but I checked and it is not there, so just asked to be sent it from feenstjo@mail.gvsu.edu. I am in the process of converting the journal it was published in to .pdf in order to deal with the WP:OR and notability tags.
- Delete No reliable sources [52], [[53]]. Nothing to establish the notability of the term. The concept seems to be WP:OR based on a number of standard editing procedures (particularly Block quotation and Abridgement). The article also refers to itself as a "protologism," which is a direct contradiction of WP:NEO. There's nothing to save.--Savonneux (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete not yet well enough established, though an interesting idea. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 14 May 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. This has been open long enough and there has been no activity in almost a week. While a "no consensus" may be justified by a simple vote count, I'm going with keep because nobody has provided a strong counter-argument to any of the keep !votes, which cite both improved sourcing and the record deal with a reputable label. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ASG (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 band. No charted songs, not signed by a major label or well-recognized indie. Only one independent reference, a very brief mention in a track list for a video game soundtrack, and that single ref was only added after I PRODded the page (the editor adding the ref used that as an excuse to remove the PROD). Every other ref is from their label, the band's own web site, or the band's MySpace page. Sorry, folks, that's not enough. Can't independently verify anything else about this band. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't find significant coverage of the band. No indication of passing WP:MUSIC. Jujutacular T · C 18:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a quite notable band. At least two of their songs have been used on Huevos 9, a very well known and published ATV DVD series. They are far from the "garage band" you mention on your Wikipedia site. Realkyhick, the author of the above "reason" is a non-notable newspaper columist and announcer of low rate sporting events. Hardly someone qualified to critique which bands or musical projects are notable and which are not. ASG's material has also been used as background in Skate 2, as well as many other snowboarding and surfing DVDs. In addition, their music can easily be downloaded from just about any electronic jukebox in the country, as well as the fact that all of their albums are listed for purchase on itunes. These are hardly qualities justifying the label of "garage band". Anyone with the ability to use Google.com or any other search engine with lack luster abilities can easily find and read about this band. Sorry folks, but their biography on Wikipedia is well deserved. If you read the self created Wikipedia biography of the author of the nonsense above, you'll see that they are intent on deleting material concerning bands as a source of entertainment. This is a very poor attempt to bash a group of individuals ilustrating a great deal more talent than the above author. In conclusion, I am not friends with, or in any way personally know any member of ASG. I am nothing more than someone who, although the author above says is impossible, has read about this band on the web, and has taken a liking to their music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.59.211 (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, let's see. First we have an anonymous IP editor who engages in personal attacks (prohibited at Wikipedia, by the way). Wow, how brave of you! He or she makes unsubstantiated claims about how anyone can find out about the band through Google, but fails to provide any usable results from such a search. That's a big help. I stand by my assertions that this band does not meet WP:BAND. If you can prove otherwise, do so. Put up or shut up. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, let's see. I'm simply bringing up the simple question of whether or not a small time sports castor has any credibility or authority when it comes to rating published music... Seeing as your whole point has to do with "notablility" or "credibility", I think everyone reading would like to know what "credibility" you have to be judging someone's musical material. Are you a writer for Spin Magazine? Do you submit material for Rolling Stone? Does your sports column in a local newpaper have anything to do with music? Do you manage or promote bands? If you are none of the above, then I don't see how you have enough "credibility" to be deleting bands from Wikipedia. The bottom line is, ASG is a very talented band who's material has been used in many well known, copywrited media productions. In your laughable retort, you've failed to acknowledge all the facts I mentioned prior. Non-notable bands don't have labels... Non-notable bands don't sell material to be used on mass produced media. Non-notable bands don't produce four albums that can be bought all around the country. What more "verification" do you need? Go to youtube.com or itunes.com, that's all the verification you need. They have tons of material on both, along with a huge fan base. Your labeling ASG as "non-notable" or "garage band" is absolutely rediculous. As far as me being an "anonymous IP editor"... well, I guess I am. I don't have a Wikipedia sign on, and fortunately for me, I only come to Wikipedia for information, I don't hang out here. I do have other things to do with my time, thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.218.201.11 (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently you have no clue as to what constitutes a notable band for Wikipedia purposes. Read those words again: for Wikipedia purposes. Those standards are given on this page. I could care less how their music sounds. It doesn't matter. There are many bands on here whose music I would probably find horrible, but if they meet our notability standards, their article stays. Conversely, I can think of two or three artists in my local area that I like, but they also do not meet our standards. Notability has nothing to do with quality. ASG does not meet the criteria we have established. If you look at the criteria, and see one that ASG has met, then please come back here to cite how the band meets that criterion. Non-notable bands do have labels, but those labels are not notable in their own right. Pretty much every non-notable band out there sells "material to be used on mass produced media." Any non-notable band can produce four albums on their own these days. As for albums "that can be bought all around the country," show us proof. And the Internet doesn't count, as pretty much any artist can sign up to have iTunes, Amazon and numerous other online music outlets. And YouTube? Literally anyone can post stuff on there, but that doesn't make them notable. (I have dozens on there, and I'm not notable by Wikipedia standards.) That's not anything close to verification of notability. You must have references from independent, reliable sources (and blogs are not considered to be reliable sources) to prove that the claims made are notable. If you're not interested in doing that, then leave us alone so we can deal with such articles by our long-established policies, and stop making cowardly derogatory remarks about those you disagree with. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, let's see. I'm simply bringing up the simple question of whether or not a small time sports castor has any credibility or authority when it comes to rating published music... Seeing as your whole point has to do with "notablility" or "credibility", I think everyone reading would like to know what "credibility" you have to be judging someone's musical material. Are you a writer for Spin Magazine? Do you submit material for Rolling Stone? Does your sports column in a local newpaper have anything to do with music? Do you manage or promote bands? If you are none of the above, then I don't see how you have enough "credibility" to be deleting bands from Wikipedia. The bottom line is, ASG is a very talented band who's material has been used in many well known, copywrited media productions. In your laughable retort, you've failed to acknowledge all the facts I mentioned prior. Non-notable bands don't have labels... Non-notable bands don't sell material to be used on mass produced media. Non-notable bands don't produce four albums that can be bought all around the country. What more "verification" do you need? Go to youtube.com or itunes.com, that's all the verification you need. They have tons of material on both, along with a huge fan base. Your labeling ASG as "non-notable" or "garage band" is absolutely rediculous. As far as me being an "anonymous IP editor"... well, I guess I am. I don't have a Wikipedia sign on, and fortunately for me, I only come to Wikipedia for information, I don't hang out here. I do have other things to do with my time, thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.218.201.11 (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: For those of you who keep erasing the content of this AfD, it won't make it go away. It just makes you look like a dork. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- as per Realkyhick, not notable band. No contract , no charted songs. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Just now I've added multiple citations to reliable sources, representing significant coverage, in my view; WP:BAND criterion #1. The band is a "veteran of the Vans Warped Tour" according to one newspaper article I found. And the band meets WP:BAND criterion #5, with multiple albums released on Volcom Entertainment. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I differ with your view of "significant coverage," though it is hard to make a hard-and-fast determination of that because most of the refs are not linkable. (Can these be found online? I tried, and failed.) A good portion of this seems to come from their hometown newspaper, which means it has about as much significance as if I wrote in my newspaper about a band from Gardendale, Alabama - in other words, not much. Better than nothing, I suppose. I've also wondered whether Volcom can be considered a significant indie label. Their own article contains no references whatsoever, except for their own web site. I've seriously considered putting it up for AfD, but I'll tag it first for {{refimprove}}. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - while I am tempted to consider the coverage User:Paul Erik refers to as "significant" (see search), it seems like Volcom Entertainment could be a "significant indie label" ([54]). Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: changed from 'weak keep' to 'keep' per User:Paul Erik and User:J04n below. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(Duplicate vote) Band has many references at this point. Seems to specifically meet two requirements per Paul Erik's entry. Volcom is most definately a successful Indie Label, so they must have a contract. I don't think "significant" coverage is necessary if the current coverage sufficiently includes the band as notable. Also, I'd have to agree with the one "unsigned" comment above. Is this Wikipedia trying to delete this, or just a user taking it upon him/herself? I feel that's a decent question to ask. The band seems solid as far as the references go, what's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.218.201.11 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Comment - Sorry, you only get to vote once. Since Whois shows both you and 74.76.59.211 are located in Watervliet, NY, you may have voted twice already. --CliffC (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not sure 74.76.59.211's comment above should be considered a !vote. It seemed a bit more like a personal attack, while this comment above is indicated a !vote by the bold 'keep', and contains less ad hominem. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sorry, you only get to vote once. Since Whois shows both you and 74.76.59.211 are located in Watervliet, NY, you may have voted twice already. --CliffC (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The anon IP editor evidently does not have a concept of how Wikipedia's deletion process works. "Wikipedia," as an organization, doesn't delete anything. All deletion discussions are instigated by individual editors such as myself, then discussed by other individual editors such as yourself, and finally a determination is made by an administrator - who is simply another editor with slightly greater responsibilities. As for the references and coverage, it's definitely getting better, though I'm still not convinced all the way - yet. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This group is of little notability that is for sure, also I have seen, there are three not notable albums that have articles that also need deleting. Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A few more comments from me... First, to clarify, Volcom Entertainment was a subsidiary of MCA Records, so we're in the realm of major-label. Second, I've added links to some of the articles that are accessible on the Internet (although one is behind a pay wall). Third, I've added some more sources. While it's tempting to dismiss the coverage as "just a local paper writing about its local band", there is coverage beyond that, including in the Richmond Times-Dispatch and in Allmusic. Fourth, there is even more media coverage than this. There is this in Cleveland Scene, a brief album review in Metro Times, a review in Spike Magazine, a review in Hippo Press, a review in Revolver (January 2008), and an interview in Surfing Magazine (May 2005). Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm assuming that Volcom is no longer an MCA subsidiary, by your remarks. If it still were, notability would not be in question. As it is, it is likely still notable at least for historical purposes. The additional references are definitely a help. You're starting to bring me around, but I'm still not totally convinced yet. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The album review in Allmusic put the article over the top for me, the Warped Tour is a big plus. Plenty of verifiable info for WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 19:14, 27 May 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) 06:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Flashbacks (comics) (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. This article is based on one specific issue of Amazing Spider-Man. It is largely plot summary with little real-world information besides the 'inspiration' for the story. There is no evidence to support notability more than any other monthly comic.
I nominated this for deletion a year ago, and it reached No Consensus. The two keep votes asserted it's notability by A.) linking to a comicbook website puff piece [55] and B.) "Nothing wrong with plot summaries, that's how every book article is anyway. The story was notable enough to be reprinted in a hardcover book, along with other notable tales. The comic and the hardcover reprint are reviewed by third party media sources, such as IGN"--I should point out that the latter user's criteria could apply to any comic nowadays.
I decided to give the article a year to see if the article would improve before nominating again, and it hasn't. There is still nothing here that indicates why this issue is deserving of it's own article. Sandor Clegane (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this issue/storyline of Amazing Spider-Man, and it therefore fails WP:N. HOWEVER - I was unable to locate the sources referred to in the previous AfD other than the IGN review, but if they do exist they would be sufficient to pass WP:N. The fact that similar sources would entitle many comic storylines (or single issues) to Wikipedia articles is not a barrier; it may simply be the case that every comic storyline or single issue deserves a Wikipedia page. WP:N is not a terribly discriminating policy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to In_Love_&_War#Track_listing. Redirecting as an editorial decision, consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More Than Love (Amerie 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)
Not notable per WP:NMUSIC. no charts, no awards, no proper release date, not properly sourced, insufficient independent coverage (other than blogs), no critical reception etc. therefore should not have its own page. Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 May 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. kurykh 05:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Hope May (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 does not appear to meet any of the criteria of the wikipedia "professor test" for academic biographies. The subject of the bio is married to a notable person, but this does not confer notability on the actual subject of the bio according to wikipedia standards. Note also that almost no pages link to this page. Perhaps the contents of this page could be abridged and merged into the spouse's page if this is deemed appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.75.174 (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The individual is the spouse of a notable person AND is an accomplished individual in her own right. She is the author of two books -- one which is published by a publishing house that has a wide reach in UK and Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.86.22.191 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 11 May 2010
- — 91.86.22.191 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep If not having other pages link to this page is grounds for deletion, then many other pages should be deleted. At what number of linked pages to a page is the latter consider worthy to be on Wikipedia? Indeed, what makes Wikipedia valuable is that it can provide information about topics that is not available via the typical channels. This individual may not fit the criteria of "notable academics" but given the work that she does both individually and with her notable husband, this warrants a page of her own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedividedself (talk • contribs) 16:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC) — Thedividedself (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep Enough reliable sources confirm notability as a stand-alone article regardless of spouse. Article needs wikifying - which is not motive for AfD.--Technopat (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't have time at the moment to try to disentangle search results for the subject from coincidental juxtapositions of the words "hope" and "may", but I would point out the the subject's position as director of the Center for Professional & Personal Ethics at Central Michigan University, despite is grand-sounding title, doesn't seem to be a senior academic post - according to her university bio she "does all of the web-design, podcasts, and promotional materials for the Ethics Center and its student-centered projects", which sounds much more like an administrative than an academic position. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In addition to what Phil mentioned, I find that the standard "professor metrics" are unimpressive. She has one book having average holdings ("On Socrates": ~250 institutions) and another with pretty meager holdings ("Aristotle's Ethics": <50 institutions – this is a new book). GS is not much help here because most of the hits to the phrase "hope may" are false-positives (there are oodles of them). However, WoS shows no discernable research publications. Indeed, aside from the material that discussed other people (now resected), most of the article simply talks about her undergrad and grad school training. This seems, on balance, to be a vanity bio. Just to remind the panelists here (two of whom are brand-new to WP), having a notable spouse does not in and of itself confer any notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep Another reference, not mentioned on Hope May's page, can be found at http://commons.pacificu.edu/eip/vol6/iss2/11/. The work that May and Wigand do together, combined with May's work as an independent author, should suffice for notability according to Wikipedia standards. May's most recent book is held by libraries throughout the world and is published by a highly respected international publishing house which has a Wikipedia page (Continuum). The entry for Continuum's page says that it is a "leading academic publisher in London and New York". That book was released in late February 2010 and libraries are just beginning to include in their holdings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bereitschaftspotential (talk • contribs) 21:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Bereitschaftspotential (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Yes, I think that's my point. You're arguing notability on the basis of one 10-year-old book having average holdings and one newly published book. That's it and it's pretty unremarkable for someone who is an associate professor. Let me point out that the bit about being a "leading academic publisher" is PR fluff from their corporate website and does not in fact appear on their wikipedia page, as you claim. I rather doubt that Continuum is held in the same esteem as the actual leading academic publishers like OUP, CUP, or PUP. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete I wrote the synopsis at the top of this page but didn't know to make a vote. My nomination of this page for AfD was based on the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), which seem the like only relevant notability criteria in this case. The question, it seems, is whether the subject meets Criterion 1 listed at that page. This is a subjective measure, of course, but that page makes clear that having a lot of published works is not sufficient. Rather, the works must be unusually high-impact in the subject's field. Having one decade-old book at 250 academic libraries and a newer one at 50 academic libraries (number of academic library holdings being one of the suggested measures at that page) as described by Agricola44, as well as coauthoring a 2005 article in a Pacific University Oregon philosophy journal (which does not appear to have a wikipedia page) as mentioned by Bereitschaftspotential, does not seem to make this associate professor stand out as one who has made a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". Perhaps in the future this subject will meet the notability criteria and reinstatement of the page will be justified. But by my reading of the subject's impact in the discipline, the notability criteria do not appear to be currently met. --71.92.75.174 (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not yet notable. But a few comments: I wouldn't judge by what journals have WP articles, many, perhaps even most, of the notable journals do not yet have them, especially in the humanities. Two university press books or the equivalent is the usual standard for tenure in the humanities at the best universities, but Continuum is not really a leading publisher of the quality of the major university presses, and Wadsworth/thompson is a publisher primarily of undergraduate textbooks, not scholarly work. Not only does ser not yet have tenure, she does not even appear to be a member of the regular faculty. It's not clear how to deal with academics whose notability is primarily as presenters in the popular media, but i suppose for that aspect of an academic career we should use the standards applicable to any press commentator, and I do not think she meets them. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(Please give only one "keep" or "delete" opinion) Actually, she does have tenure and is now an associate professor. She also is the recipient of an "excellence in teaching award." One of her articles "Socratic Ignorance and the Therapeutic Aim of the Elenchos" is cited by leading scholars of Plato/Socrates and used in several dissertations http://www.chsbs.cmich.edu/phl/faculty/may.html. http://www.cm-life.com/2001/04/20/fiveprofessorshonoredforexcellence/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bereitschaftspotential (talk • contribs) 05:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]Keep(Please give only one "keep" or "delete" opinion) See the google entry for the "Socratic Ignorance and the Therapeutic Aim of the Elenchos" which reveals numerous citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bereitschaftspotential (talk • contribs) 05:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Google Scholar lists seven citations for that work - way below the number required to confer notability on the author. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is nothing in the article itself, in the discussion above or in the results of my own research to indicate that the subject even approaches the level of notability described by WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to her husband. Many of the keep comments above seem to be of the form "she has tenure, therefore we should have an article on her". That's far below the standard required by WP:PROF. We still have no evidence (e.g. in the form of high citation counts) that her publications have made much of an impact, the teaching award is also not "highly prestigious" and "at a national or international level" as WP:PROF #2 requires, and I don't see a lot of independent press coverage of her which might satisfy WP:GNG in place of WP:PROF. In the absense of verifiable evidence that she's notable, I think we should delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I want to point out that Associate Professor does not guarantee notability--by our usual standards, some are, some aren't--I haven;t been keeping count but I think about 2/3 of those that come here are deleted--it depends to some extent on the university, to some extent on the publication record. Even full professor isn't a sure bet, unless it's from a distinguished university. And, fwiw, an excellence in teaching award, or most other awards, from just within the person's university means very little. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentIf we compare this case to Jill Biden, then Jill should not have her own Wikipedia page, but should be merged with her husband. She is an academic but has no extensive publishing record. Like May, Jill founded a non-profit and does non-profit work. It seems to me that Wikipedia's catageories of "notability" are too narrow. If one is married to a notable spouse and is "accomplished" either through non-profit, artistic or scholarly work, then this warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. In fact, it seems that if May was *not* a professor, then there would be less of a debate. This debate seems to be about the substantiveness of her work, whether an associate or full professor warrants notability, whether tenure implies notability, etc. Also, to the point about "google scholar" above, if one googles the name of the "Socratic Ignorance" article, one gets much more than 7 references. Let's grant that this is a borderline case. The precedent set by Jill Biden implies that Wikipedia recognizes a category of notability of the individual meets two factors: 1) is married to a notable spouse and 2)produces creative work that is recognized by a community, and/or engages in philanthropic work. The publications and the citations to May's work meet those criteria. Would there as be a great of an objection if the entry just said "spouse of Jeffrey Wigand" who publishes work in ancient philosophy and made NO reference to her academic position? I think it would, and there would be fewer objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.136.63 (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As an anonymous non-editor, my opinion on wikipedia standards should perhaps be discounted, but I think it's safe to say that the standards wikipedia has created, rather than precedent, should be the criteria under consideration here. Indeed, I'm sure there are many non-notable bios on wikipedia right now, most of which will sooner or later be deleted. But although I don't see it as germane, I may as well comment to the Jill Biden example. An accomplished woman and educator in her own right, she was married to a famous senator (who was frequent on the Sunday Morning Talk shows, I think, since the early 1970s when he first became a senator) since 1977. She was his wife when he ran for president in 1988. It was only in August 2008, however, when she became the Democratic nominee for Second Lady of the United States, that someone created a wikipedia page for her. I don't think she's notable for being married to someone famous. I think she's notable because she is Second Lady. Finally, I don't think this is the place to discuss whether Wikipedia's notability criteria are too restrictive. We're trying to discuss whether a particular bio meets these criteria. Presumably there is a place on wikipedia where people debate what the actual criteria should be.--(user 71.92.75.174, as above, but on different computer) 131.215.67.222 (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Standards are interpreted through precedent. A standard is simply a general principle and the general principle gains meaning through concrete examples. So the two cannot be separated as without examples general principles are meaningless. The majority of Jill Biden's page is devoted to her status as an educator. And were she not married to notable persons (senator, vice president) she would not have her own page. In fact, as someone argued before, being a spouse of a notable individual does not confer "notability". This IS Wikipedia's standard. Therefore, Jill Biden should not have her page according to Wilkipedia's standards. The fact that she DOES shows that Wikipedia recognizes a hybrid category if two factors are present 1) being married to a notable spouse and 2) being an educator/philanthropist/etc. Hope May fits within this category and therefore should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthursenior (talk • contribs) 21:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Arthursenior (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment. This discussion is about Hope May, not about Jill Biden. The spouse of a vice president of the United States will unavoidably become subject to significant coverage in reliable sources, which is our basic criterion for a separate article to exist. The same does not apply to the spouse of a whistle-blowing former tobacco company executive, however worthy she and he may be. I would add that this clearly orchestrated campaign to keep this article can only possibly reflect badly on Ms May by making it look as though having a Wikipedia article is more important to her than building a reputation via her academic work. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per prod - fails both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR inclusion guidelines. Also, notability is not inherited, so her spouse being notable does not cause her to be notable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:31, 16 May 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Smeezingtons (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 article is a poorly written list with little context other than stating the obvious. There is no information about the group/producers themselves and it is not properly sourced. I think the creation of this article is premature. Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. That's not grounds for deletion; that's grounds for expansion. The Smeezingtons are notable but the article needs to demonstrate this much more clearly. 118.95.13.139 (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – I've added some additional citations, and more are available from a Google News search. This is a music production team that has worked with some big names, and has attracted media attention as a result. The subject meets WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The subject of the article is notable, "poorly written" is not a valid reason for deletion, there's tagging for that. - EdoDodo talk 17:57, 23 May 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. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bandwagon music (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 about a record label with no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Article as been speedy deleted 4 times under the title Bandwagon Music. Whpq (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Once again my entry for Bandwagon Music is to be deleted.
I am beginning to think there is some kind of conspiracy against Bandwagon Music!
Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_record_labels you have hundreds of music labels the majority of which have nothing notable about them.
To pick a couple randomly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Apostles_%28record_label%29 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_Beads_of_Sweat or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aardvark_Records
Why are they not being deleted? There is many many more like this.
Bandwagon Music is THE ONLY MUSIC PUBLISHING CO-OPERATIVE on the planet
Surely that is a more notable quality than most?
Thank you
Jules --Juleseleven11 (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juleseleven11 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ps. I understand if you delete this page but surely that rule should apply to many many other entries here on wikipedia. I know I have come across plenty. J --Juleseleven11 (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juleseleven11 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Also, Juleseleven11, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good argument. If you think those articles should be deleted, then nominate them for deletion as well. -- doorautomatica (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Jules does this article no favours by making such claims as "Bandwagon Music is THE ONLY MUSIC PUBLISHING CO-OPERATIVE on the planet". Are we really supposed to believe this? Has (s)he really done the research to check that no other such cooperative exists anywhere on the planet? It's impossible to have a sensible discussion about whether this article should be kept when people make such ridiculous statements. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Phil, First of all I don't believe we can have a sensible discussion about this as you seem to have already made your mind up. For the record I have spent ten years of my life researching this subject so yes I do feel justified in making this claim. How long have you spent? I challenge you to find another. I am sorry that you find it ridiculous. Perhaps the wording could have been less overstated.This labour of love will be the death of me!! I shall return with this entry in the not to distant future ;) Love and Light, Jules--Juleseleven11 (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I just spent a few seconds researching this subject and found the Nota Bene Music Publishing Cooperative in Christchurch, New Zealand, which, the last time I checked, was on the same planet as St. Albans. I have not made my mind up, but it will be easier for me to do so if you refrain from making untrue, incredible and self-aggrandising marketing statements, the type of which I would expect from grasping capitalists rather than an ethical green cooperativePhil Bridger (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Touché. Not sure I can recover from that one.You make a fair point. I dont work too well in this grasping capitalistic society, because of this I at times over aggrandise my position to compensate. I apologise. Leave it in or take it out. Que sera sera. Jules--Juleseleven11 (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juleseleven11 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of mammals of India. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 07:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Indian mammals (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)
Fork of List of mammals of India but incomplete and without sources - naming convention not followed - (animals do not have nationality) Shyamal (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the existing page mentioned above? An incomplete list of mammals by region seems less than useful to me, and if someone DID want that info, they wouldn't search for a page called 'Indian mammals', IMO. IF this were to be kept, it needs to be renamed as 'Indian mammals by region' or some such. David V Houston (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting looks good. —innotata 21:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of mammals of India. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, obviously. I would advise the nominator to, in any future such circumstances, simply make a bold redirect rather than bring the article to AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just redirect. --BelovedFreak 11:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect I was going to say "But then we'd just want to delete the redirect" but WP:REDIRECT#KEEP suggests it ought to be kept. So I !vote for redirect. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:11, 14 May 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) 06:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Panic Of Girls (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. Unreleased album per WP:CRYSTAL and insufficient 3rd party coverage to allow it to pass WP:NALBUM or WP:N -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 01:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't delete! It'll be needed when the album is released! —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhakoJacko2009 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How much third party coverage is needed? An internet search would find more. Also the guidelines relate to unreleased material. I think it's worth waiting two months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Listor1989 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - while the above commenters are correct that there are sources indicating that this album is production, I would argue that thee are no verifiable sources for information on when the album will be released, the track list, or any other info that is pertinent to an acceptable album article. WP:CRYSTAL applies. In its current form, the article is so speculative that it will not even be worth updating when the album gets closer to reality. When that happens, a fresh article with truly reliable info can be created. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:39, 11 May 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, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL. The information can still be used as a base for the page when it comes out. Just pluck it from the history or work on a draft copy in your user namespace (post something on my talk if you want more information on that). -Rushyo Talk 01:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
There's a link on the band's officail website saying "Panic of Girls: Coming Soon." Band members have written about the release. The artwork is complete and on the web. Does WP:CRYSTAL apply? Listor1989 (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick Comment - there is nothing wrong with patience. Wikipedia will still be here when the album becomes a reality. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the sources are either self-published, or a blog. They don't show significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, and the album fails our notability guideline. May be recreated when the album is released; would probably have to be rewritten almost entirely anyway. Huon (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now, as this does not currently meet WP:NALBUMS; also agree that WP:CRYSTAL applies. No significant coverage at this time from independent reliable sources. Gongshow Talk 06:54, 18 May 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. — Scientizzle 14:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Manpreet Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Also it appears that much of this article may have been created by the subject himself. Appears more like a marketing page for a relatively obscure equity analyst. RedGreen990 (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A quick google search does not come result in many notable hits for this person. Also, the firm he works for is pretty small (approx. $1 billion in assets). A few of the sources are just normal recognition articles published by the CFA Institute which they do for numerous individuals throughout the year. Also, what few references they are on this article are also found in this person's Linkedin profile. There's nothing to support that the subject is famous. 151.151.109.22 (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This person is not notable. The article is disguised to make him appear to be notable. 166.137.9.182 (talk) 17:55, 16 May 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The ToonSeum (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 non-notable museum. It claims to be the third cartoon museum in the US, but being third is not itself notable. It has hosted notable exhibits and guests, but this does not convey notability. None of the staff or leaders are notable. A search online for citations reveals mostly press releases with only regional coverage besides. This means it has not accomplished any national recognition or significance like the other two. It was created by someone calling themselves "Toonseum," leading to obvious WP:COI issues. An attempt at PROD was contested by a single-use account. Dragoneer (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There is substantial recurring local coverage including the major dailies ([56], [57], [58], [59], [60]) as well as coverage in the New York Times ([61]). -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fifth link you provide is about the exhibit, not the museum. The NYT article is about KickStarter and does not provide info on the museum beyond it having a couple exhibits and needing money, so that's arguably trivial coverage. Dragoneer (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect to the NYT article, I agree that coverage is a bit tangential, but it more than just a mere mention. It needs to be considered as part of the whole body of coverage. As for the fifth link being about the exhibit and not the museum, a cartoon museum can and should be noted for the exhibitions that it curates. This is not a case of WP:INHERITED as exhibiting cartoon works is the museum's reason for existence. As such, the coverage about the exhibit does help establish the notability of the museum. -- Whpq (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fifth link you provide is about the exhibit, not the museum. The NYT article is about KickStarter and does not provide info on the museum beyond it having a couple exhibits and needing money, so that's arguably trivial coverage. Dragoneer (talk) 12:12, 12 May 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, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - the sources Whpq found should be incorporated, but it did seem to attract some coverage. I also agree with Whpq's reasoning concerning the importance of notable exhibits. Huon (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Toss the NYT source. It's not really about the ToonSeum, and if anything seems to confirm non-notability by claiming their fundraising effort amounted to a rather pitiful $465. Still, I feel that notability has been established by the other sources, even if only just barely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:52, 17 May 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 G11 by Athaenara. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- May 18, 2010 (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 should be merged. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 00:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete if possible, article being used solely for promotion. -Drdisque (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per G11, unambiguous promotion. I'm won't even dignify this with a mention of whatever book release it was supposed to be alerting us to. Mandsford (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete G11. Article is being used for promotion (possibly self-promotion) of a non-notable book. And i'm not going to get into Wikipedia's rule against the creation of articles for unremarkable specific dates (or if there isn't one, it's a given). Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 03:39, 10 May 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 (A7). –MuZemike 16:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We Are The Audience (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. Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND GregJackP (talk) 00:31, 10 May 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:SNOW Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Goof night (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)
Utterly non-notable neologism in its defined form. Yes, there's an entry on Urban Dictionary for it as a Saturday night in general; however, Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. No notability, no verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as non-notable, possibly WP:MADEUP neologism with no reliable references. ALI nom nom 00:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as neologism of questionable (i.e. zero) notability. ... discospinster talk 00:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete CSD A7.--Savonneux (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, with some of the edits being made to the article, it could almost qualify under G10. —C.Fred (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two verifiable sources are added. It is a fact that the term exist. Wether you believe it or not, or find it insignificant at this stage does not change the fact. IT does exist. Now if wiki to stay progressive I think the article should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertcat (talk • contribs) 00:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC) — Libercat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Speedy delete Neologism made up by someone.WP:CSD: A7, G10. Edison (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I thought saturday was stirfry night.--Savonneux (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete To the author, before we get into any WP:BLP issues, don't use Wikipedia to mention your friends and acquaintances by name. Pathetic. Mandsford (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY and lack of other notable substance. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SNOW delete, non-notable neolgism. I would love to speedy this one, but there is no such speedy criterion, as I often lament. There are several votes for A7, but A7 doesn't come close to applying. Hairhorn (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, made up at school one day. I cannot really see any reliable sources, and Urban Dictionary isn't a reliable source. The mention of Paris Hilton seems rather far-fetched. JIP | Talk 06:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, quickly, whether by Speedy or SNOW or IAR. This is obviously just an attempt by some kid to get their name on Wikipedia, if only for a day or two. Let's not reward such misbehaviour by giving it any further attention. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:43, 10 May 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) 14:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Celtic historical fiction (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 list article duplicates categories under Category:Historical fiction by setting esp. Category:Novels set in sub-Roman Britain and is not notable Sadads (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, google searches of this topic, though it is clearly extent (thus the appropriateness of a category), doesn't return a serious discussion of it as a movement or field thus no article should be present. Sadads (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edith Pargeter has a series set in medieval Wales; Sharon Kay Penman has a series set in medieval Wales; the Outlander is set in 18th century Scotland, Sir Walter Scott has Rob Roy, among others, set in Scotland. This off the top of my head without a search. It's a useful category, and that could be populated without too much work. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Truthkeeper, this is an article not a category.Sadads (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh well, it seems I've made a good argument for a category. Sorry about that. A little busy these days. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:38, 4 May 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) 00:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. What's done here would be better done in a category, as noted above. —C.Fred (talk) 00:14, 10 May 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. kurykh 05:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Timothy Reifsnyder (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. Still not sure if he's a notable enough actor. The reliable book sources also trivially mention him in the context of his role with Wide Awake. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - His significant and notable (2nd credit) role as Dave O'Hara in the move "Wide Awake" alone makes this actor notable. His additional movie and TV credits are just icing on the cake. Moorsmur (talk) 23:30, 5 May 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) 00:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: Based on role in Wide Awake. - BalthCat (talk) 08:00, 11 May 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) 01:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Fins (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)
Band does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Nancy talk 09:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 17:54, 3 May 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) 00:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:BAND. -Reconsider! 09:48, 10 May 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. kurykh 05:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeremiah Frei-Pearson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional article for a non-notable person who is potentially running for public office. Lincolnite (talk) 09:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam, basically. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 09:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. Not sure if it's spam, but it is certainly non-notable. — Timneu22 · talk 14:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. He is a candidate for public office compliant with notability guidelines "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.196.0.50 (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Jeremiah Frei-Pearson has been mentioned in numerous newspaper articles about his work with Children's Rights (a non-profit) as well as his leadership in a class-action lawsuit against Con Edison following a weeks-long blackout in Astoria, Queens, New York. --Joseph123454321 (talk) 06:12, 9 May 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) 00:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete gets some passing mentions but not sufficient indepth coverage. [62]. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 10 May 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) 01:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Astoria (airline) (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 short lived airline with a single plane. noq (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 4 May 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) 00:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see no reason to keep this content. A short lived airline that existed for a year, tops, with one plane. Outback the koala (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Outback the koala. Not notable. -- doorautomatica (talk) 06:47, 11 May 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) 14:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yuen Wai-hung (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. Feng shui proponent, notability not established, contested prod. Only one obscure reference, other than self-published sources. WWGB (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Provisional Delete Can't find any notable references by Googling for "Yuen Wai-hung" or "Wai-hung Yuen". I guess there might be Chinese language sources out there somewhere - are there any Chinese speakers who can check? -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are two non-self publishing sources Face magazine (FACE 周刊) and (忽然1周). This is not an issue of source. Two to three sources from one editor on first edit is actually pretty good. I can find you 50 articles with no references at all. Secondly these types of subjects are generally not online. It is about 100% unsearchable in english. You are wasting your time. This person is notable in the east. Benjwong (talk) 01:45, 4 May 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) 00:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: clearly fails test for coverage. Google results for FACE周刊 "袁偉雄" has 3 hits - 2 from personal homepage, and the last the article being considered for deletion. Search for 忽然1周 "袁偉雄" has one hit - this AfD itself. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Most of this type of topics are not online. I cannot emphasize that enough. Benjwong (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And notability requires independent referencing. I cannot emphasize that enough. All we have so far is a self-published website and one magazine article. WWGB (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. References don't have to be online - if you have offline references (eg to reliable printed material) you can use those - but the key point is that there must be reliable references of some sort. -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:59, 12 May 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. Sufficient sources could not be found to demonstrate notability. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lee Broderick (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)
Proposed deletion because "Fails WP:BIO. Has not received attention from reliable independent sources except locally (Liverpool)." Contested, article improved but not by tackling the main point of sourcing. There are no Google News hits for him[63], and only some 200 distinct Google hits. He doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Fram (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This really depends on what's meant by "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." Does touring as a supporting act count, and if not, might we count supporting muliple notable artists on their tours? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has he received "non-trivial coverage in a reliable source" for this? Fram (talk) 13:29, 3 May 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) 00:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:59, 15 May 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) 00:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - We don't reach the stage of testing against WP:MUSIC as he does not pass the general notability guidelines - I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable independent sources for this individual. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is some information in the local press, see Liverpool Echo, icLiverpool.com. However, I don't think it is enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO requirements. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:31, 17 May 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. kurykh 05:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Priya Ahuja (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)
Poorly sourced BLP article, not sure about notability. Bringing here to assess. -- Cirt (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wow, what an awful article! I agree with deletion based on notability, but even if the person is notable I can't read/understand the article to determine that. — Timneu22 · talk 13:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have improved it a bit and imo there is a bit of notability, right now I'm neutral. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 4 May 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) 00:06, 10 May 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. — Scientizzle 14:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Miroslaw Magola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The only claim to fame of Miroslaw Magola is a number of appearances on a german and a french tv-show. The article does not meet Notability guidelines. Also a conflict of interest is obvious from the pages history. Last but not least, facts are not Verifiable and it conflicts with WP:BLP, since no reliable sources are present (other than the artists sayso, that is). For an account of articles about Miroslaw Magola on other wiki's see meta:User:Kleuske/Miroslaw Magola. Kleuske (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 4 May 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) 00:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication this is a notable "psychic". Edward321 (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing notable for being in encyclopedia. Danko Georgiev (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Röda tråden (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)
Foreign TV show, no indication of notability, no cited sources. delete UtherSRG (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Foreign'? This is the internet… I translated it from the Swedish wikipedia. Davidleeroth (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Err... But this EN.wikipedia.org That doesn't mean an article about stuff in other languages can't exist, but it does mean that anglophones somewhat less likely to be interested. David V Houston (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The page was just created. Sure, it doesn't have lots of external references to reliable sources (which might well be in Swedish), but he hasn't had a chance to put them in yet! A major (which this might or might not be) national TV program is likely to be notable, IMO. OTOH, checking out the Swedish page, there are NO references there and the page has been around since '03 (!) OK, further results. The phrase is obviously a common phrase in Swedish, as the google search shows. I tried a news search, adding the word television (which seems to be the same in Swedish), and I got a bunch of hits, but most still seemed to not be about this show. Not reading Swedish, it's a bit hard to tell, though. Davidleeroth, if you can find good independent secondary references (even if they're in Swedish), PLEASE note them - preferably in the article. David V Houston (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a source written in Swedish documenting that Pekka Heino was the host of Röda tråden Davidleeroth (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - marginal notability, but I find it difficult to support nominations for deletions based on something being "foreign". Wikipedia:Systemic bias, Wikipedia:Geographic imbalance and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Global perspective are recommended as reading. Tomas e (talk) 11:40, 7 May 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) 00:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems notable enough, mentioned on the official site of the culture festival. I don't really understand why a TV show being "foreign" (non-American?) would be an argument for deletion. JIP | Talk 06:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No reason to reject articles in English on the grounds that they happen to be about Swedish TV shows that few non-Swedish speakers might have heard of. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As above. Original language/country is irrelevant to notability. - BalthCat (talk) 07:51, 11 May 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, though Trackinfo is reminded to assume better faith in the future. –MuZemike 13:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Linda Black (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 claims in the article amount to WP:Notability, and I can't find sources that establish it. I can't even find evidence that her real name is Pettigrew, as claimed in the article. Unreferenced BLP. — Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 4 May 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) 00:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - So there are no sources, why bother looking for a source, lets just delete the article instead. Yes, that's sarcasm. I've added several sources to the article. She seems to be what the article says she is, which is usually the case of these "dangerous" unsourced BLPs.Trackinfo (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sources added meet the requirements at WP:V#Sources, which is the only way to establish notability. Let me examine the 3 sources added:
- sciencestage [64] - this appears to be a usergroup, and thus is not reliable.
- Zurina Bryant photography [65] - Blogs are not reliable sources, and cannot establish notability.
- Fashion Eccentric [66] - another blog.
- I'm always happy to withdraw a nomination if I have missed reliable sources, or if sources are available offline which I don't have access to. The sources provided clearly don't meet WP:RS, though. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 07:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And I added more. At some point these things need to end. Normally in journalism, two independent sources justify information. Here we are now up to 11 different sources listed on the article. You can discount one, or two, her Facebook is obviously self generated. But there are multiple modeling agencies marketing her pictures and services, charities she has worked with at public events and even if there are blog entries, from multiple directions they are essentially saying the same kind of things. Its a concept called corroboration. She's listed as a host of a regular series on HBO. That should make her notable.
- I don't know this person from adam. I haven't been to Singapore in decades. Its more about the principle. That people will criticize an article, no, that they will readily delete an article because of what they don't know. But they won't lift a finger to try to find out. How did I come up with these extra sources? I'm using this super secret search method called google. You should try it some time. There are other things like it around. Deleting reasonable articles, deleting other people's work, is not an honorable pursuit.Trackinfo (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The new sources added:
- PlushAsia [67] - this is nothing more than a photo of her.
- Give [68] - this is an advertisement for an event, so I can't see this as establishing notability. It's only a passing mention, so it fails to satisfy the WP:GNG requirements from that angle as well.
- Pop Shuvit [69] - this is a blog, and a passing mention of her at that.
- Phantom.com.sg [70] - This is her resume, that doesn't count as either a reliable source, or evidence of notability.
- The Collective [71] - This is a talent agency that sells her talent, that is actually controlled by her.
- As I mentioned before, I have done a search for reliable sources, and I would suggest that you read the policy and the guideline that explain what a reliable source is. None of the sources offered so far meet the requirements set forth in those places.
- Also, please stop accusing me of violating WP:BEFORE. I have looked for sources, and could not find them. That's why I brought the article to AfD. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 17:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, let me connect the dots for you and other folks who like to delete articles. Cites from the article: #1 says "As the host of Friday Picturehouse on HBO Signature (StarHub Ch 66), Linda Black has a job most cinemaphiles would kill for - featuring new, exciting and edgy movies premiering on Asian television." and it ends with "Catch Linda Black on HBO Signature Friday Picturehouse every Friday at 10pm on StarHub Ch 66." Which pretty much identifies where she works. #2 reads "Linda Black (Pettigrew) is an American born, Singapore based television host who is best known for hosting HBO Signature's 'Friday Picture House' and Discovery Channel Asia's 'Cathay Pacific on the Move'." Different text, not duplicated but corroborates the same message and adds a second major network that she works for. #3 is promoting a charity event she is hosting "Linda Black, a professional model, emcee and HBO host." She is a significant enough of a celebrity to MC a fundraiser, and again it corroborates HBO. #4 is a different charity promoting a different event she is hosting. Again she is identified as "Linda Black of HBO" #5 is a blog item from her husband, who turns out to also be a celebrity and the previous host of the show passing the baton "My last few weeks on HBO Signature are coming to a close soon – I’m being replaced by the very talented Linda Black, as I move to a new show on CINEMAX." As for her real last name, this is already the second tie in to this guy. #6 is her resume hosted by a Singapore modeling agency. #7 is a photographer's blog, again mentioning husband and talks about her modeling career. Gee, another point in the article corroborated. #8 is her page on a second modeling agency site, called the Collective, which is run by the various models it is promoting including herself and her husband. #9 is a fashion blog talking about a fashion show which was attended by "local celebrities" "Linda Black and her husband Oli Pettigrew" Take any one or two sources, yes it might seem weak. But she's treated as a celebrity, and is referred to as having a notable job at two notable TV networks by all of these sources that are clearly different. And if she were deliberately self-promoting, (OK she obviously is on a couple of them, plus her facebook page) you'd certainly think she could come up with more and better mentions than this. As I said before, I have no interest in this individual--its just one I clicked on that said there are no sources. I found sources that back up what the article says. That should be sufficient. It apparently wasn't, so I found more. Its not a victory to successfully remove somebody else's work from Wikipedia. Its a tragedy that so many people on here find sport in trying to do that.Trackinfo (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The new sources added:
- 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. However, only one of the !voters addressed the notability of this recording. This is not a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In Nuce (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)
Bootleg with no assertion of notability. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Provisional Keep There are quite a few GHits for it, and I'm wondering if a bootleg that helps document the formative years of a very notable band might be sufficient for notability in itself? Some more detailed searching is needed, but I don't really have the time now -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, yes, Queen is a great band, the better. What can be more notable?.--Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 17:51, 3 May 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) 00:04, 10 May 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. –MuZemike 13:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Takhribchi (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 appears to be a hoax. The only Google hit for "takhribchi" and "saboteur" is the article itself. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It doesn't look like a widely used name for an Iranian special force member. I can't read the language, but perhaps this this website could help us? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 4 May 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) 00:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nomination. The site listed didn't seem to contain enough content. As that is the only source, I'd be inclined to believe that it fails WP:N. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The one reason for retention does not adequately address and is outweighed by the nominator's or the other's reason for deletion. –MuZemike 13:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Association of Business Executives (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)
Basically unreferenced page with reliable, third-party sources very thin on the ground, bringing its notability into serious question. Very few substantive news results etc. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 08:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. This organization meets this standard for inclusion. Kugao (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to add some sources to prove that claim? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 13:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How about 2,570 hits on Goggle News. Kugao (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to add some sources (to the article, yourself, now) to bring it up to the required standard? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How about 2,570 hits on Goggle News. Kugao (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to add some sources to prove that claim? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 13:21, 5 May 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) 00:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the article's references and the many of the google hits are adverts from schools. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:16, 10 May 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. kurykh 05:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chris Floyd (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 What is the claim to notability here? No major awards or accolades, this guy appears to be a run of the mill journalist. Terrible sources, and little links here. Bonewah (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Floyd's writings are excellent examples of critical analysis and speaking truth to the power. I think the person who wants him deleted does not want such important critique of U.S. empire to be read.
Exactly. No major awards? Hello. Project Censored for a start. Published a book. Moscow Times tenure during cold war. This call for deletion is simply a partisan move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.137.243 (talk • contribs)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- His story was picked as one of 25 top stories by Project Censored, that is not what I would call a 'major award'. Writing a book and working for the Moscow Times does not make him anything more than a run of the mill journalist and author, as I said. If you really want this article to stay, why dont you try improving it rather than accusing me of partisanship? Bonewah (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Appears to (barely) meet WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Most of the bio is unreferenced; the only refs are his works—primary sources. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Pcap ping 08:44, 15 May 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. no deletion rationale in three weeks other then the nom JForget 14:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarah Frost (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 substantial coverage in reliable sources just a couple of credit listings at IMDb and Yahoo! TV. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I should have checked, I used Twinkle. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As creator. Gage (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Might I suggest that you add some substantial coverage from reliable sources then? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 May 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) 00:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Having worked as a director on notable shows, she passes WP:ARTIST. --LP talk 04:52, 17 May 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) 14:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's Optional (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)
Topic is not notable to warrant individual article. Subject matter is already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games article. Nomination follows similar discussions in related AFDs. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and then redirect to the list. Ultra-obscure pricing game with none of the impact or staying power of, say, Plinko. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, AGF'ing that the latter is a better choice. If not, then please discuss locally. –MuZemike 13:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Billy Shears (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, secondary sources about the topic Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Ringo Starr, unless there's a more suitable sub-section of that or another article. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A fictional character with no impact on the wider popular culture. Joal Beal (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (better than to Ringo Starr, I think, because the character is played by other actors in various Sgt. Pepper spinoffs). Hard to see any good reason for a separate article, based on what's presented here. Some of the material in this article might be usable there, so maybe this is technically a merge?--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 20:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mac OS memory management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Questionable notability and unreferenced. moɳo 00:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Keep as long as refs to Apple are used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h 1337 b0y (talk • contribs) 01:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Although refs from Apple are good to have, please note that third-party, published references are needed. See here for more detail.--moɳo 00:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did a news search and only got 2 articles. WTF!?? I can't imagine this isn't notable, but the news search sure doesn't demonstrate any notability! Hmmm... there isn't a 'Windows Memory Management' page either, and maybe the general Memory management page would suffice for both? David V Houston (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should be kept. Mac OS memory management issues were one of the most well know/infamous issues about the pre OS X days. MtD (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)I've been told that my comment here was inappropriate so I'm removing it. Sorry. MtD (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - I managed to find only a few reliable references to the article: [72], [73], and [74]. This is definitely a notable topic, but references are sparse. If it is decided that this article should not be kept, I vouch for a merge to Mac OS. Otherwise, I'm voting weak keep.Airplaneman ✈ 00:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Lotta information there, in detail but it would probably be better off in Mac OS. Looked for sources and there probably are more just a lot of noise since Mac OS covers so many versions of the same operating system. Is there a Mac collector wiki where they go into detail on this stuff? --Savonneux (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article is too big to merge to Mac OS—it's actually linked from there as sub-article. Clearly needs references. There's an OS X internals book [75]. I'm sure there's OS 9 and below secondary coverage in this area as well, just not easily accessible. What I was able to turn are user-oriented books [76]. OS 9's memory management was annoying enough that users had to deal with it explicitly. Pcap ping 01:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep / Merge to Memory Management. References need to be improved, but delete is not substitute for marking as needs cleanup or ref. improved. I did some programming for Mac OS back in the day and it's approach to memory handles was on of the more notable details compared to other OSes. I'ld be sort of surprised if there were not more sources out there. Because of the age though it might be difficult to find web based sources, old programming magazines and books might be good resources. I tried a quick search for memory-handle on books.google.com finds a bunch of snippets about the topic, but didn't see any where enough of the snippets were available to use as a source. I do wonder if the article should be renamed or made a "Memory Handles" section of Memory management. Regardless it should be mentioned there. PaleAqua (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've improved the references in the article and it now includes references to 3-4 independent sources, making it more Notable. Some of these sources summarise Apple documentation, and one is a former Apple employee, which may weaken the notability slightly. It also contains further references to appropriate Apple documentation, addressing the references issue. twilsonb (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Computing articles should be more like this one --- identifying issues and providing overviews --- rather than scattered through dozens of articles about minor wares and languages. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:54, 10 May 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. –MuZemike 13:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jenna Meredith (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)
clearly WP:ONEVENT applies here. take away the flood and she is unknown. LibStar (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. -Reconsider! 09:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Clear WP:BLP1E. Quantpole (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Kinda cute, but fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. Coverage is largely local, and only for this one thing. Tarc (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: I'm not really comfortable with an outright delete. Her invitation to India by Oxfam is distinctive. I suggest that significant portions of this article should be merged into the main article about the 2007 floods. Currently only her image is there, presumably because editors felt there was sufficient information for a separate article without bogging down that one. - BalthCat (talk) 07:26, 11 May 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) 01:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fantasy Grounds (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:N and WP:V: non-notable product/software, article isn't supported by reliable, third-party, published sources. I've looked and can't find any reliable sources. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 4 May 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, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No reliable sources, no notability. Tarc (talk) 14:20, 10 May 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) 01:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Craig Meier (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)
Unremarkable auctioneer. Only coverage I'm finding is in primary sources, a blog questioning the business practices of his auctioneer service or refers to someone else (a University of Wisconsin athlete). Zero google news or book hits on the name. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 4 May 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, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Going, going, gone. Notwithstanding his three World Automobile Auctioneer championships, his business activities are far from notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Trival, no notability established whatsoever. Tarc (talk) 14:19, 10 May 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.