Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 29
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bmusician (talk | contribs) at 03:53, 5 February 2013 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otto Ackermann (painter)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< 28 January | 30 January > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Xat
- Xat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An article that has been entirely unsourced since it was created in February 2005. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources per the General notability guideline thus the band does not meet the notability criteria for an article in Wikipedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the reference appears to be to their social media page making this esentially a garage band Seasider91 (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2013 (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) Mkdwtalk 11:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huang He (actor)
- Huang He (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Huang He (黃河) means Yellow River in Chinese. You'd probably need to search with the term "actor" to get any relevant hits. Funny Pika! 15:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems to me that winning a Golden Bell would be a pretty clear indicator of notability. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per being youngest person ever to win 'Best Actor' at Golden Bell Awards. Young actor, yes, but WP:ENT is met and this seems a suitable stub that can grow over the course of time. A lack of effort is a reason to encourage such for a notable topic, not delete. Note: Awards need not be notable only of or to the United States to be notable enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. yes, this article needs input from Wikipedians able to search for and read Chinese language press, but such work does not mandate deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Michael Q. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Total Stretch! with Lawrence Leritz
- Total Stretch! with Lawrence Leritz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable exercise video, fails WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I did a search and was unable to find anything that would show that this exercise video is notable. Performing or lecturing on a boat doesn't really give notability in and of itself. The sources on the article merely show that the video exists, not that it is notable.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:00, 30 January 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hookson
- Hookson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sorry but this is a non notable marketing agency who have created their own article and it clearly fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - so its a company that does stuff, mostly releasing press releases, and it once got sacked by the church of scotland for announcing their relationship without permission - encyclopedic and notable? not per WP:GNG ---- nonsense ferret 02:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- reads too like an ADVERT to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2013 (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, default to keep. My reading of the debate below is that every attempt to invoke policy in the debate, whichever way the policy points, has been refuted. There is a split vote, and I can't see this discussion getting unstuck anytime soon, so I'm closing this as NC. Deryck C. 17:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of people with surname Jones
- List of people with surname Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named Jacob and other precedents listed there, there is a consensus that lists of people sharing name are not useful when there are very many notable people with that name. – Fayenatic London 21:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Is there a precedent for deleting a list of people with the same surname, on the "list too long" theory or otherwise? Whatever one may think of the result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named Jacob, I would anticipate (and maybe agree with) the argument that a surname-based list is potentially more helpful to navigation. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a slight difference between lists of people that share a common forename and one that shares a common surname. Especially given that Jones is one of the most common Welsh surnames out there. This list is an extension of the Jones (surname) page. Most surname pages are in a sense disambiguation pages, and list a number of notable people who share that name.
So if anything this page should be Merged with it.Funny Pika! 22:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thoughts, the page looks far too long to merge together. Looking through this category Category:Lists of people sharing a surname there's quite a few lists of surnames. Although WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason for inclusion, I'd still say the list should be kept in some form like Arxiloxos states - as a means of searching for articles on people named Jones. Possibly by breaking down each section into separate pages based on occupation?
- Previous attempts at consensus is listed here: Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames. Funny Pika! 23:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I should have mentioned that the page was created by splitting it from Jones (surname). I am glad that you do not want to merge it, and I would certainly oppose re-merging. As for the others in Category:Lists of people sharing a surname, I would advocate deleting others that are too long to merge back into the surname page, such as List of people with surname Johnson and List of people with surname Williams. Pages in it that are regular surname pages (anthroponymy articles), which include a list of notable examples anyway, do not need to be in that category; I intend to prune it, but will defer that until after this discussion. – Fayenatic London 14:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the page is useful, for example someone looking for a singer called Jones but not sure of the first name. When pages get too long they need to be broken up, which is presumably why it got split off from Jones (surname). It is over 500 lines long already, which is probably unmanageable for someone trying to navigate it on a mobile phone. I would oppose deletion but splitting it into different categories as FunnyPika suggested is the best solution I can think of. Jll (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would merge the "See also" section (listing Alan Jones (disambiguation) etc) back into Jones (surname), but as for the biography articles, I have added a link for All pages including "Jones" in the title and IMHO that is enough.
- If I wanted to look for a singer named Jones, without this list, I would simply search Wikipedia for singer jones; this first brings up Joneses that have "(singer)" in the page name, then redirects, and after those it shows others that have the word "singer" in the article.
- Wikipedia has a policy page which says Wikipedia is not a directory. As a matter of policy I think this page should go. – Fayenatic London 14:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We can have a reasonable discussion about whether this page is useful and appropriate in its current form, but to haul out the "policy" nuclear option to attack something like this seems incorrect. If WP:NOTDIR really prohibited the creation of navigational disambiguation pages intended to help readers sort through existing articles, then it's WP:NOTDIR that would need changing, not this page. But that's not what the policy is about. As far as the suggestion that using the search engine is enough: Look at the 18,142 results you get[1]. The search engine spits them out titles first, yes, but otherwise in more or less random order; not to mention, of course, that it won't distinguish between first and last names, and (except for the rare articles that actually have "singer" in the title) it won't distinguish between articles that are about a singer and those where the word happens to be used somewhere in the article, and it presumably won't identify articles that use a different word like "musician" instead of singer. My own experience is that the Wikipedia search engine is often not very helpful for working through larger batches of results; Google may be better, but why, exactly, do we need to get rid of a proper disambiguation page just because it's big? --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is not a (proper) disambiguation page; see MOS:DABNAME. It is clearly a directory.
- Moreover, it is a very incomplete directory, and the potential contents are so large that I think it would be unmanageable to try to finish it. Special:Search/intitle:Jones gives over 4,300 pages. Doing the same search for jones singer and jones musician gives 24 + 43 = 67 pages, but only 12 of those 67 are currently in the 50 or so currently listed under Music.
- If people want to keep directories like this, then start a discussion at WP:NOT. Meanwhile, WP:ILIKEIT is not a good argument. The task of the participants at AfD, especially the person who closes, is to implement Wikipedia policy. If we delete this and later on the policy does get changed, the page could always be undeleted and then split, expanded or otherwise improved. However, it seems to me that WP:NOTDIR is a clear and strong line in WP policy. – Fayenatic London 14:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We can have a reasonable discussion about whether this page is useful and appropriate in its current form, but to haul out the "policy" nuclear option to attack something like this seems incorrect. If WP:NOTDIR really prohibited the creation of navigational disambiguation pages intended to help readers sort through existing articles, then it's WP:NOTDIR that would need changing, not this page. But that's not what the policy is about. As far as the suggestion that using the search engine is enough: Look at the 18,142 results you get[1]. The search engine spits them out titles first, yes, but otherwise in more or less random order; not to mention, of course, that it won't distinguish between first and last names, and (except for the rare articles that actually have "singer" in the title) it won't distinguish between articles that are about a singer and those where the word happens to be used somewhere in the article, and it presumably won't identify articles that use a different word like "musician" instead of singer. My own experience is that the Wikipedia search engine is often not very helpful for working through larger batches of results; Google may be better, but why, exactly, do we need to get rid of a proper disambiguation page just because it's big? --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It may well be a directory, but as are most lists that Wikipedia encompasses. For me, inappropriate directories in Wikipedia are those that just list schedules or point to an external link (List of breweries in South Carolina). Here the list is pointing to a page on Wikipedia and could help users find articles on people named Jones.
- WP:NOTFINISHED is an equally poor argument. Most pages on Wikipedia are unfinished, but that does not mean we should delete every unfinished page. Yes, the list is extremely large and borderline indiscriminate. Yet I don't understand why your suggestion that it could be "split, expanded or otherwise improved" cannot be done prior to deletion rather than after, as per WP:NCLL. Funny Pika! 16:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree about List of breweries in South Carolina, as none of the contents have Wikipedia articles, so I have proposed it for deletion.
- My argument about this Jones list is that it should only be kept at all if Wikipedia policy is changed. Although I sometimes work myself on a page during an AfD to see if it can be rescued, I would not encourage editors to do extensive work on a page which I believe does not belong here at all under the present framework. WP:NCLL is about breaking up pages that are justifiable and should be useful when complete; I do not believe those apply here. – Fayenatic London 17:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The list is well structured so that the contents index guides the reader well. There may be a better way of doing this but, per WP:PRESERVE, we should keep the blue link and edit history as a foundation. Deletion would just be disruption. Warden (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PRESERVE is a good one, and I normally give it a lot of weight. However, because this is (i) so incomplete and (ii) practically impossible to complete and maintain, I do not think it is desirable to encourage further work on it. – Fayenatic London 14:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems quite complete to me. For example, off the top of my head I think of three famous Jones: Tom Jones (singer); John Paul Jones and Jones the cat. I find that they are all in the list and so we're good. Warden (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's part of the problem: it consists of the most famous people and some editors' favourites. If it was complete, it would list about 4,000 existing articles. See the stats I added earlier today: only 12 of 67 pages that include Jones as well as either singer or musician in their page name are listed.
- Lists are not required to be exhaustive and complete. That's why we have the template {{dynamic list}} which states "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness.". Lists such as list of numbers are provably infinite. Lists such as list of rivers tail off into inummerable minor streams and creeks. It is quite normal, natural and expected that we should concentrate upon the more famous cases. Warden (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 03:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NLIST; "Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group." - we're gonna need proof that everyone named "John" is equally reliable per sourcing in order to attest they belong as a member of the list. So solly Ren99 wha? 05:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — that is not a problem, just a matter of work through drawing over a citation from each of the articles supporting the person being so named ... assuming that a biographical article actually has a citation supporting the person's name in association with the identity of the person being described. I would be interested to know if you have examples where this assumption is incorrect; such examples should be deleted ASAP, I would think. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Jones. To have such a list would be an indiscriminate collection of people who just happen to share the same, very common, surname. Ohconfucius ping / poke 06:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Jones. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -looking at Wikipedia is not a directory it states "...there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic" and clearly none of the folks in this list are famous because of their surname. I'm not seeing any rationales for keeping being presented other than I like it. J04n(talk page) 20:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Its use as a navigational page was presented as a valid argument. As was the statement: long lists are indiscriminate directories. The proposal is for users who want to search for people based on a surname and an occupation to be able to find a list that points to an article for that person. The searchbox in this case would be more indiscriminate, displaying a random list of people named foo in no particular order. The article is possibly salvageable if split, so I believe there's a format problem here rather than a content one.
- In reference to WP:NLIST, I don't think anyone here is debating whether foo belongs in said list. If you really want to go down that route you'd just have to prove WP:V (or WP:N), something all biographical articles should meet. WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue in reference to whether people named Jones should be included in lists of Joneses. Funny Pika! 00:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:NOTDIR. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:VAGUEWAVE. There's nothing in WP:NOTDIR which is relevant. It does not forbid long lists and we have many such, e.g. the humunguous list of minor planets. Warden (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I almost presented a "keep" argument, saying that we should ignore the letter of the rules here, and that this list is inherently useful. However, I could not find an instance where the search box would be any less useful than this list. If you know a person's last name and what they are notable for, using Google and/or the Wikipedia search function will take you to their page. I don't see any reasonable use for this list. Jujutacular (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If I put "jones cat" into the search box, thinking of the character in Alien (film) then I get zillions of false hits such as Doctor Jones because the word cat is used in a technical sense. I am an expert in searching for things and it isn't easy. What you need are multiple approaches and tools. Depending upon a single tool is unwise. Deleting a useful index just because you can is disruption. How is such deletion supposed to help the encyclopedia or our readership? Deletion just seems purely obstructive and unhelpful. Warden (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per what wiki is not. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You could say that about anything but you provide no evidence. The actual evidence is that Wikipedia has many such lists:
- See Category:Lists of people sharing a surname for many more examples. Why should we discriminate against the Jones? Warden (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion they should be deleted also. I'm not nominating them at this time however it would probably be a good idea. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this is a subpage of the main disambiguation and surname pages, and like disambiguation pages it's a list for navigation purposes not a list as a presentation of encyclopedic content. It's no more a directory than any disambiguation page or set index. Peter James (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Instead of arguing for deletion of these things one by one, why not find a broader discussion somewhere, and determine if Wikipedia should have these sorts of list or not? Category:Lists of people sharing a surname has 163 entries. This list aid in navigation. You search for the last name of someone, you can then see which person it is you are looking for. You could call it a disambiguate page instead of a list if you wanted to. That is what it is after all. Dream Focus 13:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Jones (surname). Generally speaking, that's how lists of people by last name are covered pbp 14:51, 6 February 2013 (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. MBisanz talk 00:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kho (surname)
- Kho (surname) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominating on behalf of User:K.b.cheng. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Sven Manguard Wha? 03:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Xu (surname) because that article covers this topic. _dk (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't redirect to Xu(surname) this article not for redirect, it was stand alone page, next time will create another one. Just want to delete it first. May i know when can delete this Kho(surname) article? Maybe next time i would prepare to use another article title so now was waiting Wikimedia to delete it as fast as possible. K.b.cheng (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Deadkid dk, your assessment is incorrect. There is a substantive difference between Xǔ (许) and Xú (徐) in Chinese. That the characters in the two pages look completely different should be a dead giveaway (pun intended). Sven Manguard Wha? 03:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you scroll down, you'll see that 許 is right beneath 徐. I don't have any misgivings about a new article covering 許 exclusively, but for now this page (Kho) will have to be a redirect. _dk (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but my point is that they need to be two separate articles because they are two separate characters. A redirect is a bad option. The content at the Xu (surname) that applies to 许 should be moved over to Kho (surname). Sven Manguard Wha? 14:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you scroll down, you'll see that 許 is right beneath 徐. I don't have any misgivings about a new article covering 許 exclusively, but for now this page (Kho) will have to be a redirect. _dk (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Deadkid dk, your assessment is incorrect. There is a substantive difference between Xǔ (许) and Xú (徐) in Chinese. That the characters in the two pages look completely different should be a dead giveaway (pun intended). Sven Manguard Wha? 03:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't redirect to Xu(surname) this article not for redirect, it was stand alone page, next time will create another one. Just want to delete it first. May i know when can delete this Kho(surname) article? Maybe next time i would prepare to use another article title so now was waiting Wikimedia to delete it as fast as possible. K.b.cheng (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - yes there is a very substantive difference between the surnames Xǔ (许) and Xú (徐) in Mandarin Chinese, and Cantonese etc, Korean, Vietnamese. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 03:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Xu (surname) per Deadkid dk, because it's clearly redundant as a regional phonetic variation of a standard name. This can be a redirect, but should not be a standalone article. If it's felt that Xǔ (许) and Xú (徐) need to be disambiguated, then create another article. Ohconfucius ping / poke 06:42, 5 February 2013 (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 Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. MBisanz talk 00:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ananda Vacanamrtam
- Ananda Vacanamrtam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another collection from Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. These 34 self-published volumes have only a single independent reference: a throwaway line in a book review on a commentary on Heidegger. No reviews or discussion of the work in academic sources. Not notable. GaramondLethe 21:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Deleteper as nom. GaramondLethe 21:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As nominator, it is assumed you support deletion/redirection - no need to also "vote".--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; fails the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; as usual. History2007 (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep... but why don't we save everyone a bit of time and trouble here? I am willing to stipulate that all of Garamond's and Bob's compadres at Fringe/n would cast a Delete vote here. And I am even willing to predict - not stipulate - that some Wikipedia admin will come here after seven days and simply tally the votes, ignoring the fact that there is no consensus, and decide to either delete or merge. So there's no need to dedicate much energy putting lipstick on this pig. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Editor's long comment & note for the closing Admin.: for nearly a month the same group of users is proposing the deletion of dozens of articles I had written on WP. All articles belonged to the vast literary production of a single author. Let's suppose that some articles were poorly written, or that others were even not very encyclopedic. But that so many articles can be proposed for deletion by a single group of users, with various excuses, seems to me absurd and suspicious. WP was born to spread the totality of human knowledge, not only a part of it. Everyone is invited on WP to cooperatively create/maximize/improve new articles not to delete them. Deleting an article should only be an exceptional case and not a way of working of a group of editors. Censorship is an ancient art. I am experienced enough in history to be able to say that. Some expert users on WP seems not involved at all in the hard task of building new articles but in the relatively easy job of deleting many of them. Using bureaucratic quibbles as a weapon to censor/delete the encyclopedic representation of the part of knowledge that they simply don't like or don't understand.
- Instead of devoting their energies to increase the number of new articles, literally they chase you all around WP, analitically examining your talks and articles to find loopholes or a reason to stop your editing if they don't agree with the contents. What I am saying are not chatter in the wind: you can easily check it by just doing an analysis of the historical contributions of many "deleters". Hundreds of hours used in inconclusive, furious quarrels, personal attacks, angry deletions reserved for the "enemies", many "good tips" and very, very few or no new articles at all.
- My opinion is that this is the best way to kill WP: if everything will remain so many editors will go away one after another. At the same time the increasing volume of human knowledge will require in the near future an increasing number of editors... Thanks.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep: for the reasons above.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Cornelius, it's clear you do not understand Wikipedia very well. In various AFD's several people have tried to explain to you the process and how the site functions off notability policies and guidelines. Your keep votes continuously target the community and never seem to address the concerns regarding WP:NBOOK. You must understand that these AfD may drive some away, they also keep many people interested in the encyclopedia. Without inclusion policies or guidelines to moderate non-notable content this encyclopedia would lose all value and merely become a hosting website for blogs, personal essays, and peoples profiles. The reason the encyclopedia attracts so many readers is largely because it contains useful information to the wide public and removes information not useful or unimportant content. If you feel there is a fundamental problem with Wikipedia, the AfD nominations are not the place to raise them nor are they grounds for keeping articles that are not notable. This mindset you have to not learn more about the site and it's pillars are starting to disrupt the process. If you would like a mentor, or further explanation, or help in creating notable articles, all these are available. You're trying to create a world inside one that has been built up by editors for over a decade. Let us help you. Mkdwtalk 12:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 03:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. I wish I could vote "keep", but here's the problem: while these books are certainly worth mentioning on Sarkar's entry, the books haven't received a huge amount of commentary in reliable sources. They're mentioned here and there briefly, but not overly so. I do see where they're occasionally cited in various texts like this one, but again- it's really only here and there. I do feel that there might be sources in places that aren't on the Internet, but the problem is that I don't really know if they actually exist or if they'd be usable as reliable sources. Given the absence of these sources to show that the texts are notable outside of their author, the only option we have is to merge what we can and redirect to that section or to the article as a whole. I think what makes it so hard to find sourcing for the books is that they're "just" a collection of Sarkar's speeches. Most of the commentary will be on the speeches and not really about the books specifically as a separate entity from the speeches, if that makes any sense.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 16:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here The Times of India, an Indian national newspaper, has published an article, attributed to Shrii Shrii Anandamurti and the book we are discussing here, Ananda Vacanamrtam. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that copy & pasting from the book actually makes it notable, and it's obviously not independent coverage if the author is the same person who wrote Ananda Vacanamrtam, but let's play along for a bit: How do you suggest that somebody who died in 1990 wrote a newspaper article in 2011? bobrayner (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep:After the last evidence I change my vote here.--Cornelius383 (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per nom and Tokyogirl. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK. I agree that significant secondary source coverage is required for a stand-alone article. The assertion has been made that this exists, but I don't see it. Location (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2013 (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 only policy-based arguments are made by those favoring deletion, and these arguments are fairly strong. A lack of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the article's subject is essential to meet WP:GNG. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Idea and Ideology
- Idea and Ideology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another self-published book by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. The only independent source used to establish notability is also self-published. A redirect to Sarkar's biographical page would be fine, but I think deletion without redirection is warranted. GaramondLethe 21:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; lacks independent sources, seems to be part of the same walled garden as other recent articles brought to AfD... bobrayner (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; as usual. History2007 (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep... but why don't we save everyone a bit of time and trouble here? I am willing to stipulate that all of Garamond's and Bob's compadres at Fringe/n would cast a Delete vote here. And I am even willing to predict - not stipulate - that some Wikipedia admin will come here after seven days and simply tally the votes, ignoring the fact that there is no consensus, and decide to either delete or redirect. So there's no need to dedicate much energy putting lipstick on this pig. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus is not a head count, neither does it have to be unanimous. Closing administrators are experienced enough to determine a rough consensus in an AfD based upon policy, common sense and strength of the argument. Besides, this discussion is listed on five different noticeboards, not just FTN. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 12:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, CorrectKnowledge... another compadre and a familiar pseudonym... would that the CK pseudonym were so! Just for the record, I never said that consensus necessarily means unanimity (although it is commonly interpreted as such). However, in respect to Wikipedia, WP:CON makes clear that consensus does need to be more broad than just a unanimity among a "limited group of editors", for example, a group of editors presenting only a particular perspective (involved with an article, not involved with an article, conservative, liberal, mainstream, new-age, fringe, anti-fringe, or whatever). Nowhere at WP:CON do we find the concept of consensus diluted to your (CorrectKnowledge's) "rough consensus". In effect, asserting a "rough consensus" is just a specious way of avoiding an admission that there is "no consensus". According to WP:CON, no consensus is not adequate justification for removing an article. Quite the contrary. "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept." --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Before claiming that I had originated the concept of "rough consensus" and that it was a "specious way of avoiding an admission that there is no consensus", maybe you should have gone through Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 17:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus is not a head count, neither does it have to be unanimous. Closing administrators are experienced enough to determine a rough consensus in an AfD based upon policy, common sense and strength of the argument. Besides, this discussion is listed on five different noticeboards, not just FTN. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 12:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- CK, did I assert that you had originated any concept? If so, I apologize for overrating your creativity. But the way you use this concept is indeed a "specious way of avoiding an admission that there is no consensus". The Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus that you cite only mentions one case in which a "rough consensus" may be accepted. That case is "bad faith". It amplifies that case with the following example: "If a rough consensus holds that the nomination was made in bad faith, the page may be speedily kept." So I am sorry to tell you this, CK, but you seem to have shot yourself in the foot with this one. --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "...only mentions one case in which a "rough consensus" may be accepted" really? That is just an example. The section also mentions how strength of argument should be looked at and arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact etc. can be discounted. That is pretty much what I said and that is exactly what happened in all the previous AfDs where you !voted keep. Crying no consensus with absolutely no reasonable arguments will not help in an Afd, but if you want to have a go at it, suit yourself. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 19:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Editor's long comment & note for the closing Admin.: for nearly a month the same group of users is proposing the deletion of dozens of articles I had written on WP. All articles belonged to the vast literary production of a single author. Let's suppose that some articles were poorly written, or that others were even not very encyclopedic. But that so many articles can be proposed for deletion by a single group of users, with various excuses, seems to me absurd and suspicious. WP was born to spread the totality of human knowledge, not only a part of it. Everyone is invited on WP to cooperatively create/maximize/improve new articles not to delete them. Deleting an article should only be an exceptional case and not a way of working of a group of editors. Censorship is an ancient art. I am experienced enough in history to be able to say that. Some expert users on WP seems not involved at all in the hard task of building new articles but in the relatively easy job of deleting many of them. Using bureaucratic quibbles as a weapon to censor/delete the encyclopedic representation of the part of knowledge that they simply don't like or don't understand.
- Instead of devoting their energies to increase the number of new articles, literally they chase you all around WP, analitically examining your talks and articles to find loopholes or a reason to stop your editing if they don't agree with the contents. What I am saying are not chatter in the wind: you can easily check it by just doing an analysis of the historical contributions of many "deleters". Hundreds of hours used in inconclusive, furious quarrels, personal attacks, angry deletions reserved for the "enemies", many "good tips" and very, very few or no new articles at all.
- My opinion is that this is the best way to kill WP: if everything will remain so many editors will go away one after another. At the same time the increasing volume of human knowledge will require in the near future an increasing number of editors... Thanks.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: for the reasons above.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You mention Sarkar's "vast literary production" &c on very many pages. It might be helpful to turn that down a little. bobrayner (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another typical example of respect for WP users/editors signed by Bobrayner.--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. The book does not find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 20:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect. Lack of coverage in independent reliable sources means this fails WP:NBOOK. I also have heavy concerns regarding WP:SOAPBOX given the context of many similarly-created articles. Location (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to very poor sourcing. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2013 (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. Deryck C. 17:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Banc de Binary
- Banc de Binary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor firm of no particular notability; appears on various dodgy lists, but even there seems to fail notability, since those do not constitute the requisite substantial coverage. Orange Mike | Talk 23:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Cites given in the article are mostly primary or to financial blogs and review/sales sites of unknown independence or dependability. Coverage from reliable sources is faint. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. —Ed!(talk) 16:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree those are reliable resources from the finance world.in addition they received the world finance 100 awards. i added more references Reuvengrish (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete notability is doubtful at best. Roger (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note a related article about the founder of this company, Oren Laurent, is also up for deletion. Roger (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I created this article as well as improving the article about the founder of the company. I believe the company to be notable as it is the only binary option platform that is regulated. In addition, it has won the World Finance 100 Award and was recognized as the Best Trading Platform by World Finance. There are additional references about the company on the founder's article as well (MSN.com Arabia, World Finance, and the Financial Times). Thank you for the consideration given. --WEP2013 (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)— WEP2013 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- KeepThe definition of the word 'notability' is 'the state or quality of being eminent or worthy of notice'. Banc De Binary is worthy of notice because it is the first dedicated binary options trading company to be granted a license in the European Union. This industry is only three or four years old, and is the rising star of financial markets. The fact that Banc De Binary is one of the first binary options brokers to get a license in the industry makes it worthy of an article in Wikipedia. This article should not be deleted, because it is an historic event in the binary options industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recordwriter (talk • contribs) 09:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC) — Recordwriter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The Wikipedia use of "notable" is that the subject has been covered in a significant manner in content published by third party reliable sources. You examples are therefor not relevant to this discussion.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional References - I also listed these on the page discussion Oren Laurent, but feel that they are also applicable here. "I found additional references about Mr. Laurent. They are from the Independent,[2] the Telegraph,[3] and Investment Week.[4] It appears that the articles are all related to the same information and quote Mr. Laurent; however, they are three different stories published in 3 notable publications." Also, I cleaned up the "Regulation" section as I have to admit that I did not phrase it accurately when I created the article. They are not the 1st to be regulated, they are the 2nd. They are however the first stand alone binary option dealer to be licensed. I was able to obtain this from an article recently posted on Forex Magnates.[5] --WEP2013 (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC) — WEP2013 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Not "about" Laurent; rather, it's the same brief sound bite by Laurent, about undervalued British shares.
- Thank you for providing the latest press release from Forex Magnates. It's...interesting. It almost seems as though they are shaping their marketing language in response to the debate here and on their WP article: "...the first standalone binary options broker to receive CySec regulation and follows provider Spot Option that was granted a license in 2012." --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can tell by your condescending tone that I have either done something wrong or upset you in some way. If I have, I apologize. I am only trying to establish why I believe the topic is notable. I have also found additional references that contain interviews that Mr. Laurent has given. I will also include these on the deletion discussion page of his article. Again, I apologize for offending you in any way. [6], [7], [8]. --WEP2013 (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC) — WEP2013 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- European CEO Cover - I have copied this over from the deletion discussion on Mr. Laurent's page. I believe that it is appliable to this article as well. "He is featured in the Spring 2013 edition of European CEO. You can see the cover here (http://www.europeanceo.com/magazine/) or you can read the entire article here (http://www.europeanceo.com/business-and-management/2013/01/the-next-generation-of-financier/). I will add this to the discussion at Banc de Binary as well. I did not want to put the citation into the article as of yet so that anyone wishing can comment first. I see that there are a lot of references in the article marked as unreliable and believe that this one could replace those altogether."--WEP2013 (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC) — WEP2013 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: European CEO cover. Yet another shameless promotional placement in an unreliable source. I encourage everyone to read the piece and decide for themselves whether it's hard-hitting journalism or heavy-handed marketing. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment how many people commenting on this discussion have a conflict of interest within the terms of the wikipedia policy, I really feel in the interests of openness that this should be declared? This company has been heavily marketed since its launch and it does seem to be happening here too.---- nonsense ferret 02:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Available sources are mostly PR, primary sources and various business listings. Fails WP:ORG. - MrX 05:38, 6 February 2013 (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. While product cited, WP:NALBUM appears to be meet as described by the keep arguments. (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 11:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Black Out the Sun (Sevendust album)
- Black Out the Sun (Sevendust album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no evidence that this is a notable product. Should probably be deleted and converted into a redirect to something. Stefan2 (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Plenty of reliable third party sources were found extremely easily. Meets the WP:GNG. Additionally, it passes WP:HAMMER - name, release date, and track list all known. The article may look a little rough, but AFD is not cleanup, nominator should probably read up on WP:BEFORE, etc.
- Sources:
- Loudwire, Loudwire x2
- Blabbermouth, Blabbermouth x2
- Revolver Magazine
- Billboard Sergecross73 msg me 21:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources:
- Keep - Plenty of sources, has been confirmed. Proposing this for deletion is ridiculous. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)TheSickBehemoth[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article is currently unreferenced, but there are are enough available sources (identified above by Sergecross73) to create a "reasonably detailed" article. Gong show 20:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I really quickly added some info using 4 different sources. Still needs plenty of work, but at least now it has prose supported by four separate reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 02:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Track listing, album title and release date are all listed at Blabbermouth.com. "Decay" peaked at 29 on Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2013 (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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Litten
- Andrew Litten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no evidence that this subject comes anywhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (The article was written by a user called Andrewlitten, evidently with a conflict of interest, and early version of it contained a good deal of promotional content, but it has since been substantially cleaned up, and I am not putting promotion forward as a reason for deletion. Deletion was proposed per PROD, and supported by another editor, but the PROD was removed by Andrewlitten, without giving any reason.) Searches for information about Andrew Litten have produced his own website, websites of galleries and businesses exhibiting or selling his work, promotional sites (e.g. ArtLyst, which describes itself as "a web project created by Artists to help Artists, Designers, Galleries, Collectors and Art Professionals to connect and promote new ideas..."), Wikipedia, Twitter, FaceBook, Vimeo, etc etc, but I found nothing that could be regarded as coverage in independent relaible sources. The references in the article are as follows: * A page about him on the web page of another gallery that exhibits his work. Not an independent source. * An exhibition review in The Ne York Times, which includes a single one-sentence mention of Andrew Litten. Not substantial coverage, by any stretch. * A web page of a gallery that exhibits his work, which merely includes his name in a list, together with 68 names of other artists. Neither substantial coverage nor an independent source. * A piece which begins with the sentence "THE MILLENNIUM Gallery in St Ives is pleased to present ID Smear, a solo exhibition of new work by Andrew Litten, pictured, until February 28." It has all the appearance of being publicity, probably a press release, and it is published on a web site dedicated to information about a particular county, and the web site says of itself "We have a portfolio of market leading print and digital brands." In is purely local publication of what appears to be essentially an advertisement. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article is pure WP:PROMO, with insufficient WP:RS to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. A couple of the sources have the veneer of appearing to be genuine, but once you look at them closely, you see that they are based on material generated by the subject himself, and therefore are in fact no better than WP:SPS. Qworty (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ARTIST. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable, no substantial independent coverage ---- nonsense ferret 21:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Editors,
Please do not delete the page so soon. I am sorry for a lack of attention at times as I am combining this project with my A'levels so can always devote myself to it. I do not want all this effort to go to waste. I am bias, as Andrew is my Father but I want this to work out successfully. He has been involved in major exhibitions as an Independent artist with no PR or agent or dealer and this is incredibly rare and it is an interesting story for people. This is why a lot of the references are very difficult to cite - his career has not been managed in the way other artists have and many of the early galleries have now closed. I hope it will meet your requirements as soon as possible. I was not familiar with editing Wikipedia and admit to an embarrassing beginning. Sorry. I did not even realise until yesterday that there was a TALK PAGE so did not offer reason for my mistakes in the past. Apologies for not reasoning with the removal of the PROD BOX. It was my mistake.
Please do not delete this page. I am working so hard to make it substantial. It does need other contributions and this will happen but not in one week. The page has not even made it too a high google listing yet so others will not be aware of it.
The newspaper article that you refer to that contained only one line about Andrew, was in the New York Times. They only review significant exhibitions. The exhibition included Renoir and Epstein and was major, but the names Renoir and Epstein were deleted by an editor. Also, you have not allowed a listing of an exhibition at Tate Modern that Andrew was included in. You dismissed it because the exhibition filled the entire Turbine Hall and therefore had lots of artists were included. This seems strange. It was Tate Modern and I do not see how one editor can deem the exhibition not worth citing even though all the references were listed. It was a significant event and a festival of Independent artists. Andrew is an Independent artist who has achieved a lot and people will be interested in this. He exhibited at the Venice Biennale which is the biggest art event in the world. Thankfully you have allowed this. He exhibited an Anti Art painting made with paint and pubic hair during Frieze art Fair Week. It was seen by hundreds of people in Vyner Street's First Tuirsday but you will not allow it to be listed even though it is a major part of his 'independent artist' identity and would interest people.
I totally agree that other editors need to contribute to this Wikipedia page. Please do not delete this so soon before it has a chance to happen. The information is correct, referenced and will be of interest to people who are not entirely aware of his presence. It is important that the individual voice can be heard in a big world.
There is nothing corrupt going on with this wikipedia page. Would you please view Andrews contemporaries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzo_Marra and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Waller and please tell me what is significant about their status or exhibitions.
I will do everything I can to improve this page and prompt independent editing. The exhibitions listed are significant and there are many more to be cited but this should {I imagine)be done by other editors.
Isobel Litten109.157.24.144 (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Isobel, there isn't an editor here who doesn't understand that you mean well. But your involvement is so deeply steeped in conflict of interest that you either can't or won't see how this doesn't meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, nor understand what constitutes a reliable source or a notable exhibition. You're communicating with editors who are familiar with both the guidelines and the means of finding sources that would support notability. The discussion will be open for a week, at which time an administrator will close it and make the determination to keep or delete. That finding will be based on the quality of evidence put forward here, not on a count of votes. Best, 99.12.243.171 (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember to sign in, so that there is no confusion about you participating in this discussion or editing the article while using two separate accounts. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are times in life when all you can do is quote from Barry Lyndon: "In my profession we hear many such stories. Yours is the most intriguing and touching I've heard in weeks. Nevertheless, I cannot grant your request. But, I'll tell you what I will do. I'll allow you to keep those fine boots, which normally I would have for myself." Qworty (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Isobel, you raise a number of points, and it would take a long time to answer every one in detail, but I will try to give some sort of answer to some of what seem to me to be the major points.
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about anything. About seven years ago there was a substantial debate on the question of what kind of evidence of notability should be required for a topic to qualify asthe subject of a Wikipedia article. The outcome of the debate is contained in the general notability guideline, which is also accompanied by various other guidelines, the most relevant in this case being Wikipedia:Notability (people). I suggest that you look at those guidelines, if you haven't already, but the main criterion is that a subject is considered notable if it has been the subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Unfortunately, if a subject has not done that, then it is unlikely to be considered notable enough to be the topic of a Wikipedia article. While I fully understand your point about why your father has not received such coverage, why he hasn't is not directly relevant: if he hasn't then he hasn't.
- Notability is not inherited by having associated with other notable people, worked or exhibited with notable people, or been included in a notable exhibition: we need evidence that he is notable in his own right.
- You don't need to apologise for not giving a reason for removing the PROD. I mentioned it merely as a way of saying that I could not comment on the reason, because I didn't know what the reason was, not to criticise you.
- As far as I know, nobody thinks there is anything "corrupt" going on. I do not have the slightest doubt that everything you have done has been done in good faith, but that, like most people who are new to editing Wikipedia, you have done so without being aware of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Almost all of us make mistakes when we start editing: I certainly did. I was lucky, in that my first edits were just minor changes to existing articles, so when I had things reverted I didn't lose a lot of work, but I have every sympathy with editors who, like you, dive straight into writing substantial new articles, only to see them disappear.
- As for your remarks about Enzo Marra and Daryl Waller, it is natural for anyone new to editing Wikipedia to look at existing articles for evidence as to what is acceptable. However, unfortunately, it is not a reliable guide, a new editor very often has the bad luck to choose articles which are not suitable, and which would have been deleted if they had been noticed. Among the four million and more articles on English language Wikipedia, there are many unsuitable ones that simply haven't been noticed and deleted. Daryl Waller is certainly one of those, and it has now got its own deletion nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daryl Waller. It is not obvious to me at a quick glance whether Enzo Marra satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines or not, but it may be that that one too should go.
- I hope that my remarks have helped to clarify things for you. However, as far as saving the article is concerned, I'm afraid your father really does not seem to satisfy our notability standards. If the problem were that the article was badly written, then it could be solved by rewriting it, but no amount of rewriting an article will change the notability of the subject of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop press: I have now checked the article Enzo Marra, and have confirmed that it fails Wikipedia's notability standards by a long way, as can be ssen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enzo Marra. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, basically nonsense ferret Widefox; talk 08:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - created in good faith but clearly fails WP:ARTIST, WP:BIO and WP:GNG.Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- The article says nothing but that he has taken part in several exhibuitions and that one museum bought one of his paintings. He could be notable, but sofar the article does not establish that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ARTIST and GNG Tiggerjay (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2013 (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 Florida Gators. MBisanz talk 00:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Left–Right
- Left–Right (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article consists entirely of original research for which no references are given. The two included references don't cut it: one is dead, the other one doesn't mention the topic, and either way they only seem to verify that the Expos became the Hammerheads. A Google search appears to verify the existence of such a chant, but it is nothing related necessarily to UF. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Selective merge to Florida Gators. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If merged or redirected, should be moved to Left–Right (chant) first, as just "Left–Right" is ambigious enough to not be desirable as a redirect, which must be maintained per the attribution policy if content is merged from it. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge fails WP:GNG alone. Might be okay in Florida Gators Tiggerjay (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2013 (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. Deryck C. 17:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Buckfire and Buckfire P.C.
- Buckfire and Buckfire P.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable Law Firm. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: This user nominated the page for speedy deletion, which was not approved with the explanation, "The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance." This second attempt to delete the page has no significant explanation as to why they decided to delete the page. I argue for the page to be kept based on the following:
This page includes references from significant sources, including CNN, Detroit News, a book published by Oxford University Press, Detroit Free Press, and The Oakland Press--five very reputable sources, showing that the firm and its lawyers have been cited in the news on multiple occasions. The firm is featured in some of the references in great detail, no not all. The Detroit News and Detroit Legal News articles focus solely on the firm, and other articles focus solely on cases run by the law firm. 14 of the 17 references are to third-party references, with the only non third-party references used to establish basic facts, such as the names of lawyers mentioned in newspaper articles. Many of these sources pass the "depth of coverage" requirement, and the independence of the sources do show that "people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it" on several occassions. I'm not claiming that this is White and Case here, but the number of references available do give this law firm a place on Wikipedia in the form of a law firm stub. The article is written in neutral, encyclopeadic style, and there are several items of note to mention on the page. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My feeling though this is just one of a few million law firms in the country (or the world) that handles accidents and personal injury claims. If there was something special about this firm then I would consider otherwise. The simple act of the firm existing itself is not enough to warrant inclusion. Finally, the comment about credible assertion is in reference to speedy deletion standards, which is stricter than AfD. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You have full right to your opinion, but I believe that the firm passes notability on Wikipedia, and do not believe that this amount of references or quality of references are available for "a few million law firms" :) I spent a lot of time and care to consider whether or not there were enough references here to create a new page, so do politely disagree with your assessment. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't know that I'd go as far as "one of a few million" law firms, but I certainly agree with Mateinsixtynine that there's nothing in this article, or in any of the coverage, to show that this is anything other than a run-of-the-mill law firm. cmadler (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that the fact it has made news for its distribution of special accident victim materials is different, given notability by the sources that have covered the act. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome to say that, but I certainly don't agree. The only source used that even begins to address notability is the LegalNews.com article about the mobile app, and that by itself, I find entirely inadequate. cmadler (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read the policy Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill#Commercial and do not see how the actual criterium described in this policy applies to the law firm in question. None of the sources I've used simply mention the firm about town in the midst of normal business. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome to say that, but I certainly don't agree. The only source used that even begins to address notability is the LegalNews.com article about the mobile app, and that by itself, I find entirely inadequate. cmadler (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that the fact it has made news for its distribution of special accident victim materials is different, given notability by the sources that have covered the act. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see a claim of notability of the firm. The accomplishments it has are not worthy enough to be considered as a powerful proof of how it may be notable, and for me, they look a bit trivial. Apart from that, I can clearly see how this article is written a bit like an advertisement, using a non-encyclopedic writing fashion (titles like Practice and Lawyers don't sound encyclopedic at all) that would have to be properly reworked to only include material with encyclopedic value, if any. — ṘΛΧΣ21 02:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The firm does not seem to be sufficiently notable for inclusion, based on the article's sources that are of inadequate quality. I thought I had found a good source here, until I discovered that it was another PR spawned article. Individual lawyers from the firm have had minor media mentions, but the company does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:ORG. - MrX 04:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - agree with most of the assessments thus far. Not seeing a depth of sources to adequately verify notability. Stalwart111 13:16, 6 February 2013 (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. MBisanz talk 00:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trademob
- Trademob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This AfD exists thanks to Tomaso67, who called its notability into question, leading me to check it out, and find that Tomaso67's doubts seem to be fully jusrified. The article was originally written as an unambiguously promotional piece by a single-purpose conflict of interest account called Trademob. Fortunately, much of the promotional content has now been removed, but it is still somewhat promotional in tone. However, the reason for nominating it for deletion is that the subject does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards. Of the five references cited, one does not mention Trademob at all, one is on a self-declared PR site, and the others are on marketing/business promotion sites. Searches for coverage also fail to produce evidence of notability. On a Google search, for example, the first page of hits includes www.trademob.com, Wikipedia, CrunchBase (which is an open wiki, largely used by businesses to post promotional pages about themselves), a web-business promotional site called thenextweb, linkedin, twitter. Looking further down the list of Google hits, one finds many pages about Trademob, but on examination almost all of them turn out to be on sites that cannot be regarded as independent reliable sources, as for example a page which looks like a news report, but is posted at http://www.kennet.com/news/press-releases/mobile-mobile-app-marketing-platform-trademob-raises-15-million-in-series-b-funding-led-by-kennet-partners/, which, as the URL suggests, is a press release. The overall impression is that there is a lot about Trademob only because Trademob has put a lot of effort into publicising itself, rather than because reliable independent sources have paid significant attention to it, and the Wikipedia article was clearly part of this effort. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. My analysis broadly concurs with JBW's. I consider all of the current sources to be basically worthless. The best source I could find is [9], which gives some indication of what Trademob does (besides raise venture capital and write press releases). I think that could be a solid supplementary source, but can't support the article on its own. Kilopi (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 03:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with the nom's assessment that the article is still somewhat promotional, and befittingly for a mobile ad company, they really know how to pump out the PR. I found one article that qualifies as an independent source and is in depth: GigaOM article on click fraud. Is GigaOM considered reliable? If so, then this source counts as an RS. But one RS is still below WP:GNG notability guidelines and below WP:CORPDEPTH notability guidelines as well. Unless more reliable sources can be found, I recommend deletion with no prejudice to recreation if more RS become available. --Mark viking (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2013 (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ew-too
- Ew-too (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject doesn't seem notable at all and barely has any relevant Google results. Failed to find any Google Books or Google Scholar links. The article has had no sources for at least 4 years. EternalFlare (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've looked for sources repeatedly to no avail. No apparent hope of demonstration of notability. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. It should be possible to combine the information about Elsewhere Too with that of Elsewhere and Foothills, into a single article, as they're basically different versions of the same code. If there are insufficient reliable sources about them or their author Simon Marsh (still trying to locate this[10] one), then perhaps it could be turned into a section of the Talker or even Cheeseplant's House articles. KaVir (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 03:55, 5 February 2013 (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. MBisanz talk 00:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Keyes
- Kyle Keyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
May fail the general guidelines for notability, no cited references. I performed a Google search and found the website for the organization where he is supposedly the CEO . Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 20:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I placed a {{Prod blp/dated}} tag on the article. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying this should be kept, but the PROD could be addressed by this source, even if it is not an independent source. This AfD is probably the way to go.—Bagumba (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG. The only significant source I found was not independent—he is the CEO of the company. The rest is just trivial mention in WP:ROUTINE game coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject fails notability guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of bus routes in Farnborough & Fleet area
- List of bus routes in Farnborough & Fleet area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article cites no sources to establish notability. It is unlikely that reliable secondary sources will ever be found to establish the notability of this set of routes. It fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL. Several similar articles have recently been deleted including Framlingham, Stradbroke and Laxfield and Stowmarket and Needham Market. Charles (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, area is too small to be of any significance. Arriva436/talk/contribs 20:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources at all have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sigh I think consensus gotten so clear on this that we don't need to waste AFD bytes, just WP:PROD them bus routes. Secret account 05:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to English Wikivoyage. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:46, 30 January 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 12:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prabhat Samgiita
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}} . |
- Prabhat Samgiita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The best citation I'm able to find is the one included in the article: a footnote in a historical work on genocide attesting to the existence of this collection. What other little commentary exists is not independent, and based on this I don't see any way to establish notability. The above can fit comfortably within the Sarkar biographical article.
As always: while this collection is certainly an artifact of a "political or religious movement" I haven't been able to find any independent sources that attest to this collection having influenced such a movement. Likewise, Sarkar is a minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements and as such his life and works have not been a common subject of academic study. GaramondLethe 19:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar as nom.
- As nominator, it is assumed you support deletion/redirection - no need to also "vote".--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect; still short of notability. It's impossible to develop neutral non-fringey content without sufficient coverage by independent sources. bobrayner (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It's very hard not to comment on other users here. I mean, Garamond Lethe and Bob Rayner... where have I seen those names before? But to avoid any kind of personal attack - though some might consider this very AfD to be a type of personal attack - let me keep my remarks somewhat lighthearted. Garamond and Bob do not see anything notable about a body of 5,018 songs, composed - or at least released - over a span of only eight (8) years. I mean... come on, anyone can put arbitrary notes to arbitrary words and call it a song, and anyone can post just about anything on YouTube nowadays, is it not? So I'm sure that Garamond and Bob know or know of many artists who have accomplished the same or much greater thing as Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. And, far be it from any editor on Wikipedia to even listen to a single one of Sarkar's 5,018 songs before commenting disparagingly. After all, listening to a song might amount to original research, and anyway the song itself comes from a primary source. But let's consider Garamond's nomination. He says that he cannot find any evidence of notability - almost no independent commentary. And, being a diligent researcher presenting his findings in good faith, no doubt he made a search of all the various newspapers and magazines in India before commenting like that. No doubt he also searched for references to this body of music with all of the possible spellings and in all of the possible Indian languages, perhaps most notably Bengali and Hindi. And I won't even speculate on how he could have found the time for so much research, given that he was busy making so many other simultaneous AfD nominations on articles related to Sarkar's works. But it does seem a bit unfortunate that Garamond may have missed the fact that all around India to this very day there are frequent public performances of Prabhat Samgiita (what Garamond describes in his AfD nomination as an "artifact" rather than art). Some of those frequent performances are associated with dramas or even a Bollywood movie. And it seems that many of those public performances are sufficiently noteworthy to get reported in Indian newspapers. For example: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. If I had the time, I could probably put up another 100 links to English newspapers in India. Just imagine what I could do with a search in Bengali or Hindi! Then there are references - and, to some extent, reviews - on pages like here. But then none of the above are actually "peer reviews". Mea culpa. Could someone please remind me... what other late 20th or early 21st Century artist released more than 5,000 songs over a span of eight years? Unfortunately, Rabindranath Tagore, who I understand composed (only) somewhere around 2,200 songs (over a much longer span of time) died in 1941, forty years before Sarkar released the first of his songs. But maybe there's someone else? Maybe Garamond Lethe or Bob Rayner could step up with their own 5,000 songs to write a peer review. Oh, wait, it seems that they don't consider that to be a notable event, worthy of even so much as a separate article on Wikipedia, much less a peer review. --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good grief, Garamond! You nominated this article for deletion, and you still don't know that Prabhat Samgiita is not a book but rather a collection of 5,018 songs? Did you even read the short article created by Cornelius383 before nominating it for deletion? Have you tried to understand anything said by anyone other than your chums at Fringe/n? --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I'm curious. Let's take a look at your links.
- 1. New Stateman. Performance competitions organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 7 Oct 2011.
- 2. The Hindu. Notice of performance organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 15 Sep 2009
- 3. The Hindu. Notice of performance organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 19 Jun 2009.
- 4. The Hindu. Notice of performance organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 21 Mar 2008.
- 5. The Telegraph. Notice of performance organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 27 Oct 2009.
- 6. The Telegraph. Notice of performance organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 25 Oct 2005.
- 7. The Telegraph. Notice of performance organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 27 Oct 2011.
- 8. The Telegraph.
No mention of Prabhat Samgiita.Notice of performance organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 26 Oct 2011. Duplicate of #7. - 9. The Telegraph.
No mention of Prabhat Samgiita.Notice of performance organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 24 Oct 2011. Duplicate of #7. - 10. The Telegraph.
No mention of Prabhat Samgiita.Notice of performance organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 25 Oct 2005. Duplicate of #6. - 11. The Telegraph.
No mention of Prabhat Samgiita.Notice of performance organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 26 Oct 2007. - 12. Hindustan Times. Notice of performance organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 07 Dec 2012.
- 13. Afternoon Despatch and Courier. Notice of performance organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 07 Jun 2011.
- 14. mmusicz.com: audio, video, lyrics search Not a reliable source.
- You've established beyond shadow of any possible doubt that Sarkar's group Ananda Marga likes to get together for a singsong from time to time and the local newspaper is kind enough to print their press release. This is far and away the strongest argument for notability put forward for any of Sarkar's works, but press releases don't establish notability. GaramondLethe 16:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Garamond, leaving aside your snide remark about "singsongs", if you had read carefully what I stated along with my Keep vote, you would have grasped the fact that a meaningful search must include "all possible spellings". And had you considered that point, then you would have seen that items 8-12 do indeed mention Prabhat Samgiita. Apparently, The Telegraph's preferred spelling for "Samgiita" is "Sangeet". Quite frankly, Garamond, item 10 is so short that I find it a bit hard to believe that you managed to miss this point. But, as you did not dismiss items 8-12 as mere "press releases" or "likely press releases", perhaps you should now do the honorable thing and withdraw this rather outrageous nomination for deletion. You might also like to listen to one or two of the songs that you have dismissed as part of an "artifact" unworthy of an article in Wikipedia. --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please pardon me for saying this, Garamond, but it is getting very difficult for me to maintain an assumption that you are speaking/acting in good faith. You have dismissed every article that I quickly listed as a "likely press release", something which neither you nor I would know. I mentioned that I could probably post another 100 links to English newspaper articles from India and many, many more on top of that if I were to include articles in other Indian languages like Hindi and Bengali. But what's the point of doing it when you could also locate those articles just as easily as I? And what's the point of doing it when you would almost certainly dismiss any additional article as a "likely press release" also. So let's just stick with the first 12 that I gave. Even if all of these 12 were press releases (though I doubt that it is so), it is still worth noting that all of these articles appeared in well established and prestigious newspapers, not tabloids. And, even if all of these 12 were press releases (though I doubt that it is so), it does seem impressive to me that a competition would attract so many performers in 54 districts of four states that there would be 700 finalists who came to Kolkata for the conclusion of the competition. And, even if all of these 12 were press releases (though I doubt that it is so), the articles seem to indicate that a good number of renowned artists in India appreciate Prabhat Samgiita. As I see it, these articles establish notability. But, hey, here on Wikipedia we can have a separate article for a single song by just about any Western band. Search for Wikipedia articles containing the words, "I wanna", and we get a remarkable 10,120 hits! But Cornelius created a single article about a set of 5,018 songs from a Bengali source, and our Garamond says: "I'm sorry, but that is not notable. It's not art - it's just an artifact of a political or religious movement." Well, I can hardly believe that we are still arguing about this matter. Clearly, the notion of "notability" on Wikipedia needs a major reworking when just about any degrading song that earns money and comes from the West is considered to be notable, but the entire collection of 5,018 inspiring songs from a single Indian composer is considered to be not notable. I am sorry to say it, but this AfD nomination simply reeks of bigotry. --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Editor's long comment & note for the closing Admin.: for nearly a month the same group of users is proposing the deletion of dozens of articles I had written on WP. All articles belonged to the vast literary production of a single author. Let's suppose that some articles were poorly written, or that others were even not very encyclopedic. But that so many articles can be proposed for deletion by a single group of users, with various excuses, seems to me absurd and suspicious. WP was born to spread the totality of human knowledge, not only a part of it. Everyone is invited on WP to cooperatively create/maximize/improve new articles not to delete them. Deleting an article should only be an exceptional case and not a way of working of a group of editors. Censorship is an ancient art. I am experienced enough in history to be able to say that. Some expert users on WP seems not involved at all in the hard task of building new articles but in the relatively easy job of deleting many of them. Using bureaucratic quibbles as a weapon to censor/delete the encyclopedic representation of the part of knowledge that they simply don't like or don't understand.
- Instead of devoting their energies to increase the number of new articles, literally they chase you all around WP, analitically examining your talks and articles to find loopholes or a reason to stop your editing if they don't agree with the contents. What I am saying are not chatter in the wind: you can easily check it by just doing an analysis of the historical contributions of many "deleters". Hundreds of hours used in inconclusive, furious quarrels, personal attacks, angry deletions reserved for the "enemies", many "good tips" and very, very few or no new articles at all.
- My opinion is that this is the best way to kill WP: if everything will remain so many editors will go away one after another. At the same time the increasing volume of human knowledge will require in the near future an increasing number of editors... Thanks.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: for the reasons above.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect. Arguments are essentially the same as for Idea and Ideology: Lack of coverage in independent reliable sources means this fails WP:NBOOK (i.e. HathiTrust lists it as a book) and WP:NMUSIC (which pertains to topics related to music, including artists and bands, albums, and songs). I also have heavy concerns regarding WP:SOAPBOX given the context of many similarly-created articles. Location (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally, another Garamond compadre other than Bob has turned up here to vote... in a bizarre and partisan fashion. How does WP:NBOOK apply to a collection of songs? Even WP:NMUSIC hardly covers this point, as the Songs section is clearly about individual songs and singles. And then there is the statement at the top of WP:NMUSIC: "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion." So I stand by my remark above: "Clearly, the notion of 'notability' on Wikipedia needs a major reworking when just about any degrading song that earns money and comes from the West is considered to be notable, but the entire collection of 5,018 inspiring songs from a single Indian composer is considered to be not notable." --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. It could be that a collection of over 5000 songs by Sarkar doesn't find significant coverage in reliable independent sources because of systemic bias ("availability of sources is not uniform"). Even if that is the case here, one has to wonder why none of the Indian news agencies or publication houses, even those from Kolkata, mention this collection in detail. Sarkar is not the only Indian spiritual writer whose discography doesn't meet WP's notability guideline. Kripalu Maharaj's Prem Ras Madira, a collection of 1008 songs on Radha and Krishna, doesn't have an individual article. Tagore's songs have an article but only because he is a Nobel laureate. Anuradha Paudwal's 5000+ religious songs in many Indian languages have a dedicated article, but it too looks on shaky grounds with regards to notability. Maybe Indian media is elitist and secular or the sheer volume of religious songs makes individual collections non–notable. Whatever be the reason for the insufficient coverage it makes little difference to the fact that without significant coverage in reliable independent sources writing an article of reasonable length will require original research, which of course is against policy. Therefore, it makes sense to redirect this article to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar#Music where this collection is already mentioned. If multiple sources do turn up later the article can always be recreated from them. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 23:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Request to closing admin and comment: Here we see yet another one of Garamond's associates lending partisan support. I would request the closing admin to take note of the fact that Garamond Lethe, Bob Rayner, Location, and CorrectKnowledge have a considerable history of voting as an oppositional bloc in relation to all things connected with what some of them call the "Sarkarverse". Nevertheless, CorrectKnowledge raises two interesting examples, even if his presentation of those examples is highly misleading. For example, CorrectKnowledge implies that Kripalu Maharaj's 1,008 songs is comparable to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's 5,018 songs. But do the numbers really reflect that? 1008 songs is less than 1/2 of the number of songs by Rabindranath Tagore (who does have a dedicated article for his collection of songs) and only 1/5 of the number by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (who has a dedicated article that has here been nominated for deletion, with partisan support by CorrectKnowledge). But, frankly, I don't see why Wikipedians should object to a dedicated article about a collection of 1008 songs by a single composer. So I am left wondering as to whether anyone ever created an article specifically for Kripalu's music. Did that ever happen? And did that putative article go through an AfD process (with or without support for deletion or redirect given by CorrectKnowledge)? I doubt it. And, if not, how is CorrectKnowlege's example very relevant here? (As an aside, I would also point out that the language in the Kripalu Maharaj article that CorrectKnowledge cites is not at all neutral. "Jagadguru Shree Kripaluji Maharaj"... I can only wonder that no one at Fringe/n has yet come along to make deletions. It seems that Kripalu (born Ram Kripalu Tripathi) is totally flying under the radar on Wikipedia as he merits not just a "Shree" but also a "ji", a "Jagadguru", and a "Maharaj". ) Regarding CorrectKnowledge's second example, Anuradha Paudwal, the Wikipedia article on her does not state that she has composed even a single song. So CorrectKnowledge's reference to "Anuradha Paudwal's 5000+ religious songs in many Indian languages" is apparently just misdirection. What we have on Wikipedia is merely a "list of songs recorded (not composed) by Anuradha Paudwal". Furthermore, the list is not of 5000+ songs, as CorrectKnowledge (what a misnomer!) wrongly asserted. It is merely a list of a bit more than 1500 songs recorded over a period of 40 years. If we compare that to the 2,230 songs composed by Rabindranath Tagore over the course of his lifetime and the 5,018 songs composed by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and released over a period of just 8 years, then Anuradha Paudwal's achievement dwindles in significance. Quite possibly, not even one of the 1500 songs that she recorded was composed by her (although that does seem a bit unlikely). Nevertheless, if we were just taking here about songs that have been recorded by a musical performer, which we certainly are not, then I would expect that many popular musical performers in India have accumulated a similar number of songs in their repertoire over the course of a lifetime. For example, Ravi Shankar also has an impressive discography, and we also have Wikipedia pages for both the man and his music. But, coming back to the relatively trivial article that lists the songs recorded by Anuradha Paudwal, that article is supported by nothing more than an external link to smashits.com. So here I would have to agree with CorrectKnowlege. That article is indeed on shaky grounds in terms of Wikipedia standards. However, instead of nominating that article for deletion or redirect, CorrectKnowledge has come to this AfD nomination to vote in support of his buddy, Garamond Lethe. Apparently, CorrectKnowledge is more concerned to eliminate an article about a collection of 5,018 songs composed by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar than he is concerned to eliminate a poorly sourced article about 1,500 songs merely recorded by a popular singer. CorrectKnowledge is correct in acknowledging systemic bias. He has probably used this argument in support of articles on Indian-related topics that he favors. Sadly, however, he would dismiss the factor of systemic bias when arguing against an article on an India-related topic that he does not favor. --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am happy to disclose my involvement in these articles since it has been called into question. I monitor various noticeboards including Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Earlier this month, User:Bobrayner posted a request for input in Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Progressive utilization theory. I discovered that Progressive utilization theory had been (and still is) protected due to an edit war and offered my input in resolving the dispute. Part of that dispute involves an overabundance of primary sources and a lack of reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Checking the contribution histories for the editors responsible for this, I found a similar pattern of editing that involved the lack of proper sourcing in many other articles. So here I am. Location (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuttal: Come on, Location... it's more than just "involvement" with some articles. On Fringe/n, there is a thinly concealed effort to canvass support for AfD nominations regarding just about every article connected with the "Sarkarverse". And you seem to be parceling out among yourselves who will make the various nominations, all of them assured of group backing. You yourself took an active part in this process by recently filing two such AfD nominations: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ananda_Marga_Elementary_Philosophy and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Microvitum_in_a_Nutshell. On both of those nominations, you quickly acquired support from several of the same persons we see here, notably Garamond Lethe, the nominator of this AfD as well as five other simultaneous AfD nominations pertaining to the works of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. Garamond Lethe supported your two nominations, so you came here to support this untenable nomination by him. Let's call a spade a spade, Location. You have been involved with systematic canvassing of support by a means that is technically legitimate but entirely contrary to the spirit of WP:CANVASS. And what we can easily see on Fringe/n is no doubt just the tip of the iceberg. Hence, your votes - and even your nominations - should be discounted by any impartial admin for their bad faith foundation. You may be motivated by what you believe to be good intentions, but you are gaming the system. As an intelligent person, you surely know that quite well. --Abhidevananda (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Take it to WP:ANI. If you have a problem with my editing patterns, there are more appropriate forums than this. 14:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just to be clear I don't favour any of those artists, some of them may need pruning soon, and other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Rest of Abhidevananda's agruments were Ad hominem which is allowed though, I agree with Location, there are more appropriate forums to resolve them. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 15:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, CK, I was merely responding to your WP:OSE argument - fighting fire with fire, so to speak. My response merely examined the two examples that you gave (WP:OSE), correcting the inaccuracies in your descriptions and exposing the dubious correlations that you asserted. As for the ad hominem element of my argument, it arose as a consequence of my effort to explain the disconnect between your words and your actions (evidenced even in your latest response). For the record, I know that ad hominem arguments are frowned upon. As a rational man, I also find such arguments generally repugnant. Nevertheless and regrettably, in the current context, it is not just appropriate but indeed necessary for me to point out that a group of individuals - strongly represented in this AfD discussion - have been systematically targeting every article within the 'Sarkarverse', seriously disrupting sincere efforts by editors to add significant, informative, accurate, neutral, and high-quality articles here on Wikipedia. I believe that the closing admin should be mindful of this fact while seeking to determine whether there was any consensus here. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:This extensive body of work deserves an article of its own in Wikipedia. It seems nonsensical to even suggest the deletion of this article. As a relatively new editor (yet longtime lurker and user) ofWikipedia, it has been appalling to watch the decimation of the Sarkar articles for what appear to be mostly reasons of bias. I note the fact that no one here has contested the fact that Sarkar composed 5,018 songs. Perhaps no one else has ever composed so many songs in the course of an entire lifetime. That is an accomplishment worthy of a separate article on Wikipedia... regardless of any Western-biased rules about notability.--DezDeMonaaa (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC) — DezDeMonaaa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- More references: It seems that there is more than one book about Prabhat Samgiita. This archive contains a PDF that I have just uploaded showing the cover and the early pages of a second book. This second book on Prabhat Samgiita is also published by Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha, but the author, a retired university professor, is not a member of Ananda Marga. In fact, none of the material in this PDF is written by members of Ananda Marga. In my opinion, the authors are all notable, reliable, and independent sources by WP standards. Fortunately, this book was published in English. Later today, I expect to post more links to articles, some of them perhaps in Bengali or other Indian languages. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope "Independent" in this context means the publisher does not have a conflict of interest. In this case, the publisher is publishing both the book and the appreciation (and is under effective control of the author of the book compounding the problem). That's going to constrain the frankness of opinions in the appreciation. The good news is that you've found an academic who has written a book on this topic, and it wouldn't surprise me to see that this academic recycled earlier peer-reviewed publications in writing the book (which is perfectly fine, btw). You might also want to try looking at the work of Ramaranjan Mukherji. GaramondLethe 08:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep:Prabhát Saḿgiit (that has many varying spellings such as Prabhát Sauṋgiit, Prabháta Saḿgiita, Prabháta Sauṋgiita, Prabhát Saḿgiita, Prabhát Sauṋgiita, Prabhat Sangiit, Prabhat Sangeet, Probhat Sangeet, Prabhat Shangeet, Prabhat Songeet, Prabhat Sangit, Probhat Shangeet, Probhat Songeet, Probhat Sangit, Prabhat Shongeet, Prabhat Shangit, Prabhat Songit, Probhat Shongeet, Probhat Shangit, Probhat Songit, Prabhat Shongit, Probhat Shongit etc.) meaning "Songs of the new dawn" is a collection of 5018 songs, composed in 8 different languages by P.R.Sarkar (Compare Rabindra Sangeet).
- Like other topics coming from the so-called third world countries, there are much less non-independent, online and English sources about the topic compared to the huge amount of independent non-English sources (online&offline) sources. That's why, in good faith, I'm asking from the closing admin, to keep an open eye and to let some more time those who are trying to improve WP, for them to find those sources. I have the prior knowledge, that indeed, this topic has really a huge amount of sources. --Universal Life (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another reference: This archive contains a PDF of what seems to be a doctoral dissertation on the subject of Prabhat Samgiita. It is by an academic. The publishing house is not Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha or Ananda Marga Publications. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it have a name? An author? Nevermind.... Mysticism in Prabhat Samgiit, Miss Alakananda Paria, 2000, Ananda Book Trust.
The book is the modified version of the dissertation prepared under the supervision of Dr. A. K. Mohanty, P. G. Department of Philosophy, Utkal University and submitted to the Utkal University for the Degree of M. Phil. in Philosophy. The book brings into focus the nature of the Mystical. Besides presenting a panoramic glimpse of the world of Prabhat Samgiit, it undertakes to unearth the mystical underpinnings and outpourings therein.
- I believe M. Phil. is a Master's degree. Note that the author is listed as "Miss Alakananda Parida" rather than "Dr. Parida". And "Ananda Book Trust" is likely associated with "Ananda Marga", so you'll need to cite the dissertation proper. Her bibliography might be useful, but I wouldn't consider a master's thesis in isolation to be sufficient to establish notability. GaramondLethe 14:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Garamond, every Ananda you see is not connected to Ananda Marga, Ananda means happiness and in deed is a very popular and very wide-spread word in India (sometimes spelled as Anand). There is a series in Israel for example by the name Ananda. It's connected to India but no connections with Ananda Marga what-so-ever.--Universal Life (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not assuming every use of Ananda is associated with Ananda Marga, just the ones with the legal term "Trust" appended that pays for the publications of books associated with Ananda Marga. I don't think we'll need to reach that issue, however. GaramondLethe 16:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- However, it doesn't say Ananda Marga Trust, only Ananda Trust. --Universal Life (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not assuming every use of Ananda is associated with Ananda Marga, just the ones with the legal term "Trust" appended that pays for the publications of books associated with Ananda Marga. I don't think we'll need to reach that issue, however. GaramondLethe 16:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Garamond, every Ananda you see is not connected to Ananda Marga, Ananda means happiness and in deed is a very popular and very wide-spread word in India (sometimes spelled as Anand). There is a series in Israel for example by the name Ananda. It's connected to India but no connections with Ananda Marga what-so-ever.--Universal Life (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another reference: This archive contains some extracts from a Bengali book called Buddhijiivider Drs't'ite. The extracts were written by persons who are not members of Ananda Marga. The book not only covers Prabhat Samgiita but also, among other things, the 26 volumes on philology that Sarkar produced over the same period of time as Prabhat Samgiita. However, if I am not mistaken, all of the extracts in this PDF are about Prabhat Samgiita. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope "Ananda Marga Publications". If you get in the habit of providing a citation instead of just a bare link you'll save yourself some embarrassment. GaramondLethe 17:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about this one, but there is one book (that I learned from my offline sources in India) called: Prabhat Samgiit: Philosophical and Literary Application by Prof. Subhas Sarkar. This professor is not a member of the organization, he's a (retired - if not mistaken) professor from Rabindra Vath University (or something similar, the voice isn't always very clear on the voip system). However, I think, as a means of saving money, the book was printed by Ananda Marga Publications. However, as the author of the book is not connected at all with the organization and the subject, the book definitely doesn't fall on the range of primary source. This is one of the offline sources, we'd spoken on your talkpage, that you could look up. --Universal Life (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ananda Marga Publications is non-neutral when it comes to publishing decisions on Sarkar material. While this material may be used (cautiously) to improve the article it cannot be used to establish notability. What all this effort is telling me is that this book has been ignored outside the "walled garden" of Ananda Marga. That's why this book isn't notable. GaramondLethe 17:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Garamond, for God's sake! This is not a book, this is music, this is art! Secondly, I always put a lot of effort on everything that I do, I'm a perfectionist, whether I write my PhD dissertion, or an article about epigenetics or translating the interface of WP. So, don't infer anything negative from it. Moreover, effort is necessary because this is within the domain of systemic bias, there is no "walled-garden". And all articles related to Sarkar is under attack, by a group of fix-minded people gaming the system, mainly by canvassing, to further their own cause. I just can't stand injustice. This is the first time, in my more than 4 years experience with WP and its sister projects, that I lost my assumption of good faith to some editors. It's unfortunate, but true.--Universal Life (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still a book. The rest of your comment should probably be discussed elsewhere. GaramondLethe 18:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the name of the book link you sent is Prabhát saḿgiita = Songs of the new dawn. Not Prabhat Sangeet or Prabhat Samgiit. Anyone could publish a book about Rabindra Sangeet, it still doesn't make "Rabindra Sangeet" a book, only it brings out the fact that there is book published about it. Do you see the difference? So, PS is not a book! (And if you can bring up the notion of walled-garden here, then the rest of the discussion as well belongs here, that's why actually we've this deletion page on the first page - however I do not wish to discuss any more right now, nothing beneficial comes out of it, I prefer to be constructive). --Universal Life (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still a book. The rest of your comment should probably be discussed elsewhere. GaramondLethe 18:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment: It's really incredible.. Never happen to me such a systematic attack like this. WP should be mainly based on mutual aid of users, aimed to draw up or to improve new articles. Here we have the same group of users doing the opposite work and proposing tens of AfD's for all the items related with the same subject. What words can we use to define this activity, essentially aimed to hide knowledge rather than to spread it? I do not ask for help but I'm pointing out facts that anyone can check!--Cornelius383 (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Collection of songs, not a book: The fact that books have been written about this collection of songs only establishes the notability of the collection of songs. It does not change the fact that the article that Garamond nominated for deletion is about the collection of songs and not about any particular book about that collection, especially not any book that merely talks about the lyrics of the songs without reproducing the melody of those songs (as indeed is the case with the two books (actually one series of books and an additional book) that have the words "Prabhat Samgiita" in their title. Of course, Garamond knows this full well. That is why he commented on the various newspaper articles that I listed, none of which were about any book, seeking to dismiss those newspaper articles as "likely press releases" (which, to the best of my knowledge, is not a valid ground for dismissal even if it were so). However, Garamond first introduced this remark about Prabhat Samgiita also being a book with a "<grin>". So I assumed that he was being a bit facetious there. When Location parroted Garamond's assertion of this topic being about a book, I simply ignored that as further evidence that a chum of Garamond - someone working in tandem to game the system - was simply repeating a superficial and uninformed remark, merely to support his colleague. But now I see Garamond again arguing that this is a book, and I must point out that Sarkar composed 5,018 songs, both melodies and lyrics, and those complete songs are the topic of the article that Garamond has nominated for deletion. Anyone who reads the article under discussion would know that this is so. Accordingly, this type of misdirection by Garamond and Location is entirely dishonest. Their refusal to concede even a simple point like this is why it is impossible to have any meeting of minds with them in this AfD discussion and in the many other places where they operate as a voting bloc to bully others and game the system. --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note on reliable sources: While waiting for more information from my source in India (who mentioned that he would soon be going out of station for a few days), let me point out that I am not posting these references here because I consider them necessary to support the notability of this article in Wikipedia. In my estimation, that has already been well-established. I post these additional references here only to emphasize the outrageous nature of this AfD nomination and the total intractability of the nominator and his chums. But as Garamond has now started dismissing valid sources as invalid, let me reproduce here the Wikipedia policy regarding use of self-published material. According to WP:SELFSOURCE:
- "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
- 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
- 2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
- 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
- 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
- 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
- "These requirements also apply to pages from social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook."
- In light of the above, it is clear that Garamond's objection to articles by independent and reliable sources simply because they appear in books that have been published by Ananda Marga Publications or Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha is contrary to established Wikipedia policy. And, anyway, these are not articles published by Sarkar about Sarkar. They are articles by independent persons talking about one of Sarkar's works. Yes, some of these articles are published by an organization that Sarkar founded, but they were not and are not currently published by Sarkar himself, because Sarkar died in 1990. --Abhidevananda (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Self-serving" is not the same thing as "unduly self-serving". And the articles in the books that have been listed are not based primarily on a "self-source" but rather independent sources. The newspaper articles may or may not be a partial product of press releases, but - even if so - there is nothing extraordinary about that. Of course, it is impossible to tell whether all of those newspaper articles are primarily based on press releases, partially based on press releases, or not at all based on press releases. But, in any event, this policy is clearly in relation to autobiographical material. When self-published material is even permitted as source for Wikipedia articles that are also essentially autobiographical, then obviously such material is permitted in articles that are in no way autobiographical. --Abhidevananda (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional relevant newspaper articles: I had a look at the Talk page of Prabhat Samgiita, where it seems that Universal Life is compiling sources about Prabhat Samgiita. Here are two more newspaper articles, clearly not press releases.
- Apparently, in India, some newspapers do not share Garamond's view - and the view of his Fringe/n pals - that Prabhat Samgiita is just "a book" or an "artifact of a political or religious movement". --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Summary In 1955, Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar founded the Ananda Marga organization which, among other activities, handled the publication of all of his subsequent work. One of these was the Prabhat Samgiita at issue here. Ananda Marga has subsequently published a volume of selections from this work, an appreciation, and a masters thesis. Ananda Marga has also sponsored many performances and competitions based on this work. However, if by some strange catastrophe all Ananda Marga publications and references to Ananda Marga-sponsored performances were to be wiped from the earth, our only potentially reliables sources for the existence of the Prabhat Samgiita would be an inaccessible master's thesis and a short, anonymous op-ed piece.
- I have found no mention of this work in any history of Indian music, either online or in the UC Berkeley collection. Three other editors who would like to see the article preserved have worked tirelessly in trying to track down additional sources of notability, to no avail. My two university contacts in Bengal were able to unearth some material that may prove useful in other Sarkar-related articles, but nothing that would help here. As notability has not been established and is unlikely to be established going forward, deletion of the article remains warranted. GaramondLethe 15:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Summary: (PA redacted by Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER) While it is true that the policy of Sarkar and hence Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha is to publish in-house, Prabhat Samgiita - as a collection of songs - is not published by the Ananda Marga Publications department but rather by the Rennaisance Artists and Writers Association (RAWA). In that regard, RAWA has published many CDs of Prabhat Samgiita. In addition to the CDs published by RAWA, there is also a fairly vast Web project at http://www.prabhatasamgiita.net/. On that site, anyone may access audio files (MP3s) for many or most of the 5,018 songs absolutely free of charge. Furthermore, the songs of Prabhat Samgiita have been sung by numerous artists, some of them members of Ananda Marga and some of them not members of Ananda Marga, some of them famous and some of them not-so-famous. In other words, the songs of Prabhat Samgiita have been released as part of the discography of many performers and through recording companies that are entirely independent of Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha. See, for example, Jyoshna. So, even if Garamond's pie-in-the-sky "catastrophe" were to take place - even if "all Ananda Marga publications and references to Ananda Marga-sponsored performances were to be wiped from the earth" - still Prabhat Samgiita would survive. Prabhat Samgiita would still have a significant and growing presence in the music of many performers. That ever-expanding presence is clear in the great number of YouTube videos connected with Prabhat Samgiita. So, perhaps now Garamond would like to extend his "catastrophe" to encompass all of the CDs containing a song of Prabhat Samgiita in anyone's house as well as the work of any performer who has ever recorded even a single Prabhat Samgiita song. And perhaps now Garamond would like to extend his "catastrophe" to encompass the destruction of YouTube, Google, and the entire Internet as well. Naturally, that would mean the intrinsic destruction of Wikipedia, but Garamond seems to be doing his utmost to achieve that end anyway. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you have pushed rudeness as far as you need to. Stick to the merits please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Like and ROTFL. I see no reason to be dismissive of the reputable sources presented throughout this discussion. The Times of India and the Deccan Herald articles - the first by an anonymous author and the second by Mysore V Subramanya - are in widely reputable Indian newspapers. As well, a published masters thesis is by definition accessible. But Abhidevananda's summary and discussion above is correct, that is that Garamond Lethe is clearly predisposed to reject any source on this subject. All of the above discussion only proves that Garamond Lethe's research on this subject is inadequate and unreliable.--DezDeMonaaa (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 38 sources and 19 references collected from users Universal Life and Abhidevananda added on the talk page of the article. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Cornelius, there is some duplication in the links on the Talk page, which might reduce the number somewhat. But if we were to add all of the links to individual songs on http://prabhatasamgiita.net and also include links to YouTube videos of various performances of Prabhat Samgiita, then the number of links would probably come closer to 5,000. But, no doubt, Garamond Lethe would dismiss all of these links, because they are not secondary enough, they involve audio, and tomorrow the sky could fall. --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected the duplication error and added your ext. link to the list in the talk page of the article. I apologise for the error. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Cornelius, there is some duplication in the links on the Talk page, which might reduce the number somewhat. But if we were to add all of the links to individual songs on http://prabhatasamgiita.net and also include links to YouTube videos of various performances of Prabhat Samgiita, then the number of links would probably come closer to 5,000. But, no doubt, Garamond Lethe would dismiss all of these links, because they are not secondary enough, they involve audio, and tomorrow the sky could fall. --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another resource: If one is just interested in the lyrics (or poetry) of these 5,018 songs, then perhaps http://prabhatasamgiita.info might be a more convenient resource than http://prabhatasamgiita.net. I can't say who is running the prabhatasamgiita.info website. The site is marked "Copyright© 2007, SADHIKA Infosystems. All rights reserved." but I would wonder about that claim, given that 95% of the site appears to depend on the work of others. Nevertheless, we do find there a short (and anonymous) review of Prabhat Samgiita. The last paragraph of that review begins: "Prabha'ta Sam'giita is now a full-fledged school of music with its own distinct style." --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Garamond, I don't see any place on that website where Prabhat Samgiita is being sold. Yes, there are some products that are advertised, on the Releases page of that website, but not even one of those products mentions Prabhat Samgiita. So, if anything, it is the exact reverse of what you are alleging here. The company selling those products - InnerSong - is not a part of Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha. Rather, it is a private company that describes itself as "a cooperative project". And this private company seems to be piggybacking off the popularity and notability of Prabhat Samgiita to sell its products. --Abhidevananda (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another book on Prabhat Samgiita: Prabhata Samgiita; The Lyrics and Their English Renderings (Selected Songs Part 1). The translator in this book is different than in the other books, and the content seems to be just some selected songs (although apparently more than one volume is anticipated). The book was published by Ananda Marga Publications (some 13 years after Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar died). --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that additional information, Garamond. Whether or not these two books have been reviewed strikes me as somewhat irrelevant at this stage. The article that you nominated for deletion is Prabhat Samgiita, an article about a collection of 5,018 songs by a single composer. These are two more books written by persons other than the composer of those 5,018 songs. In other words, in addition to very many articles relating to Prabhat Samgiita in various newspapers and some assorted essays on Prabhat Samgiita (including a master's thesis), I believe we have now referenced at least 13 books about Prabhat Samgiita - all of them by persons other than the composer of this collection of songs. Taking help from the Talk page of the Prabhat Samgiita article, I count 10 books by Ac. Vijayananda Avadhuta and Avadhutika Anandamitra Acarya, another 1 book by Dr. Subhas Sarkar, and now 2 books by Ac. Priyashivananda Avadhuta. Even if these 13 books are all lacking in independence in that they have all been published by Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha, still I would maintain that one inescapable inference that must be reached from all of these books and newspaper articles is that Prabhat Samgiita is a prominent representative of a notable style of music. And - if we were to treat Prabhat Samgiita in terms of just its lyrics and on the basis of the notability required for books (as you seem to prefer) - then the inescapable conclusion is that Prabhat Samgiita has "has made a significant contribution to a significant political or religious movement" (per your own description of Ananda Marga and WP:NB). So, once again, I respectfully request you to withdraw your AfD nomination on this Wikipedia article. --Abhidevananda (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- question what notable Indian artists about whom we have articles have made recordings of these songs? Please be specific about the recordings,and I will try to track them down & see if there is any available criticism in a Western language at NYPL-Performing Arts DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your interest, DGG. I would have thanked you even more if you had prefaced your question with a "keep" vote. But, before replying to your question, let me also ask a question. Do we really need to go to such lengths to justify one small separate article on a collection of 5,018 songs when it seems that we already have over 10,000 Wikipedia articles on just singles that contain the words, "I wanna", in the title? This type of AfD nomination strikes me as really ridiculous, and I would go further to say that it is also shockingly oppressive. Okay, this is a WP:OSE argument, but I think the argument works in this instance. Almost six days ago, CorrectKnowledge pointed out that Wikipedia has a dedicated article that merely lists 1500 songs recorded by Anuradha Paudwal over a period 40 years. That article offers no source other than http://smashits.com! And since the time that this information came out - again, almost six days ago - has anyone here take the trouble to nominate that flimsy article for deletion? No, they have not. The fact is that, like it or not, Wikipedia has established a very clear precedent in respect to the standard required for articles about songs; and that standard is very low. Hence, it is manifestly unjust to seek a rigid and dogmatic imposition of strict rules for a small article like this - a small article about a collection of 5,018 songs composed by a single individual over a period of only eight years. Such strictness about rules goes far beyond what is applied elsewhere on Wikipedia. Already we know for sure that the Prabhat Samgiita article was nominated for deletion as part of a campaign by a group of individuals associated with Fringe/n. This is easily verified by examining the discussions there. And, from the discussions on Fringe/n, it is manifestly clear that the real reason why this article has been nominated for deletion is simply because the composer of this collection of songs was Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. So, DGG, I hope you can understand why I find it somewhat irritating at this stage to think that I must open all of the articles in the newspapers listed above and go through the names of the artists listed in those articles - those who have either performed Prabhat Samgiita or talked about it - and then search on Wikipedia to see which of them have an article here... only in order to fend off the imminent deletion of this article. Anyway, DGG, I won't complete that tedious task now, but here are two examples that I quickly found by opening one of the earlier links to a newspaper article in The Hindu. We see there that Ashwini Bhide-Deshpande performed Prabhat Samgiita in Mumbai in June of 2009. We also see in that same article that Prabha Atre also spoke with wonder about the number of songs in this collection and the short span of time in which it was produced. But there are a lot of other names in that one article and many other articles to inspect. So, sorry, but I just don't have the time right now to continue with this exercise. Frankly, in my opinion, with the time we have all wasted on this outrageous AfD nomination, we could probably have brought the Prabhat Samgiita article up to the standard required for a WP:DYK or even an WP:FA! --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We need evidence to show these songs are considered important, and that would be helped by showing they are on well-known recordings by notable musicians outside his circle , not one-time performances. The question of whether the songs need be of importance to the general public outside the circle of his group is a difficult one; if you can even show that they are of central importance in their cultural circles, such as Luther's hymns in the Protestant church, that would be something, but the article on Ananda Marga gives no such indication. Even within the context of his work in general, I don't think there's evidence that these are one of his most important accomplishments--there seems to be much more discussion of his philosophy and social views. I am among those who think that the WP consensus on notability of songs is over-broad, and tends to show a great cultural bias towards US popular music, but I would suggest we correct this by decreasing that over-coverage, not expanding it to other areas. I'm also aware of the difficulties of documentation about Indian topics, and am willing to be flexible about our standards, but not abandon them; some things may need to wait until there are adequate locatable reliable sources that fit the concept of this encyclopedia. I need to say that I am very unlikely to give a keep opinion, but I first want to give it a fair chance by guiding you to finding the right evidence: you keep insisting that the number of songs is a criterion for notability , but it isn't. I suggest this might be best handled by a merge into the article on the author--there is already a sentence there about them, and perhaps we could expand that into a paragraph. As a general guide, I think you might do better by not trying to make as many articles as possible, but on making the central articles on the man and his movement stronger, with third party sources that truly meet our standards--this will be much more useful to readers, and better achieve your purpose of increasing our information. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, please allow me to respond to some of your points. (1) I believe that we have established that well-known musicians outside of Sarkar's circle have performed Prabhat Samgiita and have appreciated it. I think that it perhaps goes too far to then insist that those artists must also have made recordings and that those recordings must also be well-known. Quite frankly, I am not even sure that this would be permitted according to copyright, because of the policy within Ananda Marga to publish in-house. So may I suggest that here you are demanding a standard that does not fit well in this particular instance, but that lack of fit does not necessarily imply a lack of notability. (2) Actually, the article on Ananda Marga does give the indication that you request. Luther's hymns, if I am not mistaken, are sung in Church on Sundays. In Ananda Marga, members are encouraged to attend a weekly, collective meditation on Sundays. That instruction is given as part of the social code of Ananda Marga in the book, Caryacarya Part 1. And in the article on Ananda Marga, that weekly collective meditation is mentioned. As part of that weekly program, there is the singing of Prabhat Samgiita. I quote from the article: "Ananda Marga system recommends to its members the practice of collective meditation at least once a week. These meetings called Dharma Chakras (weekly held in a place called Dhyan Mandir) are preceded by the singing of few Prabhat Samgiita ("Songs of the New Dawn" composed by the Ananda Marga founder) followed by..." So I think that this corresponds quite well with the example of Luther's hymns that you mention. (3) While I understand your point about overly broad standards, I think you can appreciate my concern that, given the current precedent on Wikipedia, the exclusion of a single dedicated article about a widely appreciated collection of 5,018 songs due to some technicalities whereas the inclusion of 10,000 "I wanna" songs smacks of injustice. I am not asking that any "standards" be loosened here. I am only asking that the standards be equitably imposed. Eliminate the article on Prabhat Samgiita when there is anything resembling a corresponding strictness in other directions as well. Until that is apparent, it only comes across as systemic bias and religious discrimination to reject Prabhat Samgiita on some flimsy technicalities that reflect a Western bias and that are not even remotely applied in an evenhanded manner. (4) I respectfully disagree regarding the significance of numbers. Yes, if it were the difference between 5 and 10 songs, then it would not be significant. But when it is 5,018 songs in only 8 years, then that becomes a notable event simply because it could well be a record. But, record or not, people like to know how many songs were written by a composer. So, for example, there is an article on Johann Sebastian Bach, and there is a separate article for the List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach. And that second article begins with the number of compositions rather than any other fact: "There are over 1100 known compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach." Well, there are 5,018 known songs by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. Are these songs as well known as the songs of Bach? Perhaps not. But the real question is only do they deserve a mention on Wikipedia? And my answer to that - given everything else in the musical world that appears on Wikipedia - is why the heck not? Yes, I know you gave your reasons. But I respectfully disagree. And I respectfully cannot conceive of any harm being done to Wikipedia by retaining an article on this subject. Rather, I think it benefits Wikipedia and anyone who may come to Wikipedia to know more about this subject. Merging Prabhat Samgiita as a paragraph in the Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar article (as you have suggested) would only limit the scope for further expansion of this subject, something quite likely to happen in future (if other similar articles on the lifetime work of artists be taken as evidence). --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, if you see the talk page of the article, I've wikilinked some of the famous Indian musicians that sing or sang Prabhat Sangeet. Some other famous artists also sang/sing Prabhat Sangeet, that don't have WP articles, but normally are famous for singing Rabindra Sangeet. I'm right now, in the middle of adding more reliable sources to the talk page. If you want, go through what I wrote and also the sources. Also, please see the comment below. Thank you. --Universal Life (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, please allow me to respond to some of your points. (1) I believe that we have established that well-known musicians outside of Sarkar's circle have performed Prabhat Samgiita and have appreciated it. I think that it perhaps goes too far to then insist that those artists must also have made recordings and that those recordings must also be well-known. Quite frankly, I am not even sure that this would be permitted according to copyright, because of the policy within Ananda Marga to publish in-house. So may I suggest that here you are demanding a standard that does not fit well in this particular instance, but that lack of fit does not necessarily imply a lack of notability. (2) Actually, the article on Ananda Marga does give the indication that you request. Luther's hymns, if I am not mistaken, are sung in Church on Sundays. In Ananda Marga, members are encouraged to attend a weekly, collective meditation on Sundays. That instruction is given as part of the social code of Ananda Marga in the book, Caryacarya Part 1. And in the article on Ananda Marga, that weekly collective meditation is mentioned. As part of that weekly program, there is the singing of Prabhat Samgiita. I quote from the article: "Ananda Marga system recommends to its members the practice of collective meditation at least once a week. These meetings called Dharma Chakras (weekly held in a place called Dhyan Mandir) are preceded by the singing of few Prabhat Samgiita ("Songs of the New Dawn" composed by the Ananda Marga founder) followed by..." So I think that this corresponds quite well with the example of Luther's hymns that you mention. (3) While I understand your point about overly broad standards, I think you can appreciate my concern that, given the current precedent on Wikipedia, the exclusion of a single dedicated article about a widely appreciated collection of 5,018 songs due to some technicalities whereas the inclusion of 10,000 "I wanna" songs smacks of injustice. I am not asking that any "standards" be loosened here. I am only asking that the standards be equitably imposed. Eliminate the article on Prabhat Samgiita when there is anything resembling a corresponding strictness in other directions as well. Until that is apparent, it only comes across as systemic bias and religious discrimination to reject Prabhat Samgiita on some flimsy technicalities that reflect a Western bias and that are not even remotely applied in an evenhanded manner. (4) I respectfully disagree regarding the significance of numbers. Yes, if it were the difference between 5 and 10 songs, then it would not be significant. But when it is 5,018 songs in only 8 years, then that becomes a notable event simply because it could well be a record. But, record or not, people like to know how many songs were written by a composer. So, for example, there is an article on Johann Sebastian Bach, and there is a separate article for the List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach. And that second article begins with the number of compositions rather than any other fact: "There are over 1100 known compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach." Well, there are 5,018 known songs by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. Are these songs as well known as the songs of Bach? Perhaps not. But the real question is only do they deserve a mention on Wikipedia? And my answer to that - given everything else in the musical world that appears on Wikipedia - is why the heck not? Yes, I know you gave your reasons. But I respectfully disagree. And I respectfully cannot conceive of any harm being done to Wikipedia by retaining an article on this subject. Rather, I think it benefits Wikipedia and anyone who may come to Wikipedia to know more about this subject. Merging Prabhat Samgiita as a paragraph in the Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar article (as you have suggested) would only limit the scope for further expansion of this subject, something quite likely to happen in future (if other similar articles on the lifetime work of artists be taken as evidence). --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We need evidence to show these songs are considered important, and that would be helped by showing they are on well-known recordings by notable musicians outside his circle , not one-time performances. The question of whether the songs need be of importance to the general public outside the circle of his group is a difficult one; if you can even show that they are of central importance in their cultural circles, such as Luther's hymns in the Protestant church, that would be something, but the article on Ananda Marga gives no such indication. Even within the context of his work in general, I don't think there's evidence that these are one of his most important accomplishments--there seems to be much more discussion of his philosophy and social views. I am among those who think that the WP consensus on notability of songs is over-broad, and tends to show a great cultural bias towards US popular music, but I would suggest we correct this by decreasing that over-coverage, not expanding it to other areas. I'm also aware of the difficulties of documentation about Indian topics, and am willing to be flexible about our standards, but not abandon them; some things may need to wait until there are adequate locatable reliable sources that fit the concept of this encyclopedia. I need to say that I am very unlikely to give a keep opinion, but I first want to give it a fair chance by guiding you to finding the right evidence: you keep insisting that the number of songs is a criterion for notability , but it isn't. I suggest this might be best handled by a merge into the article on the author--there is already a sentence there about them, and perhaps we could expand that into a paragraph. As a general guide, I think you might do better by not trying to make as many articles as possible, but on making the central articles on the man and his movement stronger, with third party sources that truly meet our standards--this will be much more useful to readers, and better achieve your purpose of increasing our information. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Important Comment:
- I've listed a bunch of secondary sources in the talk page of the article, with a lot of explanation. I've at hand some more sources to add, however I didn't have the time to add them yet. I'm starting again right now.
- Another important note is that there are other offline sources, mainly from India, I'm trying to reach some friends over there so that they can find, locate and inform me. This might take a little while. So please hold on!
- Moreover, there are a lot of controversies going on in here and closing this discussion with whatever result, will be condoning to these actions.
- I was an uninvolved editor until recently. However, I started to be partially involved (in the sense that I'm trying to build more than discuss) as I can not condone such an attack to a religious minority, whatever their belief might be. I'll discuss this issue in the appropriate time, after collecting third-party resources to this article, in an appropriate location.
- The nominator for deletion has voted as Redirect, as you see at the top. This brings suspicion to whether he actually intended to delete or just redirect.
- Given all these sources and controversies at hand, I suggest to postpone the deletion process for a longer period of time. Respectfully, --Universal Life (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MergeI suggest merging and redirecting to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, per User:DGG. Content should be improved and maintained there before considering a separate article. Jujutacular (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Comment Another week is enough to improve content see the talk page of the article. There are many third party sources implementing the importance of the article. And there are more, which I didn't have time to list yet. A week is enough to restructure the article with many third party sources. --Universal Life (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am now OK with keeping this article, given the recent changes. It seems to have expanded to a point that merging is no longer suitable. I would also like to say, this is an unreasonably long discussion. Most of the text is here is completely unnecessary, and only obfuscates the discussion. Jujutacular (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Recording, independent music store, independent review: See Reddish Blossom by Dr. Jyoshna La Trobe. At this page we see an independent review by a writer from the New Zealand Herald. Looking at here, we see that Jyoshna (Dr. La Trobe) has been reviewed on many occasions. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It is unfortunate (I have told in few more AFDs too (not related to Shrii Sarkar's AFDs)) that news medias are more interested in covering news of "public demand". That's why if a film's heroine sneezes, that becomes a news. But, even if a renowned University professor or botanist or zoologist dies that does not excite news medias. It is more or less same everywhere.
Now, I want to show the circumstance first. Since these songs are written in Bengali, the references are also in Bengali language newspapers etc. But, Bengali world wide web has almost nothing and renowned newspapers like Anandabazar Patrika does not store content before 2004-2005! I have seen multiple mentions of Shri Sarkar's works and these songs in few magazines and newspapers like Bartaman, Sangbad Pratidin! But, I don't know from where I can collect these references (now). All I can do is sending emails to these two mentioned newspapers and request them to give us the copies of the news items published in their newspapers. Tell me your opinion on this. Do you suggest me to email them? If you nod, then I say, chances are very low that they'll co-operate. I also had a wish to do a large scale study to work on Shri Sarkar related articles which I could not do due to financial issues! --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- The issue is the independence of the sources. If you think you can find listings for performances not sponsored by RAWA or independent reviews of any performances that would be very helpful. GaramondLethe 19:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is "how"? Are you suggesting me to email those two mentioned newsapers? If so, then two questions/comments 1) there are almost no chance of getting assistance from them if I send email from my gmail.com id (yes, I have experience, I regularly send emails for content permission to sites and organizations, last one is this one, (I) almost never get reply), there are better chances of getting replies if someone from Wikimedia India approaches them from their wikimedia.in email id 2) if we really approach newspapers to provide news article copies from their old archive, why only this article? why not all articles in question? What do you think? Ananda Marga, the international organization could do the work, but, I don't know about them! --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Newspapers maintain an archive of every single addition printed. Driving to their office and asking them for previous editions would be far more helpful than emailing them from wikimedia.in (assuming their offices are in Kolkata). Ananda Marga itself is notable and appears frequently in national media. Not so long ago they were mentioned on national television in connection with Purulia arms drop case. However, it's unlikely that you'll find any book review related to them, even in vernacular media. Though I am more hopeful about a collection of songs. Let's see what you come up with. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 20:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is "how"? Are you suggesting me to email those two mentioned newsapers? If so, then two questions/comments 1) there are almost no chance of getting assistance from them if I send email from my gmail.com id (yes, I have experience, I regularly send emails for content permission to sites and organizations, last one is this one, (I) almost never get reply), there are better chances of getting replies if someone from Wikimedia India approaches them from their wikimedia.in email id 2) if we really approach newspapers to provide news article copies from their old archive, why only this article? why not all articles in question? What do you think? Ananda Marga, the international organization could do the work, but, I don't know about them! --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is the independence of the sources. If you think you can find listings for performances not sponsored by RAWA or independent reviews of any performances that would be very helpful. GaramondLethe 19:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What I glean from the immediately preceding discussion, starting with Tito's "Comment", is an implicit recognition of notability and just some niggling over detailed aspects of mere guidelines that most likely arises only due to systemic bias. Looking at this review in a reputable national newspaper, I can only wonder: Is it really very likely that a renowned singer, Ashwini Bhide-Deshpande, would take the trouble to learn and perform four songs from Prabhat Samgiita (one in Hindi, one in Sanskrit, and two in Bengali) and then never perform any of those songs again except in another concert organized by RAWA? Given the vast number of much weaker-sourced Wikipedia articles in respect to music, is this not an apt place where the fifth pillar of Wikipedia, WP:IAR, should kick in? If not here, then where? Is that fifth pillar just for decorative purposes, or does it have some practical implementation? And if that fifth pillar is employed on occasion, is it trotted out mostly to justify more instances of systemic bias? --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the newspaper article that I used as an example is signed by Acharya Divyachetanananda Avadhuta, who was at the time the Public Relations Secretary for Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha in India. (RAWA does not have a public relations secretary.) But that has nothing to do with my argument. I did not suggest that this article in The Hindu met all of the detailed requirements for a third-party, independent review. We've been through that point about this article already. But, independent or not, it is still a review, and that review is published in the Review section of a prominent national newspaper, The Hindu. And this review contains a photograph, tending to prove that Ashwini Bhide-Deshpande did indeed perform at the event that is reported. I have no idea whether or not Dr. Bhide-Deshpande was paid to perform. Presumably, Garamond has even less idea than I do. But how is that relevant? Professional musicians earn their livelihood by performing. My point was only that if she performed these songs once, then it seems likely that she would perform them again... even if we cannot find any document to confirm it. And my larger point - which Garamond also did not address - was that we should be getting beyond just the very type of niggling that Garamond did here in response to my comment. We already know that he rejects this newspaper article as an adequate secondary source. Repeating the same objection and totally ignoring everything that I said only tends to reinforce my point, which was that, at some stage, Wikipedia must take into account WP:BIAS and offset the uneven standards rigidly advocated by a community of younger, White, male, Western, Christians... like... well, best if I not mention names. The article on Prabhat Samgiita - an oft-performed and oft-reported collection of 5,018 songs produced by a single composer over a period of just 8 years and about which at least 13 books have been written - is a glaring instance where the fifth pillar of Wikipedia, WP:IAR, should apply. There seems to be little doubt as to the notability of the topic. The only question is whether or not we will be able to uncover in this week or the next any specific document that will pass the type of strict muster that some persons seem hell-bent on imposing in respect to the WP article on Prabhat Samgiita but not in respect to other, much less deserving WP articles. --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another review of Prabhat Samgiita: This archive contains a PDF of an article in The Hindu that reviews a 2001 performance of Prabhat Samgiita in Mumbai. Among the performers was Arati Ankalikar-Tikekar. This article is not presented as a press release but rather as an independent review, proclaimed by the bold headline (name of section) at the top of the page. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another independent review of Prabhat Samgiita: This archive contains a PDF of an article in The Hindu written by Ranee Kumar that reviews a 2003 performance of Prabhat Samgiita in Hyderabad. Among the performers were Dr. Seshulatha Kosuru (aka K Seshulatha Vishwanath) and Pandit Vithal Rao. Once again, this article is not a press release but an independent review, not just of the performance but also of the music (Prabhat Samgiita). --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The above is an actual review written by someone who, to the best of my knowledge, is not associated with AM. This is far and away the strongest evidence of notability that has been presented thus far, and I want to congratulate Abhidevananda for his perseverance in tracking this down.
- My remaining concern is that this is an Ananda Marga-sponsored performance of an Ananda Marga-published work. When the "reviews" are also published by Ananda Marga then the lack of notability is obvious (at least to me). Given an independent critiques of the collection of the work or a set of non-Ananda Marga-sponsored performances with independent reviews I think the presence of notability is equally as obvious. For this situation I'm genuinely unsure and would like to see some additional discussion of how this review changes the perception of this work.
- One possible way forward would be renaming the article Performances of Prabhat Samgiita. That completely avoids the questions of self-publication and makes the question of RAWA-sponsored performances less relevant. Additionally, this review directly supports the notability of the performance. Comments? GaramondLethe 19:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- NOPE The subject of Prabhat Samgiita merits its own dedicated article. I have no objection to creating yet another dedicated article specifically for listing "Performances of Prabhat Samgiita". And we could also have a third dedicated article listing all of the "Musicians Who Performed Prabhat Samgiita". But an article in chief on Prabhat Samgiita is well merited, and it should be a precursor for the additional articles that Garamond has now implicitly proposed.
- Let me also address Garamond's remarks about self-publishing. While it is true that all of the songs of Prabhat Samgiita were composed by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, Sarkar did not actually publish any those songs, and he is not publishing them now (more than 20 years after his demise). An organization that Sarkar founded holds the copyright on his music and his literature. Like many similar organizations that hold a copyright on their founder's intellectual property, Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha prefers to publish Sarkar's works in-house. But I do not believe that such type of in-house publishing is comprised within WP:SELFPUBLISH. This is not at all a case of vanity publishing and should not be deemed or treated as such. --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Policy requires a disinterested third party. Ananda Marga publishing does not fulfill that requirement, and neither does RAWA. GaramondLethe 20:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, then say non-independent or non-third-party. Do not say self-published, because that is incorrect. As for the third-party requirements, what I read at WP:THIRDPARTY is (1) "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter." (2) "At least two third-party sources should cover the subject, to avoid idiosyncratic articles based upon a single perspective." I believe that somewhere in the midst of all those newspaper articles that you dismissed as "likely press releases", the few that you did not dismiss as "likely press releases", and all the other assorted material, we certainly must have covered the minimal requirement for a stand-alone article on Prabhat Samgiita. Why not do the decent thing and withdraw your AfD nomination? --Abhidevananda (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, one would think that somewhere in the mountain of citations that has been assembled there would be at least one performance not organized by RAWA. There isn't. Here's what we have so far that may be independent from both RAWA and AM:
- ) An anonymous editorial or letter to the editor.
- ) An inaccessible masters thesis.
- ) A potentially independent album whose single review needs sourcing
- ) Two newspaper articles reviewing separate performances of a selection of songs
- I can be persuaded that the performances are notable, but I cannot see how that notability goes to either individual songs or the thousands of songs that weren't performed. (Yes, the corpus is mentioned in passing in the two articles, but the corpus is not reviewed.)
- The simplest way of establishing notability would have been an independent review of the corpus as a whole, and we haven't found that yet. A much harder way would be a collection of independent performances and their independent reviews. There's one album that might fall in this category but we haven't seen the review yet. And so we're left with two independent reviews of non-independent performances. Taking all that together, in my opinion, doesn't establish the notability of the corpus.
- I'll offer my compromise again. Move this to Performances from the Prabhat Samgiita where you're on solid ground wrt notability and you've have no problem picking up your DYK. Alternatively you can keep trying to convince other editors here that you have the better argument. GaramondLethe 22:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Changing vote to keep and suggesting to consider withdraw nomination after last newspaper scans provided by Ac. Abhidevananda! --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC) the page has become excessively large. Ac. Abhidevananda, could you please make a list of all references you have provided here? You can make the table below --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of references | ||
---|---|---|
Publisher | Title, URL | Comment |
Example University | Example | |
Example | Example | |
Example | Example |
- Tito, I think that's a very good idea. While Garamond is right that there is already an effort by Universal Life to organize that documentation on the Talk page of the article, which is in the process of being rewritten, some of the material there may not have been posted here for consideration in respect to this AfD nomination. Moreover, what has been posted here is scattered throughout a long page, and so the abundance of coverage might not be fully apparent. So I agree with your suggestion, Tito; but I think it would be more efficient to request Universal Life to port that material over to this page. By the way, the rewriting of the Prabhat Samgiita article is looking very good. I think that once this AfD nomination is out of the way, this article will make a very good candidate for WP:DYK. "Did you know that Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar composed 5,018 songs, all within the last eight years of his life?" --Abhidevananda (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not see the talk page link, I thought to collpase all references here and there scattered in this discussion and keep only the table! --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tito, here is the talk page and if you scroll down you'll see as many as 16 secondary sources. I haven't added there yet the latest secondary sources that I've found and that Ac. Abhidevananda has added to this page. However, I'm restructuring the main page; Prabhat Samgiita and I started adding all of them there. I think there'S no sense keeping the deletion tag up anymore, as it has been demonstrated that there are numerous independent and third-party sources about PS. --Universal Life (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Request: Could anyone locate this PhD Dissertion:
Duffin, K. S. (1987). Prabhat Samgiit, Songs of the Dawn: A Study of Music in Modern Indian Society (Doctoral dissertation, Hollins College). --Universal Life (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sweet! Ladies and gentlemen, we have an article! Nice work, Universal Life, that took a nontrivial amount of effort. I don't know if I can get that through interlibrary loan or not but I'll definitely call the university library on Monday and see what I can do. If you would rather have someone else handle it I understand and will stand aside. !vote changed from delete to keep. GaramondLethe 23:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Great. This is great Garamond, finally, it was time :) --Universal Life (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, UL, that change of stance was long overdue. Regarding the Duffin paper that you cited, it appears that it is a master's thesis and not a doctoral dissertation. On the other hand, the good news is that it seems to be available. See Call No. Archives L-3: 1987 Duffin c.2 here. I have also been informed about another published book on Prabhat Samgiita by Dr. Aditya Mohanty from Orissa. I am told that Mohanty's book is based on his doctoral thesis. I have no further information on Mohanty's book just yet. Perhaps by tomorrow. If this AfD nomination is still open when I receive more information, I will post whatever else I learn about that book here. If not, I will post the information at Talk:Prabhat Samgiita. --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh no! I changed my !vote based on this being a Ph.D. dissertation. Dammit, I thought we were done here. Nice catch, Abhidevananda. Well, let's keep digging. The library may have gotten it wrong. I do think we're close. GaramondLethe 06:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Garamond, in my estimation, we passed "close" long ago. Out of curiosity, though, why do you think it makes a difference whether this is a doctoral or a master's thesis? The main point is that it is a published and available academic review (even if no one here may be able to get their hands on a copy in the short term). Here we are not seeking details about Prabhat Samgiita but only establishing notability. At WP:GNG, there is no distinction between a Ph.D and a Master's thesis. Furthermore, what is required are "secondary sources". And at WP:SECONDARY, it is clearly stated that "Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources." So the fact that the various articles in newspapers are about performances organized by RAWA is entirely extraneous. And all of the books about Prabhat Samgiita that are published by Ananda Marga Publications but written by authors other than Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar should qualify as secondary sources pertinent to the establishment of notability. One other point I may mention here. You may recall that DGG indicated that notability might also be established if it could be shown that Prabhat Samgiita has a similar type of central importance in Ananda Marga cultural circles as Luther's hymns have for the Protestant church. I believe that I did indeed establish that point in my response to DGG, and I would be happy to amplify that point if DGG or anyone else is inclined to know more in this respect. So from all of these angles, it is my firm conviction that the notability of Prabhat Samgiita has been well-established here. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As to the difference between a Ph.D. and a Masters, well, first it's policy: WP:RS says "Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Having written one of each I can give you a firsthand account of why this policy is here. A MS need be nothing more than a larger, two-semester term paper. There's not necessarily a requirement for original research, the results are generally not published, there's much less scholarly review of the results and, for all of these reasons, they are cited in the peer-reviewed literature. The Ph.D. dissertation is a multi-year effort with very close review by multiple scholars. It can be published in its own right and is usually the basis for several other peer-reviewed publications. There's also no problem with citing a dissertation directly. I suppose the MS is the last bit of schoolwork and the dissertation is the first bit of scholarship.
- As to Luther's hymns: I don't think Luther's estate owned the publishing company that printed the hymns, nor did it sponsor public performances of them. I also assume there's a fair amount of independent scholarship in that area. You might be able to convince DGG with that line of argument, but I don't think the parallels are close enough to convince me.
- All that being said, you're on the trail of a Ph.D. dissertation and I think I've tracked down the author of the MS dissertation (which might contain cites to earlier academic work). If none of that pans out and we can't think of anything else then you can still have an article on the performances. GaramondLethe 14:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Garamond, I humbly request you to read this. Even though you'll probably say to yourself, why is he sending this link to me for reading, I humbly request you to go through it, even if you don't read all fine prints. And I don't mean to make any point by this, only to remind you of two things. There is no/ there should be no bureaucracy in WP. We are not to abide by guidelines letter-to-letter. Principles are not independent of each other. They are parts of a whole, thus they should apply always in cooperation never losing sight of the fact that the aim is the improvement of WP. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Please, don't loose sight of why the notability guideline exists! The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule. I think, you have lost the elasticity in your thoughts about it, so you're trying to literally apply the rules, without having the larger vision of the improvement of Wikipedia. And honestly, if I was the one being said this, I wouldn't rush to reply, instead I would try to really get the message... as I'm totally writing this in good faith. Conventions in Wikipedia, have some significance, but please don't overestimate that significance, Wikipedia's core principles and its spirit is always and should always be superior to any convention what-so-ever. Friendly --Universal Life (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with all of this, but I don't think you appreciate how I've been putting it into practice.
We have two WP:SPA editors here who are editing untethered to any policy. Both have persistent issues with WP:IDHT and there are ongoing problems of WP:COI, personal attacks, spamming AfD with cut'n'paste diatribes, etc. All of this behavior is against policy. However, as you've pointed out above, we don't have to enforce those policies when doing so doesn't advance the larger goal. And so, at least for the moment, I've let that behavior slide.
That leaves the problem of how to deal with the WP:SOAPBOX that's been constructed. In my best judgement, deleting the obviously non-notable Sarkar articles in batches would get us to the point where we can bring the remaining articles up to compliance. Because of this surrounding context, I am not going to !vote for keeping this article unless notability is obvious and uncontroversial. We don't need another yet another marginal Sarkar-related article. If we do demonstrate notability, great! Then we'll have a solid article that will survive regardless of what else happens with the Sarkarverse, and I've love to use this article as a lever to improve the others.
So, to sum up: I don't mind bending the rules on WP:CIVILITY, WP:COMPETENCE and WP:COI in order to make a better encyclopedia. I don't think in this particular case bending the rules on those as well as WP:NOTABILITY accomplishes that goal.
PS: I may have some good news for you in ~24 hours.
GaramondLethe 22:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (This response is subsequent to my earlier Wow response below. Here I only address GL's latest (indented) remarks that have been tacked on a day later but kept within the ambit of the earlier signature and time stamp.) Given that GL has now changed his vote again (for maybe the fourth or fifth time) - and his latest vote is "Delete" - I would hazard a guess that the potential "good news for you" that he was promising to UL a day ago was actually not good news for UL but rather for GL. And now, oddly enough, immediately following a rant alleging WP:SPA editors in this discussion, GL announces that he has "invited" someone to open a WP:SPA account in order to comment here. But, leaving all of that aside, do we really need to hear from a "subject expert" when that subject expert is clearly not an expert on Wikipedia policies in respect to notability (the only matter that should be under consideration in this discussion)? Certainly not. Though I would welcome any and all commentary on the subject of Prabhat Samgiita, the quality of the compositions - assuming that this is the field of expertise of GL's 'expert' - is not really what we are considering here. In respect to notability, the most important point is that people are commenting on the subject, not whether the comments are favorable or unfavorable. Perhaps it would be better if GL were to "invite" his expert to write an article about Prabhat Samgiita, which GL could then reference in a Critiques section of the Prabhat Samgiita article. --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow GL, most of those remarks have absolutely no relation to this discussion of your AfD nomination on Prabhat Samgiita. Indeed, most of those remarks might well cross the line on what is acceptable in such a discussion. However, when you talk about "deleting the obviously non-notable Sarkar articles in batches", I would point out that "obviously non-notable" is just your opinion, and I would also point out that you apparently considered Prabhat Samgiita to be "obviously non-notable". At this stage of our discussion, I think it is clear to everyone, including yourself, that this is not the case! --Abhidevananda (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep: The nominator has voted keep. --Universal Life (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Three (3) more newspaper articles: Here are three more newspaper articles. They are quite old... from the era of cassettes rather than CDs, I believe. The Hindi article is from Nava Bharat newspaper. The Bengali articles are from Pratidin and Vartaman. If I am not mistaken, all of these newspapers are prominent and reputable. Perhaps the reviewers who wrote the articles are also. Someone else will have to do any necessary translation, as I am not competent for that task. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Some information about these scanned articles In the Pratidin scan (Bengali newspaper), the right-hand cassette features the picture of Ramkumar Chattopadhyaya/Chatterjee, a prominent and popular Bengali singer. His name is mentioned in the 2nd paragraph, 2nd line. The byline on the article is Konad Dasgupta. In the Vartaman scan (Bengali newspaper), the upper right of the six short articles is a review of the same cassette, featuring Ramkumar Chattopadhyaya/Chatterjee. His name is mentioned in the 2nd line. The byline on the article is Pradip Rakshit. The Nava Bharat scan (Hindi newspaper) is similar. In other words, they all review cassettes released by RAWA that feature popular, independent singers. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Details about Cassette: Sarkar, Prabhat Rainjan. "Prane Ceyechi Tomare" (Renaissance Cassette 41). Sung by Ramkumar Chattopadhyaya; instrumental arrangements by V. Balsara. © 1996 by RAWA. Cassette tape. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Information about Ramkumar Chattopadhyaya: Though he does not have a dedicated article on Wikipedia (for reasons unknown to me), he is best known for his performance of Tappa gan and Shyama Sangeet. The former WP article mentions Ramkumar Chattopadhaya prominently in the History section. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another newspaper article: This archive contains a scan of a 1997 news article (byline "Our Correspondent") in the well-reputed national newspaper, The Asian Age. This article is clearly not a press release. The article talks about the release of six (6) audio cassettes of Prabhat Samgiita, sung by noted Indian singers: Ramkumar Chattopadhay, Indrani Sen, Kavita Krishnamurthy, and Sushmita Goswami. This article also quotes Ramkumar Chattopadhyay talking about Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar as well as his Prabhat Samgiita. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another newspaper article: Going back in time, this archive contains a scan of a 1995 news article (byline Parnab Mukherjee), also in the well-reputed national newspaper, The Asian Age. Once again, this article is clearly not a press release. Rather, like the previous article, it is a news report. In addition to reporting the imminent release of state-of-the-art audio cassettes of Prabhat Samgiita, this article also talks about Prabhat Samgiita as a musical genre. Interestingly, the article reports the inclusion of Prabhat Samgiita as course material of the Nikhil Bharat Sangeet Samiti, which appears to be a tertiary educational institution. I quote the second paragraph of this newspaper article: "Prabhatsangeet is the name given to the genre of songs written and composed by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar also known as Sri Anandamurthiji. Prabhatsangeet has also found a place in the curriculum of the Nikhil Bharat Sangeet Samity. A board have been formed to regulate the albums and a detailed syllabus have been drawn. Music personalities like V. Balsara, Ramkumar Chattopadhyay and Madhuri Chattopadhyay, Indrani Sen are involved with the genre." --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is short enough to be reproduced here in its entirety.
Global release of Prabhatgeet soon By Parnab Mukherjee. Calcutta, Dec. 15: Anandamargis are going hi-tech. They ahve decided to launch their new range of Prabhatsangeet audio cassettes, recorded with state-of-art technology globally. The latest Prabhatsangeet album wich will have an international release in January, feature[s] Kavita Krishnamurthy and is currently being remixed at London. Informed sources revealed that the Anandamargis are tying up with National Cassettes to market Prahatsangeet albums all over the state.
Prabhatsangeet is the name given to the genre of songs written and composed by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar also known as Sri Anandamurthiji. Prabhatsangeet has also found a place in the curriculum of the Nikhil Bharat Sangeet Samity. A board have been formed to regulate the albums and a detailed syllabus have been drawn. Music personalities like V. Balsara, Ramkumar Chattopadhyay and Madhuri Chattopadhyay Indrani Sen are involved with the genre.
Priyashibananda Abdhut said: "The songs of Anandamurthiji has gained popularity. We ahve released 16 albums among the devotees and for private circulation. 1,00 [sic] training schools have been established all over the state.
- So we now have Ananda Marga sponsored recordings to go along with the Ananada Marga sponsored books and performances. The school might be a lead, but my first question is going to be whether it is affiliated with AM. This moves me back to a firm delete. GaramondLethe 21:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Very bizarre: (1) I have already explained that the copyright on Prabhat Samgiita is currently held by Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha and that it is the policy of Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha to publish in-house. Hence, there is nothing unusual or irregular to have primarily Ananda Marga sponsored books, performances, and recordings in relation to Prabhat Samgiita. Anything else, without explicit permission, might tend to violate that copyright. (2) The school (Nikhil Bharat Sangeet Samiti) is not associated with Ananda Marga. GL, is there any genuine evidence to that effect... other than your wish for it to be so? (3) Regarding your vote... let's see: Delete => Redirect => Nonsensical compromise => Keep => Not yet speedy keep but close => Firm delete. And what is the cause of the latest shift? A newspaper article that establishes notability. --Abhidevananda (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Films already released that contain Prabhat Samgiita: (1) Namah Shivaya Shantaya (2) PROUT (The Movie) --Abhidevananda (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For those joining in late, PROUT is a sister organization to Ananda Marga. Not sure why a blog is now considered a reliable source. GaramondLethe 07:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]
- This is just misdirection and misinformation, GL. I have already told you at least 20 times that PROUT is a social theory... that there is no organization associated with Ananda Marga called PROUT. There is, however, an organization called Proutist Universal, which propagates PROUT. And there is also an organization called Renaissance Universal - a part of Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha - that propagates PROUT. "PROUT (The Movie)" was produced by Renaissance Universal. Offhand, I don't know who produced Namah Shivaya Shantaya. Presumably, it was RAWA. Again, so what? I was just providing information. You discount the 13 books written about Prabhat Samgiita, because they were published in-house, but I do not. The same goes for films. However, if you look at the next bullet, you will see that I mentioned that that film is completely independent. --Abhidevananda (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Film under production that will contain Prabhat Samgiita: The upcoming feature film, Stars in Her Eyes, directed by Athina Tsoulis (see New Zealand Writers Guild) with Jyoshna La Trobe as musical director (see here), will contain two Prabhat Samgiita songs: (1) Tumi dhara dile (2) Tomare bhalobasi. I have no link to prove that... just some personal correspondence from the musical director, which I can convert to a formal document, should that serve any practical purpose. Note that this film is completely independent of Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha and RAWA. --Abhidevananda (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes it does require further comment, Garamond. I stated that this completely independent film will include Prabhat Samgiita in the soundtrack. I also stated that, if need be, I can get a signed letter from the musical director of the film that this is the case. However, if anyone is not satisfied with my word on this, then s/he may directly contact Jyoshna. She is not hard to find... I see, for example, that she is on Facebook. As to the relevance of this point, it has to do with the nominator's remark (in his nomination for deletion) that Prabhat Samgiita is just an "artifact of a political or religious movement". This proves that Prabhat Samgiita is not "just an artifact" - that it is very much in use in the present day, for example, in this independent film project. --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another newspaper article: This archive contains a scan of a 2002 news article (byline Libini Joy) in the well-reputed regional newspaper, Deccan Herald. This article is not a press release, although an interview of some sort almost surely would have occurred. The article talks at length about Prabhat Samgiita and Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. The article ends with information about an upcoming event in Bangalore to be introduced with a dance production by the Shambhavi School of Dance (not associated with Ananda Marga). --Abhidevananda (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though Garamond thinks that a sentence or even some sentences do not read like a third-party review, the fact is that there is a clear byline attached to the article (Libini Joy), and the article talks at length about Prabhat Samgiita and Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. It is also an undeniable fact that the article ends with a mention of an upcoming performance in association with an independent dance school, the Shambhavi School of Dance. Obviously, the correspondent did research of some sort, perhaps reading statements by others (like Ramkumar Chattopadhyay)... but then isn't that exactly what we also do here on Wikipedia? ? --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And another newspaper article: This archive contains a scan of a 2002 news article (byline AB) in The New Indian Express. This article is not a press release. This Monday news article reports on a "cultural evening organised by RAWA last Saturday [2002-09-07]". The article talks about Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, Ananda Marga, and RAWA (which, it seems, should also have a dedicated Wikipedia article that, maybe, would not be nominated for deletion by Garamond Lethe and his FRINGE/n chums ). Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the article is the remark by the Vice Chancellor of the University of Madras. I quote: "At some point in our lives, we are elevated to great heights through art. Tonight was one such experience." --Abhidevananda (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, RAWA is an affiliated organization of Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha. But the University of Madras is not. And the correspondent who wrote this article (AB) would almost certainly have attended the event as that is how the article is written. So when we read in the article a quotation from the Vice Chancellor of the University of Madras in his closing words after the program, that amounts to a reliable report of an independent endorsement of Prabhat Samgiit by a reputable academic, Rev Fr Dr S Ignacimuthu. --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another newspaper article: This archive contains a scan of a 2002 news article (no byline) in a popular Indian daily newspaper, The Hindu. This article is not a press release. It is a more-or-less neutral report of what took place at a RAWA-organized cultural event in December 2002 at Mumbai's Nehru Centre. Perhaps of particular interest in this news report is the fact that yet another renowned singer, Shruti Sadolikar Katkar, performed three Prabhat Samgiita songs at the event. --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Statement regarding Prabhat Samgiita and the upcoming film 'Stars in Her Eyes': As Garamond Lethe expressed derision regarding the significance of my assertion that two Prabhat Samgiita songs will be included in the soundtrack of the upcoming, independent film, Stars in Her Eyes, I requested a statement from the Musical Director of the film to confirm that fact. Here is the signed statement from Dr. Jyoshna La Trobe that I have just received. --Abhidevananda (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Come on, GL: Did you just make that one up? I've had a look at WP:RS, and nowhere do I find anything like "trivially fails". Here we have the musical director of an upcoming film talking about what will be included in the soundtrack of that film. Surely this is as reliable a source for that information as we can get. Even in the highly unlikely event that these two songs never make it into the final soundtrack, the intention to include them in the soundtrack is itself pertinent to the question of notability for Prabhat Samgiita. Furthermore, as a person holding a doctorate in ethno-musicology, the words of Dr. La Trobe in respect to Prabhat Samgiita do carry weight. Although her words should not be treated as undeniable fact, they are still relevant as expert opinion. Indeed, it seems odd that you would even question such a thing, much less disparage it, after having announced only a day ago that you had canvassed a "subject expert" and encouraged her/him to set up a WP:SPA only for the purpose of weighing in on this discussion. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- GL, we are only establishing notability here. No one has suggested that we write an article based on this one statement or even that we should include this statement or any reference to it in the article itself. However, the fact is that this letter has indeed been published. It was published the moment I pointed everyone to a location on the Web where it has been archived. According to WP:RS: "The term 'published' is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." Here, the question arises as to who or what is a "reputable party". Frankly, I have seen no official definition of "reputable" in respect to Wikipedia. However, this entire matter is such a small point that it is hardly worth arguing about. The only purpose of this document was to establish the intent of the musical director of a film to include some songs of Prabhat Samgiita in the soundtrack of an independent film. I am confident that this purpose has been satisfactorily achieved. --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet another newspaper article: This archive contains a scan of a 2001 news article (byline Srimpy Wadhwa) in The Statesman. This article is not a press release. Rather, it is a detailed and independent review of two cassettes of Prabhat Samgiita released by RAWA. --Abhidevananda (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Argument summations
As we seem to be coming to the end of a lengthy AfD debate, I believe that it is time to start summarizing the evidence presented for deletion or retention of the Prabhat Samgiita article. Additional evidence or comments are, of course, still welcome; but I respectfully suggest that they be placed above this portion of the page. --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize that you are new to the Afd process, so you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Contributing to AfD discussions. WP:AFDEQ indicates that Afds are not to be structured in a format that tallies !votes, and WP:AFDFORMAT suggests that you do not need to bold every new comment. In line with WP:TLDR, it certainly helps others to understand your recommendations when you stay focus and keep your comments brief. Thanks. Location (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the intent was for me to provide a summary so that the unlucky admin who wanted to close this would not be forced to wade through all of the previous comments. However, while this was done in good faith I do see how it could be misinterpreted as asking everyone to re-!vote in the proper box. I prepared a summary of my point of view and will post it here if requested by the (potentially) closing admin. GaramondLethe 00:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For 'delete'
(see above) GaramondLethe 00:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Garamond, I have moved your remarks to the section set aside for your summation. I believe that it will be much clearer for the closing admin if we do not interrupt each other's summations and if we adhere to this structure. As I am now summing up the arguments for keep, I am not inclined to engage in further debate. I completely agree with Jujutacular's remark that this AfD nomination has become "an unreasonably long discussion". --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've restored my comments to the intended section. A summary would have been acceptable if you had summarized. As you're restating every argument you made without addressing any of the criticisms of the argument I suppose we need to continue the conversation. GaramondLethe 17:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For 'keep'
- Prabhat Samgiita as a notable event: The argument against retention is purely on the grounds of notability. To counter that, let us first consider Prabhat Samgiita as an event - the creation of 5,018 songs (and possibly a new genre of music) by a single composer, Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, over a span of just eight years at the very end of his life. For notability of an event, the requirements are set out in detail at WP:EVENT. Prabhat Samgiita meets all of the requirements listed on that page in respect to lasting effects, geographical scope, depth of coverage, duration of coverage, and diversity of sources. To substantiate this point, the following table is only a partial list of Indian newspapers that have reported and commented on aspects of the event. This list is derived from the limited and relatively recent coverage available on the Web as well as clippings that were only rarely collected and preserved. As the event took place between the years 1982 to 1990, there would have been articles on the subject ever since 1982 (31 years). Here, however, we see only articles from the last 12 years, the oldest dating back to 2001. Keeping in mind the great difficulty experienced in regard to collecting information from an underdeveloped non-Western country, this list is impressive. Furthermore, keeping in mind that this list mostly consists of articles from English-language newspapers, we can only speculate as to the amount of material that has come out in non-English newspapers and magazines, but presumably it would be a lot. (Notes: (1) Only newspaper articles are listed in the following table. But there have also been at least 13 books and two master's theses published on the same subject. These are all referenced in the above discussion and at Talk:Prabhat Samgiita. (2) As the subject pertains to music, there have undoubtedly been numerous radio and television programs - not just news reports - that have also covered this subject. Audio-visual media are more suited than the printed word to coverage of an art form. Nevertheless, due to the much greater difficulty of locating and reproducing such coverage, no attempt has been made to do so.)
- --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Prabhat Samgiita as a notable collection of songs: This argument is complicated by the fact that WP:NMUSIC does not seem to cover an entire collection of 5,018 songs. Rather, it covers much less expansive topics - single songs, albums, recordings, composers, lyricists, performers, and the like. Perhaps the reason for this omission is that such collections are very rare; and whenever such a collection is written up in a dedicated article on Wikipedia, no one presumes to nominate that article for deletion. See, for example, Rabindranath Tagore and Rabindra Sangeet. See, for example, Kazi Nazrul Islam and Nazrul Sangeet. So the question naturally arises: What is so different in respect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and Prabhat Sangeet? Leaving aside the fact that Prabhat Samgiita contains literally thousands more songs than both of those other two music collections combined (and avoiding any comment about richness and diversity of melodies), the only significant difference is that someone - or rather some persons - have taken upon themselves the mission to stop what they consider to be the proliferation of Wikipedia articles on topics connected with what they call the 'Sarkarverse' (see User:Mangoe/Sarkar articles). But is that a legitimate reason to reject valid articles - articles that would pass muster without a blink if the author or composer were someone else? No, it is not. Rather, if such discrimination were to be accepted, it would only reflect poorly on Wikipedia.
- Although nothing at WP:NMUSIC directly applies to such a huge collection of songs as Prabhat Samgiita - a collection of songs that some experts consider to have established a new genre of music - still some sections of the guidelines there may have indirect relevance. For example, the section entitled Others lists five criteria for "composers and performers outside mass media traditions". Presumably, if a composer meets any of those five criteria, s/he may be deemed notable. However, Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar meets all five of those criteria. Going up a bit on the page, the final two sentences of the preceding section Criteria for composers and lyricists read: "Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be merged into the article about their work. When a composer or lyricist is known for multiple works, such a merger may not be possible." Here, our situation is the exact inverse of that. We have too much verifiable material and too detailed an article to be reasonably accommodated through merger in the article about the composer, who is known for multiple works. Though the situation is the inverse, the conclusion is the same - such a merger may not be possible (and indeed that is the contention here).
- Finally, to substantiate the notability of Prabhat Samgiita as a collection of songs, here is a table listing notable, independent musicians who have either performed Prabhat Samgiita or commented favorably on it. The table is gleaned from the preceding AfD debate (including the newspaper articles referenced in the preceding table) and Talk:Prabhat Samgiita. Note that no claim is made that this table is in any way complete. No doubt many additional entries could be added in future.
Notable, independent musicians who have performed Prabhat Samgiita or commented favorably on it Musician Performance or appreciation Comment Ramkumar Chattopadhyay Performance and appreciation Also released six cassettes of Prabhat Samgiita (later re-released as CDs) Jyoshna La Trobe Performance and appreciation Also released one independent CD containing Prabhat Samgiita songs and will soon release an independent film with two Prabhat Samgiita songs in its soundtrack Rashid Khan Performance and appreciation Archana Udupa Performance and appreciation R. K. Srikantan Appreciation Shzr Ee Tan Performance Haimanti Sukla Performance Manoj Kumar Performance Ashwini Bhide-Deshpande Performance Kavita Krishnamurthy Performance Seshulatha Kosuru Performance Vithal Rao Performance V. Balsara Performance Sushmita Goswami Performance Shruti Sadolikar Katkar Performance
- In addition to all of these performers, we also see appreciative statements by reputable and independent academics like Rev Fr Dr S Ignacimuthu, the then Vice Chancellor of the University of Madras. Furthermore and greatly significant, the preceding AfD debate reveals that various independent dance schools, music schools, and dramatists have gotten involved with Prabhat Samgiita. Prominent among them are the Shambhavi School of Dance and the Nikhil Bharat Sangeet Samiti, which according to one news report in The Asian Age has included Prabhat Samgiita as part of its curriculum.
- --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A few words about the nomination itself: Let us examine, sentence by sentence - and sometimes clause by clause - the words of the AfD nomination to see whether that nomination has been substantiated.
Has the nomination for deletion been substantiated? Statement in the nomination What the AfD debate revealed The best citation I'm able to find is the one included in the article: a footnote in a historical work on genocide attesting to the existence of this collection. However, we have seen that there are many, many other citations. There are at least thirteen books dedicated to Prabhat Samgiita (including at least one book that appears to be independently written and independently published); scholarly works (master's theses and also a brief mention in a Sohail Inayatullah book, Understanding Sarkar: The Indian Episteme Macrohistory and Transformative Knowledge (Brill, 2002, ISBN 9004121935)); some films (including one upcoming and entirely independent film); and a huge number of newspaper reports (mostly detailing presentations organized by RAWA). What other little commentary exists is not independent... Clearly, the word "little" is erroneous in that clause. And the implied assertion that, for example, none of the many newspaper articles are independent is nothing short of ludicrous. ... and based on this I don't see any way to establish notability. If the nominator's research accurately reflected all of the information that is available, then maybe it would have been difficult to establish notability. But, as demonstrated over the course of this debate, the nominator's research was highly deficient. The above can fit comfortably within the Sarkar biographical article. Perhaps the original article, which was just a stub, could have fit comfortably into the Sarkar biographical article. But it was never intended that the Prabhat Samgiita stub would remain so incomplete. Certainly, the greatly expanded article now being written by Universal Life will not "fit comfortably" inside another article. Moreover, from the AfD debate, it seems reasonable that at least one additional, dedicated article about Prabhat Samgiita be created simply to list RAWA performances of Prabhat Samgiita (per the suggestion of the nominator himself). And, considering Wikipedia precedent, yet another dedicated article could be created simply to list all 5,018 songs within the collection of songs known as "Prabhat Samgiita", referencing the two websites [11] [12] dedicated to Prabhat Samgiita for music and lyrics and the many books that discuss only the lyrics of the songs (see Talk:Prabhat Samgiita). As always: while this collection is certainly an artifact of a 'political or religious movement' I haven't been able to find any independent sources that attest to this collection having influenced such a movement. Clearly, from all of the evidence presented above, Prabhat Samgiita is not just an "artifact". Equally clearly, from all of the evidence above, Prabhat Samgiita certainly has influenced Ananda Marga. It would be absurd to imagine otherwise. Given the amount of evidence available - much of it easily found by a Google search - it is somewhat surprising that the nominator was not able to find any independent sources attesting to that influence. As seen in the AfD debate, many newspaper articles have reported independent sources remarking not merely on the influence of Prabhat Samgiita in respect to Ananda Marga but indeed on the entire field of music and even potentially on all humankind. Regarding the words at the beginning of the nominator's sentence, "as always", those words merely reflect the nominator's predisposition to reject any achievement of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. Likewise, Sarkar is a minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements... The claim by the nominator that "Sarkar is a minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements" stands in stark contrast to what other, presumably more knowledgeable persons have stated. For example, Johan Galtung, who - unlike the nominator - has no doubt taken the trouble to inspect some of Sarkar's works, stated: "Sarkar is so much deeper and more imaginative than most. He is an intellectual giant of our times." Former President of India, Giani Zail Singh, stated "P. R. Sarkar was one of the greatest modern philosophers of India." Leonardo Boff stated: "The Indian master P. R. Sarkar, who did more than thirty years of studies and practical concrete work with the poor of India, is very important for all who yearn for a liberation which starts from economics and opens to a totality of personal and social human existence." I could list other testimonials, but I believe the point is made. The nominator was only expressing a gratuitous opinion. ...and as such his life and works have not been a common subject of academic study. From all of the discussion in this debate, I think it is clear that (1) there has been a lot more academic study of Sarkar's works than the nominator acknowledges (2) that there may be reasons other than the nominator's opinion that Sarkar was just a "minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements" that might have impacted the amount of "academic study" that has been carried out to date.
- --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A few final words regarding consensus: This AfD debate has been going on for 16 days now. During the course of this lengthy debate, only three persons have modified their position. One of those three is the nominator himself. His vote changed four times: Redirect (assuming that is a valid initial vote by a nominator for deletion) → Unacceptable compromise → Keep → Not yet speedy keep but close → Firm delete. Other than the nominator, the only other two persons to change their position were Tito Dutta and Jujutacular. In both of those cases, the change was in favor of 'keep'. In light of this fact - and keeping in mind the likely predisposition of some voters here (whether pro or con) - it seems that a clear consensus by impartial editors has been expressed, and that consensus is for 'keep'. --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, some of this is wrong and the rest of it is misleading, and all of it has been discussed before. To point out just one example: "a collection of songs that some experts consider to have established a new genre of music". What experts? Where did these experts publish their opinions? I certainly remember seeing this claim in multiple newspaper puff pieces, but there have been zero citations to independent experts discussing this work at that level of detail. (That would establish notability, btw.)
- So what we have here is the Sarkar version of the Gish Gallop. Yes, it's possible to go through and point out every error in the above (again). Writing that would not be a good use of my time and reading it would not be a good use of the admin's time. Instead, I'll just point out that notability can be established with a single cite, and if you need more than three then you probably don't have a notable topic. At this point, you're relying on a non-independent performances and recordings of non-notable songs to establish the notability of a collection of several thousand additional songs, most of which have never been performed. And that's why you need
two[three!] table's worth of citations. Pick any three citations and it's trivial to take apart the argument. Add another thirty and it certainly looks impressive, even though the thirty have the same flaws that impeached the first three.
- So what we have here is the Sarkar version of the Gish Gallop. Yes, it's possible to go through and point out every error in the above (again). Writing that would not be a good use of my time and reading it would not be a good use of the admin's time. Instead, I'll just point out that notability can be established with a single cite, and if you need more than three then you probably don't have a notable topic. At this point, you're relying on a non-independent performances and recordings of non-notable songs to establish the notability of a collection of several thousand additional songs, most of which have never been performed. And that's why you need
- But perhaps that's a way forward. Instead of
two[now three!] tables, give me your best three cites and why they establish notability. I've shown I'm willing to change my mind, and I'm still willing to change my mind. Ananda Marga-sponsored publications are right out, of course, as are Ananda Marga-sponsored performances and recordings (and yes I mean RAWA). Masters dissertations are out, of course, as are Ananda Marga press releases. I believe that leaves you with a handful of newspaper puff pieces. So pick your three best and let's see what kind of argument you can make from quality rather than quantity. GaramondLethe 08:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Restored to intended section. GaramondLethe 17:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But perhaps that's a way forward. Instead of
*Speedy keep: the sources on the article are more than enough.--Anta An (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)— Anta An (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 23:26, 13 February 2013 (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 Neohumanism. This is a long-winded debate, and closure is far overdue. Having gone through the discussion, I find that the delete side have made a good argument against the notability of the book when they point out that the book itself has not been the subject of many reviews. While the philosophical ideas in the book have been deemed notable enough for the article on neohumanism, it is well-established Wikipedia practice that the notability of one topic does not automatically make related topics notable (often shortened to "notability is not inherited"). As such, the rationale that "neohumanism is rated mid-importance, therefore this book that introduced neohumanism must be notable too" is fallacious. There have been numerous assertions in the discussion that the book is notable or important, but very little evidence of the sources needed to pass the notability guidelines. All the arguments of notability support the non-controversial viewpoint that the theory is notable.
I will again ask that people participating in AFDs avoid prefacing their comments with "Note to closing admin" because everything in the AFD debate is a note to the closing admin. There is no need to highlight your note in particular. In this case the AFD debate contained a long argument against the deletion process, calling it "censorship". To this I will answer that arguing that topics are non-notable is not censorship, and regarding the other points in that comment I refer to the section of the ATA essay WP:EVERYTHING.
However, there is not all that much support for outright deletion either, and at least two of the participants who advocated deletion have alternatively called a redirect and/or a merge as an option. Other editors have supported merging as well. They argue that the book is mentioned in the neohumanism article, and that is a meritorious enough argument.
The current article contains an infobox while most of the body text is a listing of the chapters. I cannot really see much here worth merging, and will therefore simply make this a redirect, but the article history will not be deleted so people can merge parts of the content as they see fit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism
- The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yet another self-published book by the prolific Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. No discussion of the book in the peer-reviewed literature (and only quoted four times), no reviews, and no notability. As I mentioned in another AfD, while this collection is certainly an artifact of a "political or religious movement" I haven't been able to find any independent sources that attest to this collection having influenced such a movement. Likewise, Sarkar is a minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements and as such his life and works have not been a common subject of academic study. GaramondLethe 19:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete as nom.
- As nominator, it is assumed you support deletion - no need to also "vote".--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Sarkar; still short of notability. It's impossible to develop neutral non-fringey content without sufficient coverage by independent sources. bobrayner (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Neohumanism - no need for a separate article, but could be covered there. Robofish (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; as usual. History2007 (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I don't believe that there is anything unusual or problematic in having a separate Wikipedia article about the landmark book for a new philosophical theory that has been rated as "Mid-importance" on the Philosophy portal project's importance scale. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism has not been rated as mid-importance on the Philosophy portal project's importance scale. It has not been rated as anything. Are you thinking of a different article? Notability is not inherited. bobrayner (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I was speaking English. I haven't yet figured out what language Bob Rayner speaks. Let me know, Bob, and I will try to translate for you. And, by the way, Bob, the book that sets out for the first time a new and notable philosophy is hardly an apt example of inheritance. But, hey, even if this were an apt example of inheritance, had you actually read the very reference that you dogmatically asserted as support for your position, you would have seen the following statement: "Three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances." So there is no rule on Wikipedia that absolutely rules out notability based on inheritance as you perhaps wrongly imagine. --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Landmark books" get reviewed. This didn't. If you dig up a review in an independent, reliable source I'll cheerfully withdraw the nomination for deletion. GaramondLethe 14:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Garamond, I would agree that landmark books do generally get reviewed... at least in some form or another. And, in this respect, "Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" is no exception. But where I disagree is with your unfounded segue from landmark books getting reviewed to the assumption that only a review by an "independent source" (whatever that subjective concept means) is a valid review to establish a "landmark" quality. It would be naive to assume that reviews of books published and sold in-house (as is the policy for all of Sarkar's books) will be as common or as seemingly "independent" as reviews of books published through commercial publishing houses. So, for example, we read Dr. Marcus Bussey writing on Page iv of the introduction to Neohumanist Educational Futures: "As Sohail Inayatullah has acknowledged the sources and inspiration for this book, I would like to offer three credits of a different nature. The first is to Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar (1921-1990) who first developed the idea of neohumanism articulated in this text. His first discourses on neohumanism as a general reframing of the social were given in 1982..." Those 1982 discourses that Dr. Bussey refers to were published as the book, "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism". Are Marcus Bussey and Sohail Inayatullah reliable sources by Wikipedia standards? Absolutely. Does Marcus Bussey confirm that "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" is a landmark book? Clearly, he does. So then all we have to worry about are the trifling questions as to whether Bussey's remarks constitute a "book review" and whether he is "independent". I submit that those are not critical issues under the aforementioned circumstances. But, given our earlier communication, I do not expect that you will concede this point... or, indeed, any point that I have made. Should that be so, let the record reflect that between us there is no consensus.--Abhidevananda (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Gasp: "the book isn't listed in worldcat". Then maybe the book that everyone is talking about here doesn't even exist! To be serious for just a single sentence, this type of remark by you, Garamond, tends to expose the absurdity of a one-eyed over-reliance on secondary sources by Wikipedia (or by some Wikipedians). In any event - and returning to my usual, more lighthearted demeanor - Garamond, will you ever grasp the message about spelling that I tried to convey to you at another one of your frivolous AfD nominations, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prabhat_Samgiita? Have a look here on WorldCat. Hmmm... I think I'm starting to understand the real reason why your four academic papers, mentioned at yet another one of your frivolous AfD nominations here, were not deemed notable by Wikipedia. You might be a secondary source. At a stretch, you might even be considered independent. But your words are really not very reliable. --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see The liberation of intellect--neo-humanism (1999) by "Ānandamūrti". Is that Shrii Shrii Anandamurti? Ah, yes it is. Nice catch! GaramondLethe 18:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a "catch", Garamond. And I suspect that you already knew what I have pointed out, because even before I could post my response you had struck out "the book" and replaced those words with a specific name of the book in quotation marks. Regrettably, as stated in my latest comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prabhat_Samgiita, it is getting very hard for me to maintain the assumption that your words and actions are in good faith. --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Editor's long comment & note for the closing Admin.: for nearly a month the same group of users is proposing the deletion of dozens of articles I had written on WP. All articles belonged to the vast literary production of a single author. Let's suppose that some articles were poorly written, or that others were even not very encyclopedic. But that all articles can be proposed for deletion by a single group of users with various excuses seems to me absurd and suspicious. WP was born to spread the totality of human knowledge, not only a part of it. Everyone is invited on WP to cooperatively create/maximize/improve new articles not to delete them. Deleting an article should only be an exceptional case and not a way of working of a group of editors. Censorship is an ancient art. I am experienced enough in history to be able to say that. Some expert users on WP are not involved at all in the hard task of building new articles but in the relatively easy job of deleting many of them. Using bureaucratic quibbles as a weapon to censor/delete the encyclopedic representation of the part of knowledge that they simply don't like or don't understand.
- Instead of devoting their energies to increase the number of new articles, literally they chase you all around WP, analitically examining your talks and articles to find loopholes or a reason to stop your editing if they don't agree with the contents. What I am saying are not chatter in the wind: you can easily check it by just doing an analysis of the historical contributions of many "deleters". Hundreds of hours used in inconclusive, furious quarrels, personal attacks, angry deletions reserved for the "enemies", many "good tips" and very, very few or no new articles at all.
- My opinion is that this is the best way to kill WP: if everything will remain so many editors will go away one after another. At the same time the increasing volume of human knowledge will require in the near future an increasing number of editors... Thanks.--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not interested in spreading the totality of human knowledge, if by that you mean "everything that anybody thinks they know", but it aims to providing reliable and encyclopedic information. If Sarkar's books are not discussed by other authors in reliable sources then how can we spread reliable information about them? How can we know whether the books are true, or nonsense? --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Colapeninsula. Yes, it is true that according WP guideline and in order to make WP a more reliable encyclopaedia, we need to use reliable sources and provide encyclopaedic information. However, it's not so true that Sarkar's books are not discussed by other authors in reliable sources. Yet many off them are offline and non-English sources as Sarkar happens to be an Indian and happens to have originally published his books in non-English languages such as Bengali and Hindi. We should not let systemic bias to come in the way of our better judgement. Google hit counts are not always so reliable to establish notability. And we should not let a bunch of old editors systematically target and try to delete or undermine a bunch of articles, just because they happen to be related to an ideology or religion, that they do not like; especially if those articles were so recently created in good faith by newbies that don't know the rules much. They could be tagged for citations, notability etc and those who made the deletion requests could have tried to better the article themselves or try to explain those willing how to do it. If still, after sometime there was no betterment in notability and better sourcing, neutral language etc. they could be tagged for deletion, but not 8 of them at the same time! And they should not have done propaganda here and there, this and that noticeboard to canvass more people to vote. These are not good faith edits and this is part collaborative effort to destroy all articles related to the ideology of Sarkar, done by gaming the system. This kind of stuff, simply should not happen in Wikipedia. More experienced people should not game the system, against newbies who, naturally, make mistakes, that could be corrected. Friendly --Universal Life (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not interested in spreading the totality of human knowledge, if by that you mean "everything that anybody thinks they know", but it aims to providing reliable and encyclopedic information. If Sarkar's books are not discussed by other authors in reliable sources then how can we spread reliable information about them? How can we know whether the books are true, or nonsense? --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep: for the reasons above.--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a clear non-notable subject, the arguments that are provided in favour of keeping don't seem to be based on WP:NBOOK, as there is no substantial independent reliable coverage to be found, or referred to, anywhereI've been totally convinced by Abhidevananda and his helpful reference to another encyclopedia that we should accord the same treatment and Merge to neohumanism - this would be consistent with the specialist encyclopedia, perfect solution ---- nonsense ferret 21:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: (1) Regarding the notability of the subject matter of this book, as I mentioned in my Keep vote, it has been assigned Mid-importance on the Philosophy portal's importance scale. So, clearly, someone considers the subject to be notable. (2) Regarding "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism", it is the foundation of Sarkar's philosophy, neohumanism. As such this book has clearly made a significant contribution to a significant political or religious movement (per WP:NB). (3) This book is mentioned in at least two third-party, independent reviews by Helen Crovetto. In her chapter of James R. Lewis's "Violence and New Religious Movements" (2011, Oxford University Press), Crovetto writes: "In The Liberation of Intellect: Neo-Humanism (1983), Sarkar did not limit himself to humanistic concerns and defended the developmental rights of animals, plants, and even allegedly nonsentient entities such as rocks. Likewise, Ananda Margiis consider themselves to be broad-minded universalists." With this one statement, she both discusses this book and implies that this book has made a significant contribution to a significant political or religious movement (again, per WP:NB). Furthermore, Helen Crovetto also wrote a separate article dedicated specifically to Sarkar's neohumanism. That article is: Crovetto, Helen. 2005. "Ananda Marga’s Tantric Neo-humanism", published as pages 47-49 of the "Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature", ed. Bron Taylor, New York: Continuum International. Unfortunately, I currently do not have access to the "Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature", but it would be virtually impossible to write a two-page treatment of Sarkar's neohumanism in a scholarly publication without referencing the book under discussion here, "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism". Anyone here with access to the "Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature" may kindly confirm this point if they have any doubt about it. So I think that notability of this book is well-established by any standards, including even the strictest interpretation of Wikipedia standards. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I just did a better google search for the section on neohumanism in the "Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature". By good fortune, this time I was successful (see here). As expected, "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" is prominently mentioned. It comes up in the second sentence of Crovetto's remarks. I quote: "Ananda Marga is a contemporary Hindu Tantric sect with an international following of several million people. Their animal- and plant-rights philosophy, called Neo-Humanism, is based on a book of the same name written by P. R. Sarkar (1921–1990)." So, once again, it is my contention that this book fully meets the notability requirements of WP:NB and that the AfD on this book should be roundly rejected. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are quite right, that sounds like a great argument for giving the book the same treatment in this encyclopedia - so we should give it a mention in an article about neohumanism and no need to have an article of its own - exactly like that encyclopedia - seems like a reasonable solution to me ---- nonsense ferret 15:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- NF, Thank you for acknowledging notability here and adjusting your vote. However, I don't believe that you make a strong case for merger. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It has 4,000,000 articles of very wide variety. The "Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature" is a printed book that has only 1,000 articles in particular niche. So, for example, general humanism gets various mentions in that encyclopedia, but it has no separate entry in it. Would you eliminate the Humanism article from Wikipedia on that basis? That other encyclopedia does not seem to have many separate or even semi-separate articles for books. "The Quran" is a separate article, but the "New Testament" - while set apart - is labeled as an extension of Christianity (Christianity 3). So the two encyclopedias - Wikipedia with its 4,000,000 articles and this printed encyclopedia with its 1,000 articles - are not highly comparable, and I did not intend to make any comparison. I think it would be absurd to try to restructure Wikipedia along the same, substantially different model that the other encyclopedia uses. I merely cited that other encyclopedia as proof of notability for the book (in accordance with WP:NB). Wikipedia has separate articles for books and even has guidelines on which books are deserving of such an article - guidelines which "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" now clearly satisfies. So there is no justification for merging this book article with any other article. Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, compelling such a merger under these circumstances is also not supported by Wikipedia policy... especially if the main ground seems to be that the "Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature" does not contain a separate article for this book. So I stand on my point that "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" clearly meets the standard of notability set out in WP:NB; and, as such, the nomination for deletion of the article on the book must fail. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it amply demonstrates that if such a specialist encyclopedia cannot find the material and the notability for a separate article on this book, then a general encyclopedia like wikipedia won't either. The onus is on you to establish it is notable, and this reference to the book doesn't represent substantial coverage. Very interesting that you say that the other encyclopedia doesn't have an article on humanism - you are right to mention this as it clearly undermines the credibility of this as a source even further - well spotted. You have failed to establish that this books is notable, therefore the article must be deleted in its current form - it might be appropriate to merge into neohumanism as a source there, but certainly doesn't have notability of itself and should be deleted otherwise. From the other contributors, it seems we are developing a good consensus on this point. ---- nonsense ferret 17:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, NF, but I don't follow your logic. I would say that if even a specialized encyclopedia found this book to be notable, then a more general encyclopedia - with 4,000 times more articles in it - should welcome an article on this book. As for consensus, it is not a mere vote count. What I see here are two distinct positions, each of them argued on the basis of policy. However, the argument against a dedicated article on this book is weaker than the argument for a dedicated article, because the former argument must establish that this book does not meet any of the five criteria of WP:NB (including #3 "a significant contribution to a significant political or religious movement) and that there are no third party reviews of the book that Wikipedia deems to be independent and reliable. But I have nullified both of those arguments with the two articles that I just cited. --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be under a misapprehension that there is a burden of proof on those who think that the article is not notable. In fact it is for those who believe it is notable to establish this fact. You have thus far failed to put forward a convincing argument here - there has been no substantial coverage provided such as an indepth critical review of the book - I'm sure people would certainly change their minds if such coverage were to be produced as has been noted by one of the other editors above. ---- nonsense ferret 18:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, NF, but I don't follow your logic. I would say that if even a specialized encyclopedia found this book to be notable, then a more general encyclopedia - with 4,000 times more articles in it - should welcome an article on this book. As for consensus, it is not a mere vote count. What I see here are two distinct positions, each of them argued on the basis of policy. However, the argument against a dedicated article on this book is weaker than the argument for a dedicated article, because the former argument must establish that this book does not meet any of the five criteria of WP:NB (including #3 "a significant contribution to a significant political or religious movement) and that there are no third party reviews of the book that Wikipedia deems to be independent and reliable. But I have nullified both of those arguments with the two articles that I just cited. --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it amply demonstrates that if such a specialist encyclopedia cannot find the material and the notability for a separate article on this book, then a general encyclopedia like wikipedia won't either. The onus is on you to establish it is notable, and this reference to the book doesn't represent substantial coverage. Very interesting that you say that the other encyclopedia doesn't have an article on humanism - you are right to mention this as it clearly undermines the credibility of this as a source even further - well spotted. You have failed to establish that this books is notable, therefore the article must be deleted in its current form - it might be appropriate to merge into neohumanism as a source there, but certainly doesn't have notability of itself and should be deleted otherwise. From the other contributors, it seems we are developing a good consensus on this point. ---- nonsense ferret 17:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- NF, Thank you for acknowledging notability here and adjusting your vote. However, I don't believe that you make a strong case for merger. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It has 4,000,000 articles of very wide variety. The "Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature" is a printed book that has only 1,000 articles in particular niche. So, for example, general humanism gets various mentions in that encyclopedia, but it has no separate entry in it. Would you eliminate the Humanism article from Wikipedia on that basis? That other encyclopedia does not seem to have many separate or even semi-separate articles for books. "The Quran" is a separate article, but the "New Testament" - while set apart - is labeled as an extension of Christianity (Christianity 3). So the two encyclopedias - Wikipedia with its 4,000,000 articles and this printed encyclopedia with its 1,000 articles - are not highly comparable, and I did not intend to make any comparison. I think it would be absurd to try to restructure Wikipedia along the same, substantially different model that the other encyclopedia uses. I merely cited that other encyclopedia as proof of notability for the book (in accordance with WP:NB). Wikipedia has separate articles for books and even has guidelines on which books are deserving of such an article - guidelines which "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" now clearly satisfies. So there is no justification for merging this book article with any other article. Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, compelling such a merger under these circumstances is also not supported by Wikipedia policy... especially if the main ground seems to be that the "Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature" does not contain a separate article for this book. So I stand on my point that "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" clearly meets the standard of notability set out in WP:NB; and, as such, the nomination for deletion of the article on the book must fail. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are quite right, that sounds like a great argument for giving the book the same treatment in this encyclopedia - so we should give it a mention in an article about neohumanism and no need to have an article of its own - exactly like that encyclopedia - seems like a reasonable solution to me ---- nonsense ferret 15:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, NF, I am not under a misapprehension here. WP:NB clearly states: "A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:...3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." I have presented two different reviews published in two different sources - entirely third-party and independent - that both indicate that "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" has "made a significant contribution to a significant political or religious movement". I could go further and point out that the entire system of education for all Ananda Marga schools - from kindergarten to university - is now commonly described as neohumanist education. We are talking here about many hundreds of schools. Neohumanism is not just taught in the Ananda Marga primary and secondary schools, but is also offered as a course of study by the Philosophy Department at the Ananda Marga College. All instruction in neohumanism is based on "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism", which is the primary text for that philosophy. Hence, item 4 of WP:NB is also met: "4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." I might point out here that item 4 has a footnote that reads: "This criterion does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science." This footnote perfectly describes the nature of "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism". Hence, in accordance with points 3 and 4 of WP:NB - two points, not just one as is all that is required - a presumption of notability has been firmly established. --Abhidevananda (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm having some difficulty reconciling some of the things you have said - perhaps if you can provide some independent reliable sources to clarify and verify your claim this might help - now you say that "The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." but on 5 November 2012 you seemed to say that neohumanism is only taught formally at the "university level" at the college Ananda Marga gurukula Talk:Neohumanism. Is there a reliable source which provides details of this course, including the accreditation, content and level of study. That you assert this may be taught in one single college (which seems to have quite a small number of students and is there specifically to promote this movement) seems a long, long way away from establishing that the book is the subject of instruction in multiple colleges/universities. Indeed I have as yet been unable to establish whether the book even meets the threshold for WP:NBOOK in terms of the number of library holdings of the book. If it turns out not to meet this, then it would be quite unsafe to try to establish a case on these guidelines. The consensus does seem to be coming together around merging to Neohumanism - now that I've researched this subject even further however, I feel that it might need to be renamed to Neohumanism (Sarkar) as the theories of Paul Kurtz could possibly be established with the greater notability, not to mention M N Roy - perhaps the most accurate is the Ananda Marga Yoga Society. Also, I think there seems to be some confusion regarding what would constitute a critical review - a mention of the book cannot really be said to be a review as far as I can see. ---- nonsense ferret 01:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- NF, you do see the word "formally" in the quotation from me that you quote but oddly leave out of your quotation marks? Neohumanism is a subject of instruction, but I do not claim that there is a dedicated course on that subject except at the college/university level. So my point at Talk:Neohumanism was that the subject of "Neohumanistic education" - which had been introduced by another editor as a section of the article on Neohumanism (the theory) and which talked mostly about kindergartens - might better be addressed in an article on the Ananda Marga education system. Nevertheless, I ended my comments that you have very selectively quoted with the following: "For the record, I am not necessarily opposed to a section on education in the Neohumanism article. But that section should amplify the understanding of neohumanism as a theory/philosophy and not merely promote Ananda Marga schools or particular authors as a means toward that end." I should add here that the remark you quote was about the first version of the article. That article was subsequently rewritten, and a section on Ananda Marga schools was - and currently is - included in the Neohumanism article here. As for your remark about the Ananda Marga college being "there specifically to promote this movement", that allegation is totally false. Kindly substantiate that remark or withdraw it. --Abhidevananda (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge and redirect to Neohumanism. Fails WP:NBOOK. I agree that significant secondary source coverage is required for a stand-alone article. The assertion has been made that this exists, but I don't see it. The target Neohumanism has enormous issues in that it is built on almost exclusively primary sources, but that can be dealt with separately. The arguments here are almost identical to those voiced in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neohumanism in a Nutshell and in many other recent Afds concerning articles developed by Sarkar's proponents. Location (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neohumanism and Notability of the Ananda Marga education system (often referred to as "neohumanist education"): I add here this important link (suggested by Abhidevananda in one of the several AfD proposed to delete from WP all the articles related with Shrii P.R. Sarkar and His vast production). See here. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Try clicking 'Refresh' after you get that error. --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Refreshing it gives a list of other books covering similar titles; my concern still stands. To show that "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" is notable or important in some way, you need sources which discuss "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism", not lists of other books with similar words in their titles. bobrayner (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism is the book in which Sarkar sets out in detail his vision of a new humanism - a neohumanism. That same neohumanism in turn inaugurated a wave of new thinking in respect to not just education but also future studies. At least the first 12 out of the 15 scholarly articles on that page - and no telling how many articles on the succeeding pages - are inspired by and, no doubt largely based on, what Sarkar wrote in The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism. Accordingly, that list of scholarly articles - flippantly dismissed by Bob Rayner as just "titles with similar names" - actually establishes the notability of The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism beyond a shadow of a doubt. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This archive contains a signed statement from Cathy Lee, Director of the Sunshine School in Laos. Her statement testifies to the fact that both "A Guide to Human Conduct" and "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" are core material in respect to the training of teachers and the curriculum imparted to the Sunshine School students. Over the coming days, I expect to receive more documents testifying to the same effect. --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a signed statement by Mary Anne Lovage, Head Teacher of the Sunrise Nursery and Primary School in London. She talks about the international educational trust that her school is part of, and she testifies to the importance of the two books, A Guide to Human Conduct and The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism in their teacher training. --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep:With all the evidences above and through the points 3 and 5 of WP:Notability Books and also because it's in the curriculum of many schools from kindergarten to university degree all over the world, I say keep. --Universal Life (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: a well written article of an important indian phylosopher. We can improve it without deleting it.--Anta An (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC) — Anta An (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Merge to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar While the information in the article has some encyclopedic value, the book is not sufficiently notable for a standalone article. Miniapolis 15:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The question of notability has been answered with regards to the notability of the person of P.R. Sarkar. Additionally, the book makes a significant contribution to a political/religious movement as per WP guidelines - establishment enough by Crovetto's work, and as standard curriculum for AM education. All clearly stated. Unfortunately, the systemic bias issue within WP continues to rear its ugly head. As has been noted, plans to list AfD on all things Sarkar are afoot. Hard to AGF even with a merge. --DezDeMonaaa (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The man was notable enough. We all agree about that, but his works should not be listed separately unless they are proven to be notable, too. Where are the truly independent sources in this case? I have not found them per WP criteria. I have, however, found the ubiquitous sockpuppet here. Again, a reasonable solution would be to summarise the content of this article on the main Sarkar page.--Zananiri (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Summation of arguments for Keep
As demonstrated by the table below, The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism greatly exceeds Wikipedia requirements for notability. Only one out of the five criteria listed at WP:NBOOK must be satisfied. The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism satisfies not just one but three of the criteria.
WP:NBOOK Criteria Satisfied by The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism Criterion Compliance References 3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. As stated earlier, The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism is the landmark book that comprehensively sets out Sarkar's philosophy of neohumanism, rated by WikiProject Philosophy at "mid-importance on the project's importance scale". Naturally, this book is also referenced numerous times in the article on neohumanism. As the neohumanism of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar embodies the universal outlook to be cultivated by all members of Ananda Marga, the mission founded by Sarkar, this book has undeniably made a significant contribution to that significant religious movement. Neohumanism, Ananda Marga, Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar 4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. As evidenced in the preceding discussion, this book is indeed the subject of instruction at multiple schools. It is the very source for the name of and philosophy behind the education system adhered to by all of the many hundreds of Ananda Marga schools around the world. Signed statements by the in-charges of two prestigious schools, one in Laos and the other in London, as well as links to various websites connected with Neohumanist Education [13] [14] [15]. Additional evidence may be provided, but this already meets the criterion for "multiple" schools, and there does not appear to be any dispute on the number of Ananda Marga schools that maintain such a course of study. 5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. This argument was recently advanced by a Wikipedia administrator, J04n in the failed AfD nomination on Discourses on Tantra (Volumes 1 and 2). Though the book was different, clearly this argument has equal impact in respect to other books. When J04n's assertion was questioned by the AfD nominator on that book as well as this book, I seconded the position of J04n with the following remarks: "I can understand Garamond's doubt as to the historical importance of Sarkar, based purely on what he can find in Western academic circles. However, the life of Sarkar was extraordinary - for example, he underwent seven years in jail on trumped up charges, with more than five years and four months fasting in protest of being poisoned in jail - and during that same time, his organization spread like wildfire around the world. Furthermore, Sarkar's contributions reflect progressive novelty in more areas of individual and collective life than any other historical figure that I am aware of. Philosophy, socioeconomic theory, spiritual practices, music, dance, cosmology, ontology, science, history, ethics, and much, much more - Sarkar covered them all. One need not agree with everything that Sarkar said to appreciate such an achievement. One simply needs to understand that these achievements were not mere dabbling. At the very same time as Sarkar was giving his 5,018 songs of Prabhat Samgiita, he also gave 26 original volumes of books on philology (Shabdha Cayanika) and spent many hours in organizational meetings regarding service work around the world - meetings that took place four times each day (seven days a week). So, yes, I think that Sarkar's works meet criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT, and I am amazed that anyone would concern themselves so much to seek the deletion of such articles. After all, this is a virtual encyclopedia. We are not killing trees or eating up a great amount of any other precious resource by providing accurate and neutral articles on a subject that may be of interest to readers of Wikipedia. Okay, these articles might not accumulate the greatest number of hits on Wikipedia. But so what? Wikipedia still provides a service to the public by making this information available, especially when any of these books are not yet cited in Garamond's "peer-reviewed literature". Criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT and WP:IAR are tailor-made for a case like this." I stand firmly by those remarks. In the words of J04n, "The historical significance of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar renders all of his works notable." Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Discourses_on_Tantra_(Volumes_1_and_2)
- --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you establish that the thresholds for using WP:NBOOK were met in terms of the number of library holdings - I haven't seen this mentioned by anyone yet? --nonsense ferret 12:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Worldcat knows of only 8 libraries with a copy. Garamond Lethet
c 13:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- And this is exactly the type of picayune argument that I addressed with the remark about WP:IAR. We already know about WP:BIAS, so I have to wonder how many languages did Garamond search in? For example, did he search for the Hindi title or the Bengali title? Does Worldcat have a thorough index of Hindi and Bengali libraries. And, if so, did Garamond search in those languages. And even if only 8 libraries are covered instead of 12, does the difference of 4 libraries mean that the Fifth Pillar of Wikipedia, WP:IAR, would not apply? --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not complicated, surely if you have links to evidence of the necessary holdings you can just provide them here and we can get this particular aspect cleared up quickly? --nonsense ferret 14:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right, NF - it is not complicated. Your buddy, Garamond, has himself pointed us to a library in India that is not cataloged by WorldCat but has a copy of The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism. See the section entitled Some comments below. --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not complicated, surely if you have links to evidence of the necessary holdings you can just provide them here and we can get this particular aspect cleared up quickly? --nonsense ferret 14:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And this is exactly the type of picayune argument that I addressed with the remark about WP:IAR. We already know about WP:BIAS, so I have to wonder how many languages did Garamond search in? For example, did he search for the Hindi title or the Bengali title? Does Worldcat have a thorough index of Hindi and Bengali libraries. And, if so, did Garamond search in those languages. And even if only 8 libraries are covered instead of 12, does the difference of 4 libraries mean that the Fifth Pillar of Wikipedia, WP:IAR, would not apply? --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Worldcat knows of only 8 libraries with a copy. Garamond Lethet
- Did you establish that the thresholds for using WP:NBOOK were met in terms of the number of library holdings - I haven't seen this mentioned by anyone yet? --nonsense ferret 12:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of arguments for delete/merge
There are a number of well rehearsed arguments that have been made here for merging or deleting the article (and can also been seen in arguments concerning other books within the "sarkarverse" such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neohumanism in a Nutshell where a consensus was found for merging the article to neohumanism. It must be added that a consensus is not necessarily one that everyone agrees with. The arguments can be summarised as follows, no doubt I will have missed some, so please do not read this as detracting in any way from the very strong arguments that have already been made in favour of merge or delete.
- In-depth coverage of the book by independent sources outside the sarkarverse is simply not found. The book is part of a closed 'sarkar-verse' within the terms of WP:FRINGE no significant coverage outside of those with a direct interest in the movement such as it is.
- The argument has been presented above that the book makes "a significant contribution to a notable ... political or religious movement." and "the book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." The case for this high level of 'so historically significant' has just simply not been met by any evidence produced so far. We have statements from admitted supporters of Sarkar that he is very significant, but there is no evidence of very indepth coverage from totally independent sources outside of the "sarkar-verse" to attest to this.
- No independent evidence in reliable sources has been provided that this book is the subject of instruction in any university or school. Very specifically it is stated that lessons at a very small number of schools follow neohumanist principles, but this is very far from establishing that the book is actually used as the subject of study. There is a small Ananda Marga degree college (which is affiliated to a local University) and it is said that there is a specific course in neohumanism available there - no evidence of this has yet been provided, but it is submitted that even if this were true, as a college within the sarkarverse, it clearly does not meet the general acceptance within "academia" as a subject fit for study which is what the priniple of WP:NBOOK is establishing.
- The argument is made above that " We are not killing trees or eating up a great amount of any other precious resource by providing accurate and neutral articles on a subject that may be of interest to readers of Wikipedia. Okay, these articles might not accumulate the greatest number of hits on Wikipedia. But so what? Wikipedia still provides a service to the public by making this information available, especially when any of these books are not yet cited in Garamond's "peer-reviewed literature"". This argument involves a number of points which are used time and time again to try to avoid the deletion of articles on subjects which are not notable. These are in fact recognised fallacies. WP:USEFUL The argument that WP has plenty of space for articles -"we are not killing trees", and it will do harm to have this article that there is little public interest in outside the "sarkar-verse" is widely recognised as not a valid argument. This sort of fallacious reasoning could be used for keeping anything in wikipedia. WP:NOHARM "Wikipedia is not the place to seek publicity for a cause, product, individual, ideology, etc." Wikipedia is not here to provide publicity for books that have not been reviewed in peer-reviewed literature, that is an erroneous conception of what Wikipedia is about - it does not exist to promote things to the wider world that are not well known outside of their own fringe universe. WP:VALINFO
- There is no evidence yet provided that the book even meets the threshold library holdings required for considering WP:NBOOK as relevant. Even if this is provided, as noted above reliance on the guidelines is likely to fail, but without this evidence, arguments based on WP:NBOOK should not even be entertained.
- The main supporter of keeping this article "as someone who frequently gives lectures on the subject of neohumanism" would of course greatly wish it to be kept, why the issue of this apparent conflict of interest within the terms of WP:COI isn't mentioned more surprises me greatly, but this is a side issue and shouldn't detract from the fact that the arguments made for keeping this article fail completely on their own merits.--nonsense ferret 13:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal
- In a lengthy statement, NF only managed to address one of the three criteria for notability that I put forward - Criterion 5 (historical significance of the author) of WP:NBOOK. Naturally, here a subjective evaluation is required, and so perhaps this is the easiest of the three arguments to dispute. However, I would refute NF's claim that this argument (Criterion 5) is made only by "admitted supporters of Sarkar". I pointed everyone to an AfD debate where this argument was put forward by a Wikipedia administrator, who absolutely is not - to the best of my knowledge - an "admitted supporter of Sarkar". I have not seen any evidence that J04n has ever done any editorial work on a Sarkar-related article in Wikipedia, and I have no reason to believe that he is a member of Ananda Marga.
- NF mentions Criterion 3 (significant contribution to a significant religious movement), but NF merely lumps Criterion 3 together with Criterion 5 and then only argues against Criterion 5. NF says nothing at all to counter Criterion 3. The fact is that - even though there is also a subjective element to Criterion 3 - the evidence for Criterion 3 is nevertheless overwhelming.
- Regarding Criterion 4 (subject of instruction at multiple schools), we don't need to consider any subjective elements. This book definitely satisfies that criterion on objective grounds. Presumably, that is why NF completely ignored this criterion (and presumably that is why another critic, CP, added stringency to the criterion that is in no way found at WP:NBOOK).
- As to the rest of NF's arguments - threshold levels, etc. - has NF or Garamond searched the records of the National Library of India, and, if so, did they search in all of the various languages of India? Presumably not. Furthermore, the threshold standards that NF asserts are also just guidelines. WP:NBOOK clearly states: "There will be exceptions—books that are notable despite not meeting these threshold standards—but they will be rare and good reasons for the notability of such books should be made very clear." That is exactly what has been done in the table above.
- Given the fact that NF did not so much as address two out of three of the main arguments put forward for keeping this article (Criterion 3 and Criterion 4 at WP:NBOOK), NF's final claim that "the arguments made for keeping this article fail completely on their own merits" is entirely unsubstantiated. Rather, it is just empty rhetoric. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on rebuttal
- That further statement really fails to be worth of the name rebuttal, and I'm happy for people to judge the arguments made and summarised on their own merits. No new evidence was, or should have been introduced by the summaries above, it is not the point of summaries just to try and grab a grandstanding opportunity to have the last word, and if there is a place for rebuttals it should clearly be next to the original arguments. I'm happy that any independent commentators will judge these arguments fairly, and am quite well aware that nobody will convince someone that has a clear WP:COI which is precisely one of the reasons why they are discouraged from contributing to articles on subjects where there is a conflict.--nonsense ferret 16:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- NF, I did not realize that you had somehow become the official or the dominant spokesperson for Garamond Lethe's AfD nomination. Pray tell, how did that happen, and how was I to know that this is the case? But if that were so, and we were going to adhere to formalities, then why did you and Garamond add comments under my summation, thereby setting the example that I merely followed? Why did you censure me on this matter and not also Garamond - and indeed yourself - for the same and prior conduct? And why must I suffer repeated personal attacks from you at this stage of our debate? COI, grandstanding, wanting the last word? A bit more civility and assumption of good faith would be appreciated here. Finally, if we were going by formalities, then certainly you should have presented your summation before mine. Typically, at the close of a debate, the person or team affirming the motion (in this case, a nomination for deletion) would speak first. The person or team negating the motion would speak last. But, anyway, my remarks had nothing to do with grandstanding, having the last word, or any kind of formality. I merely asserted my right to point out that your "summary of arguments" failed to address 2 out of 3 of my main points - 2 out of 3 of the criteria of WP:NBOOK that I had cited - and yet you asserted that "the arguments made for keeping this article fail completely on their own merits". Neither you nor anyone else supporting this AfD motion have presented adequate arguments to make such a grandiose claim. --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "If you can't pound the facts, pound the law. If you can't pound the law, pound the facts. If you can't pound either, pound the table." Garamond Lethet
c 20:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen. ('Where they start burning books, they will end in burning human beings.) — Heinrich Heine, from his play Almansor (1821)" DezDeMonaaa (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be on to something there. Do you know of anyone who has tried to ban (or burn) this book? That would be a strong indication for notability. I've not seen anything to that effect, which leads me to believe that no one cares enough about this book to try to suppress it. (Please don't try to make an argument that removing articles dedicated to self-published, non-notable books is suppression. You may do what you like with your own printing press, but that does not mean you can do what you like with printing presses that don't belong to you.) Garamond Lethet
c 20:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hilariously, Garamond, you miss the point. There is no printing press. Expansion of articles is necessary for the health of WP regardless of the subject matter, or the relative obscurity of any given topic. Notability has been established and continues to be established. Information is what is important for the masses. Let them decide what they choose to inform themselves about in the manner in which they choose. I am not accusing you of censorship, only of being a bit small minded with regards to the role of WP (not the subject matter at hand - though you may be about that as well. :)) You yourself said you weren't notable enough for WP despite having been published, etc. Well why the hell not? Might be just the necessary medicine to relieve what sounds like a case of bitterness, huh? :) DezDeMonaaa (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As the policy stands obscurity is highly relevant, see WP:EVERYTHING and WP:DUE --nonsense ferret 18:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be on to something there. Do you know of anyone who has tried to ban (or burn) this book? That would be a strong indication for notability. I've not seen anything to that effect, which leads me to believe that no one cares enough about this book to try to suppress it. (Please don't try to make an argument that removing articles dedicated to self-published, non-notable books is suppression. You may do what you like with your own printing press, but that does not mean you can do what you like with printing presses that don't belong to you.) Garamond Lethet
- "If you can't pound the facts, pound the law. If you can't pound the law, pound the facts. If you can't pound either, pound the table." Garamond Lethet
Some comments
- No one mentioned this, however I strongly opine that a philosophy on humanism has nothing to do WP:FRINGE. Nonsense Ferret, I do not understand how you are able to include this within Fringe. Moreover, this has already been done, citing music and art as fringe by two other editors, in the failed deletion discussion on Prabhat Samgiita.
- A second comment, is that, unfortunately, I'm observing that many editors are not assuming good faith any more, thus preventing a consensus to be reached. However this should not be so surprising, given the fact that the same group of people consequently nominated 12 or more articles for deletion and voting as a block, with people that they had mostly canvassed from the fringe noticeboard.
- So, anyone coming from that noticeboard. I would like to assure you with all my honesty that this is not an ordinary fringe issue. I, personally as a scientist, know well what fringe is. And that some of the articles related or linking to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar had/has some fringey-looking content is not a valid reason for us to assume immediately that anything related to Sarkar is fringe. (That would be inheritance of fringe, which after my research area that included inheritance of epigenetics, would be an interesting one to research.;) ) So, I'm asking to anyone that came from the Fringe noticeboard, to please keep an open mind. Friendly, --Universal Life (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is arguing here that this is a fringe issue. The issue for this book is its lack of notability. Garamond Lethet
c 20:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Garamond - more than happy for you to reword my summary above in any way you see fit, if it doesn't quite meet with your understanding of the arguments. I hoped it would be helpful to provide the summary, but very keen not to have misrepresented anyone. --nonsense ferret 20:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- NF: On the contrary, you've argued this better than I could have. But just for sake of clarification, I understand you to be arguing that the lack of notability is a result of Sarkar's writings being WP:FRINGE. I think UL would rather argue whether or not Sarkar's work should be considered fringe. I'll grant that point for sake of this discussion in order to keep the focus on notability: both fringe and non-fringe self-published book that have no independent review or discussion need to establish their notability some other way, and you've done an excellent job summarizing why none of the potential standards of notability have been met for this text. Garamond Lethet
c 21:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- NF: On the contrary, you've argued this better than I could have. But just for sake of clarification, I understand you to be arguing that the lack of notability is a result of Sarkar's writings being WP:FRINGE. I think UL would rather argue whether or not Sarkar's work should be considered fringe. I'll grant that point for sake of this discussion in order to keep the focus on notability: both fringe and non-fringe self-published book that have no independent review or discussion need to establish their notability some other way, and you've done an excellent job summarizing why none of the potential standards of notability have been met for this text. Garamond Lethet
- No one is arguing here that this is a fringe issue. The issue for this book is its lack of notability. Garamond Lethet
- Strong Keep: after reading all the arguments proposed in this AfD I am more than convinced of the notability of this fundamental book on the holistic philosophical theory elaborated by Shrii Sarkar and part of the philosophy of the Ananda Marga movement. For this reason I change my vote.--Cornelius383 (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- University of Calcutta Philosophy Syllabus: I would assume that if anyone would know about the significance of this work it would be the professors in the philosophy department of the University of Calcutta. They have helpfully laid out the complete course of study for an undergraduate philosophy degree, complete with recommended reading. Page 29 lists the course of study for "Contemporary Indian Philosophers". There's Swami Vivekananda and Rabindranath Tagore and Sri Aurobindo and of course Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. The "Suggested Readings" lists 44 additional books. No book by Sarkar, including this one, makes the cut. Garamond Lethet
c
01:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it seems that Sarkar is too modern for the University of Calcutta's concept of "contemporary", which apparently only includes people who died no later than 1950 (almost 65 years ago). But then, Garamond, are you arguing that if one university does not have this book in the syllabus of its undergraduate philosophy course, then that somehow overcomes the fact that hundreds of other schools up through the tertiary level do? And why bring us a syllabus from a "state-government administered" institution, when you know full well that the organization that Sarkar founded, the organization that sells this book, has been in conflict with the state government of West Bengal up until very recently? (Only in May of 2011 did Mamata Banerjee and her All India Trinamool Congress party finally wrest power from the Communist Party of India (Marxist), long under the direct control or tutelage of Jyoti Basu.) Surely, Garamond, you know all of this politics, as even this week itself you have been engaged in edits to a minor Wikipedia article on the Bijon Setu massacre in Calcutta. --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still waiting for independent, reliable sources for these hundreds of schools. A syllabus such as the one I've provided would be ideal. Garamond Lethet
c 03:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still waiting for independent, reliable sources for these hundreds of schools. A syllabus such as the one I've provided would be ideal. Garamond Lethet
- Good grief, Garamond! Are you really questioning whether the system of education referred to as Neohumanist Education, established by the same Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar who authored this book, operates in accordance with the ideals set out in this book? Pretty soon you will have us parsing the meaning of the word "is". --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm questioning how many schools there are, their accreditation, and whether or not the text in question is actually used. Do you have a list of Ananda Marga schools? I haven't been able to find one. Garamond Lethet
c 05:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm questioning how many schools there are, their accreditation, and whether or not the text in question is actually used. Do you have a list of Ananda Marga schools? I haven't been able to find one. Garamond Lethet
- Four questions, four answers: (1) How many schools are there? "Multiple" is what what has to be demonstrated for notability purposes, and "multiple" has been established per the two signed letters that were uploaded for inspection. (2) Are the schools accredited? Yes, per the documentation that I provided. (3) Is the text in question actually used? Though the book is not a textbook nor was it ever intended as such (per WP:NBOOK Criterion 3 footnote 5), yes, the book is used, as demonstrated by the documentation that I uploaded as well as the very name of the system of education. (4) Do I have a list of Ananda Marga schools? No, I do not. However, if you want more information about this matter, including a sampling of schools around the world, you could look here. As you seem to be an American, perhaps you might be interested in the website of the Progressive School of Long Island. --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm more than happy to let the notability decision rest on the above. Garamond Lethet
c 14:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm more than happy to let the notability decision rest on the above. Garamond Lethet
- But this book is in the library of the University of Calcutta: Leaving aside the irrelevant undergraduate syllabus from the University of Calcutta, let's have a look at the library of that same university. Interestingly, it does contain a copy of Sarkar's The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism. (Run a Boolean search with Title contains "Liberation" "Intellect" and "Humanism" here.) Could it be that WorldCat does not tabulate information from the University of Calcutta? Easy enough to check with a search here. Result: "Sorry, we could not find any libraries for 'University of Calcutta'... Only libraries that have created a profile in the WorldCat Registry are listed in the library search results." --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2013 (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. MBisanz talk 00:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
James Carter (New Orleans)
- James Carter (New Orleans) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced, promotional, resume-like treatment of an individual who has only been the subject of limited press coverage, all within New Orleans as far as I can see. A previous version of the article included references, but even then didn't clearly pass WP:GNG. (And it's a bit WP:WAX, but New Orleans city councilmen don't tend to have articles.) --BDD (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Other New Orleans (Orleans Parish) Council members are in Wikipedia. Their constituencies are larger than those of legislators, who are included. Why delete this one? Rammer (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of WP:BIO, specifically WP:POLITICIAN. If you mean state legislators, they're almost always notable as "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." A politician who hasn't at least held any sort of statewide office needs to meet WP:GNG, which I don't think Carter does. --BDD (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete, has received multiple mentions in multiple reliable sources, however none I would consider meet significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. Therefore, I have to go with deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per my standards for lawyers. He appears to me to be fairly notable on the local scene, but not beyond that. I'd like to have more information, i.e., a leading editor (managing editor, editor-in-chief, executive editor, president) of a law review or journal at an accredited law school, moot court competitions, bar association activities, Inns of Court, etc. He's not a tenured, full-time law professor. He's a city councillor. I could be convinced to "keep" if there were more facts that show notability. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2013 (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of Trent Barton bus routes
- List of Trent Barton bus routes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has no sources other than the company website and has been tagged as unreferenced for the last year. There can be no guarantee that the information will be kept updated as changes are frequent. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and people are better getting the most up to date information from the company site. The article fails WP:N, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Charles (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just a split-off from the main Trent Barton article because the list was too long to include in it. This is fine the way it is. I do think you are being most terribly vindictive when it comes to bus routes. Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 19:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have to agree with Charles here on WP:NOTDIR. For me it's just an amalgamation of this paragraph on the Trent Barton page and a list of bus routes on the company's website [16] with intermediary stops. My first port of call would be the company's website if I wanted to find out bus times/routes, not Wikipedia. Funny Pika! 19:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For those who do still choose Wikipedia as their source for bus routes, there's List of bus routes in Nottinghamshire and List of bus routes in Derbyshire. Both those pages should cover Trent Barton's bus routes, making this article a rather redundant content fork. Funny Pika! 20:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 03:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 00:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is no real reason why it would be useful to anybody, as some have already said, they could more effectively use the company's website. Additionally, I'm not British; but I've never heard of Derbyshire, so it might not meet notably guidelines. I'm also thinking that it could serve as an unconcious ad to get people to ride the bus there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LM103 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unencyclopedic. This list only includes current routes, which are no more of encyclopedic interest than past routes (which themselves are not really encyclopedic), and listing by operator isn't really even useful enough to transwiki to Wikivoyage. --Michig (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2013 (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. MBisanz talk 00:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Wilson (criminologist)
- Andrew Wilson (criminologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have marked this article for deletion because the author does not seem to pass the notability test for academics, or for that matter the general notability tests. In particular, the article has no secondary sources and there is no evidence in the contents of the article that the author has made a significant impact within their discipline. The article has been marked for two-and-a-half years as failing the WP:ACADEMIC tests and no one appears to have added anything in that time that justifies retaining this article. That said, this is the first time I've nominated an article for deletion and it's only based on my reading of the two cited guidelines.144.82.171.231 (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am completing this nomination on behalf of the above IP editor, using the rationale posted on the article talk page and at WT:AFD. I remain neutral. jcgoble3 (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete [17] Gscholar h-index of 4, which is insufficient for WP:PROF#C1, and there appears to be no other claim to notability. RayTalk 10:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. The citation counts for his papers that I'm seeing on Google scholar are in the teens, not enough to convince me of a pass of criterion #C1. And the total lack of third-party sourcing in the article is also a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2013 (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. MBisanz talk 00:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lois Ann Fairley
- Lois Ann Fairley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While this person seems to have had a role in forming a regional nursing association, I'm not sure that meets our notability threshold. Others may disagree. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The person is notable sir. As what you have said, she had a role in a regional nursing association. She is notable for most of her works sir in the Canadian society, to the Ontario society to be exact. An award was also named after her for enormous contributions to patient care and nurses rights. For me, she is notable and that is backed up by credible and notable references. Though quite few, I think those are enough to merit her notability.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 18:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - just wanted to note that there was an obituary in the Windsor Star 20 July 2007, NEWS p.A3 - I didn't see that reference in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonsenseferret (talk • contribs) 21:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-- This nomination lapses from the advice of WP:BEFORE. I added the following references, from 1974, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1985 -- which show that Fairley was a notable leader, whose comments were regularly sought. I am always profoundly disturbed when a nominator drafts a vague nomination like this one -- where a red-linked talk page shows they made zero effort to use the talk page to express their concern. Nominations, like this one, which are vague, and don't cite a specific policy, lapse from the widely accepted advice of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It would have been far better if the nominator simply voiced their concern on the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Gord Henderson (1974-07-15). "Angry Nurses Seeking Support". Windsor Star. pp. 51–4. Retrieved 2013-02-04.
Mrs. Lois Fairley, who represents the Ontario Nurses Association in the tri- county area, said the demonstrations are part of province-wide effort "to ...
- "Hospital Officials Disappointed Over Cutback Order". Windsor Star. 1976-01-09. p. 60. Retrieved 2013-02-04.
Lois Fairley, representative of the local Ontario Nurses Association with (ON 1.000 registered nurses in more than four city hospitals, said she didn't know ...
- "Chronic Cases Said Cause Of Hospital Bed Shortages ". Windsor Star. 1977-04-07. p. 60. Retrieved 2013-02-04.
At least 40 to 50 chronic patients are occupying active beds in Windsor's four hospitals and are contributing to a shortage of active beds, Lois Fairley, President of the Ontario Nurses' Association said Wednesday.
- Chris Zdeb (1979-11-05). "Nurses: Overworked, understaffed". Windsor Star. Retrieved 2013-02-04.
Lois Fairley, a past president of the Ontario Nursing Association and a head nurse of a medical/surgical ward at Grace Hospital, asks the question but isn't sure of the answer. It's like sitting on a time bomb, she says, and nurses are afraid patients may die because they haven't the time -- or the expertise -- to handle an overloaded roster of duties.
- Chris Vander Doelen (1985-11-23). "Cutbacks at clinic deplored". Windsor Star. Retrieved 2013-02-04.
"I think it's really a bad move, and I think it's going to affect the community," said Lois Fairley of the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, which has grieved the change.
- just to clarify, are you claiming that this falls within "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." under WP:BIO ---- nonsense ferret 14:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Geo Swan, I think it has long been agreed that a person is not notable for merely appearing in the press when part of their role is to act as a spokesperson. That said, I don't put much effort into looking for sources when dealing with paid editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense-ferret, Ms Fairley was one of the founders of, and as an early president of, an important union. Am I asserting Ms Fairley's years as founder of and President of an important union -- combined with having an annual prize named after her, are sufficient to establish notability? Yes. Geo Swan (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- just to clarify, are you claiming that this falls within "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." under WP:BIO ---- nonsense ferret 14:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sufficient coverage to meet our notability guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2013 (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 Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. MBisanz talk 00:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PROUT in a Nutshell
- PROUT in a Nutshell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This 26-volume collection of the speeches of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar is cited moderately often in the peer-reviewed literature when a quotation from Sarkar is required, but I've not been able to track down any discussion of the collection itself that would establish notability. I should probably add that while this collection is certainly an artifact of a "political or religious movement" I haven't been able to find any independent sources that attest to this collection having influenced such a movement. Likewise, Sarkar is a minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements and as such his life and works have not been a common subject of academic study.
GaramondLethe 17:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete or merge as nominator. I wouldn't object to a redirect to the Sarkar article. GaramondLethe 17:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC) as nom.[reply]
- As nominator, it is assumed you support deletion/merge - no need to also "vote".--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This is a remarkably weak nomination. The nominator effectively admits notability in almost every sentence of his nomination: "cited moderately often in peer-reviewed literature", "player in 20th C. Indian religious movements", "a subject of academic study". That anyone would actually nominate 26 volumes of work for deletion on the basis of so many explicit or implicit admissions of notability only tends to call in question the many other AfDs that have been recently submitted - and amazingly pushed through - all of them connected with Sarkar's books. So I vote Keep... for the very reasons stated in Garamond's AfD nomination. --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Those points concern the notability of Sarkar. This is not an AfD on Sarkar. It is on "PROUT in a Nutshell", and notability is not inherited. bobrayner (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Two points, here, Bob. (1) The first point was not about Sarkar but rather about the series of books under consideration here. (2) All three points were raised by the nominator and not myself. If two of those three points are indeed irrelevant, then the nominator should not have mentioned them. In that case what we come up with is simply the nominator conceding that these 26 volumes are "cited moderately often in the peer-reviewed literature". That admission makes this AfD nomination appear frivolous. But why don't we save everyone a bit of time and trouble here? I am willing to stipulate that all of Garamond's and your compadres at Fringe/n would or will cast a Delete or Redirect vote here. And I am even willing to predict - not stipulate - that some Wikipedia admin will come here after seven days and simply tally the votes, ignoring the fact that there is no consensus and that the nominator's remarks only prove that the nomination should not have been made. Let's not waste our energy putting lipstick on this pig. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point in my academic career, a handful of months removed from the end of my postdoc, I have four papers with 50+ citations (two where I'm first author). None of these papers are notable (in the wikipedia sense of that word) because the citations are referencing the ideas in those papers, not discussing the papers themselves. PROUT in a Nutshell has ~25 citations, all of which are referencing the ideas in the book and not discussing the book itself. If you can get the wikipedia notability guidelines changed to take citations into account, great! Until then notability is established by independent, reliable publications discussing the work. GaramondLethe 14:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon me, Garamond, but I don't think that sour grapes regarding your four papers is a bona fide justification for an AfD nomination on an article about a series of books (21 volumes, I believe). But, hey, I wish you well in your academic career. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; still short of notability. It's impossible to develop neutral non-fringey content without sufficient coverage by independent sources. bobrayner (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; as usual. History2007 (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Editor's long comment & note for the closing Admin.: for nearly a month the same group of users is proposing the deletion of dozens of articles I had written on WP. All articles belonged to the vast literary production of a single author. Let's suppose that some articles were poorly written, or that others were even not very encyclopedic. But that all articles can be proposed for deletion by a single group of users with various excuses seems to me absurd and suspicious. WP was born to spread the totality of human knowledge, not only a part of it. Everyone is invited on WP to cooperatively create/maximize/improve new articles not to delete them. Deleting an article should only be an exceptional case and not a way of working of a group of editors. Censorship is an ancient art. I am experienced enough in history to be able to say that. Some expert users on WP seems not involved at all in the hard task of building new articles but in the relatively easy job of deleting many of them. Using bureaucratic quibbles as a weapon to censor/delete the encyclopedic representation of the part of knowledge that they simply don't like or don't understand.
- Instead of devoting their energies to increase the number of new articles, literally they chase you all around WP, analitically examining your talks and articles to find loopholes or a reason to stop your editing if they don't agree with the contents. What I am saying are not chatter in the wind: you can easily check it by just doing an analysis of the historical contributions of many "deleters". Hundreds of hours used in inconclusive, furious quarrels, personal attacks, angry deletions reserved for the "enemies", many "good tips" and very, very few or no new articles at all.
- My opinion is that this is the best way to kill WP: if everything will remain so many editors will go away one after another. At the same time the increasing volume of human knowledge will require in the near future an increasing number of editors... Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: for the reasons above.--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. Does not appear to pass our book guidelines, but a redirect makes sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, 3 February 2013 (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 Restored as per Dr. Blofeld, below. If someone does wish to recreate an article at this title, please discuss somewhere (WT:AFD, WP:REFUND, or the like) before removing this redirect. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rhodri Giggs
- Rhodri Giggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He may be the brother of ryan giggs but doesnt given him enough notability to have his own page Telfordbuck (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The page was redirected long ago, we know he doesn't meet professional requirements. AFD unnecessary as the article shouldn't even be there. I've put it on my watchlist.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:50, 29 January 2013 (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 Berea City School District. (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 11:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Grindstone Elementary
- Grindstone Elementary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Propose merging into the Berea City School District article or deleting. Most elementary schools, such as this one, do not warrant a standalone article for the limited content available that can be cited. GoneIn60 (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Elementary schools don't typically have their own article.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 22:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I have come to agree with Astros. — ṞṈΛ 03:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the school district, which is standard procedure for elementary schools. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Berea City School District. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with redirect to Berea City School District. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2013 (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) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Georgina Bülowius
- Georgina Bülowius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:BIO. She is an art history student who participated in a reality show. I quote Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Knappik (participant of the same reality show but not just a student) "reality show participants are not considered inherantly notable here even if they garner some press as BLP1E kicks" Petr Ferreira (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as article creator, as the subject clearly meets WP:GNG. Of course I thought it through before I took the time to create this article, I wouldn't spend my time on it otherwise. But I noted the recent creation of the subject article on de.wikipedia and it being listed among the most popular articles on that wikipedia in this last week (68,000 views in days). The nomination is simply incorrect that "she participated in a reality show." She has participated in at least four "reality shows" in Germany over the past few years (and will soon appear in one more), with so much German media coverage that Stern has noted she is the "German Paris Hilton." Of course, not every (nor many) run of the mill single-show reality contestant merits an article. Sarah Knappik is a different person who received less coverage, even if the delete close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Knappik was iffy (and it was kept at de.wiki despite their penchant for deletion over there).--Milowent • hasspoken 17:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She meets WP:GNG, as shown by refs in article and in German version. The rules excluding reality TV stars are for those who're not famous beyond their participation in one show. She has been on multiple reality shows, and done other things attracting press interest. She could be compared to British celeb Jade Goody, who had a similar career based largely on reality TV. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A comparison with Jade Goody is even as absurd as a comparison with Paris Hilton. Their entries on the Internet Movie Database have the hundredfold size. The deletion discussion in German Wikipedia still runs and it seems that they do not think that she is as notable as Sarah Knappik. I also count just two reality shows which have an entry in the Internet movie database or Wikipedia and not four. --89.187.142.72 (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The German press compare her to Paris Hilton, not us. The de.wiki deletion discussion is a mess because its filled with commenters disgruntled that she is so popular in Germany (one of whom likely joined en.wiki just to start this deletion discussion, as he probably did for the Knappik discussion). But even there, there are many "behalten" (keep) votes. Her appearances include the German Bachelor, German Get Me Out of Here, I'm a Celebrity, and at least 2 proseiben channel appearances prior to that (Teen Cruise season 2 being one). It also includes Celebrity Dinner and Celebrity Boxing (IMDB is not a reliable source for such things., always.) But this is not a counting exercise, you can't discount the continuing pervasive coverage of her in German media.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - based on the coverage in reliable sources. Personally, I don't understand the fascination with these pseudo-celebs who are famous for being famous, but there's much in this world I don't fathom. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation from http://www.kirkrichards.com/bio.htm JohnCD (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirk Richards
- Kirk Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is basically an autobiography copy-pasted from the person's personal home page. A Google search, Google Scholar, or Google News Archive don't find anything about the person. He is mentioned in one book about painting along with two other people which IMO is not enough for notability. --Farzaneh (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:52, 30 January 2013 (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. MBisanz talk 00:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
William Gardner (knight)
- William Gardner (knight) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This person probably did not exist. See the article talk page for discussion. Essentially it seems that the creator of this article, User:Lonewolfcg, made a lot of articles about people called Gardner, many of which have already been deleted. A now defunct web-page speculated that a soldier named William Gardner killed King Richard III AND that he was the same person who married Helen Tudor and became the father of cleric Stephen Gardiner. It seems that these are all different people and that there is no evidence whatever that any of them killed Richard III (or anyone else). This has become a minor case of "I read it on Wikipedia" syndrome, as some mainstream newspapers repeated the William Gardner tale after the recent discovery of the body said to be Richard's. An article in the journal The Ricardian (see article talk page) demonstrates that this William is a bloated conflation of multiple medieval Gardners. None of these are notable on their own. Paul B (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. 17:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 17:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I think he did exist, but not in the form described in this article. Unless someone is prepared to take the trouble to research the subject fully, it is better to delete it than leave it as stands - at least that will be a warning to others in the future. Deb (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Humm, yes, let future Gardners be warned! Yes there were several Billy Gardners, but there's no evidence any were knights. There may have been a halberdier called Gardner (though there seems to be zero evidence for this) and there's no evidence he killed anyone. There was certainly a London businessman and a Bury-St-Edmunds cloth-merchant. Different people, neither notable as far as I can see. Were they one man, they might just be semi-notable for their spouses and offspring, but the big claim to notability seems to be chimerical. Paul B (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- The article on his alleged son says that gives a differnet parentage. The article itself says that he was a commoner (i.e. not a knight). I cannot check the alleged Welsh sources, but the whole think looks unreliable to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jennifer Dombrowski
- Jennifer Dombrowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominating on behalf of the subject per OTRS Ticket Ticket:2013012310000322. Given that the majority of the coverage is from the Outstanding Teen competitions in 2008, I can see this as possibly falling into the category of WP:BLP1E and WP:PSEUDO (yes, it's multiple events, but the present sources don't cover much beyond her participation in the pageants), although I haven't looked into it at depth yet. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article was created by a single-purpose account, probably as a vanity piece by someone known to the subject. It has been vandalized three times ([18], [19], [20]), by someone inserting libelous material. Two of the three links to sources are now dead. I have tried to find online sources to replace them, but I have not found any that are reliable. The subject is notable for a single event - winning the Miss Wisconsin's Outstanding Teen 2008 competition. None of the other winners of this competition, from 2005 to 2012, have WP articles, suggesting a general lack of notability for this event. Given the lack of verifiable sources for this BLP and the questionable notability of the subject, I recommend deletion. -- Mesconsing (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. When someone wants an article about themselves to be deleted, we should respect that wish unless there's some compelling reason to keep it.—S Marshall T/C 23:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per request of subject, whose notability is borderline at best. Mabalu (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The state pageant is not a major one. I do not see the coverage that would establish that any of our iclusion criteria are met. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If notability is borderline (as it is here), deletion at the request of the subject is well-precedented. Yunshui 雲水 08:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nothing in the article suggests it meets WP:ANYBIO. Considering the OTRS I am inclined towards delete immediately. Mkdwtalk 12:40, 4 February 2013 (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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
South Manchester and Cheshire Christian Football League
- South Manchester and Cheshire Christian Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD tag was not removed, but was contested by article creator with this edit summary so I am bringing it here. This is a wholly non-notable, minor, local, amateur sports league - no evidence of any notability whatsoever. GiantSnowman 15:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also nominating the following article for a similar reason; PROD contested by same article creator in edit summary, this is a team which plays in the league, no evidence of notability.
- Kay Street Baptist Church Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Both clearly fail WP:NSPORT. Govvy (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per Govvy, fails WP:NSPORT iComputerSaysNo 15:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - these also fail the general notability guideline as there are very few ghits to be found on either, short of directory pages and Facebook. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 16:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles' creator put the below on the talk page of this AfD, I move it here to ensure that everyone sees it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am new to editing on Wikipedia and so apologise for not doing things correctly so far. I have been reading the Wikipedia help section to try and remedy the problems. The two pages I have created concern for one - the South Manchester and Cheshire Christian Football League (SMCCFL). This is genuine league that has taken place for years. The SMCCFL's website can be found at http://www.leaguewebsite.co.uk/smccfl/Home to verify its authenticity. The second is a page for one of the teams - Kay Street Baptist Church Football Club. Again, I consider them to be of notable interst as they are a football club that anyone can join as part of the Church's role in the community. Their website can be found at http://kaystreetbaptistfc.co.uk/, which again proves their authenticity. I hope that you agree that these are notable and could suggest any revisions needed. Thanks, TJPGrey
- Comment to article creator - please note that nobody doubts that the league and team exist, however the nominator contends (and several people seem to agree) that they do not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, namely that the subject of an article needs to have been the subject of in-depth coverage in reliable, independent, third-party sources -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- The individual teams are certainly NN. I am not familiar with the level to which articles are allowed on leagues, but at best it can only be on the margins of notability. My own church has a football team, which plays in a local league. This is not the local secular league, because they play on Sundays, probably so that they could traditionlly watch their local League 1-4 team from the stands. The Christian leagues tend to play on Saturdays, so as not to interfere with church attendence. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - both league and teams are not notable. There is a churches league in my local area and I have never seen any coverage of it at all, not even in the fairly parochial local paper..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2013 (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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Toshiaki Sakoda
- Toshiaki Sakoda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This person doesn't seem to meet any notability criteria I can find, such as Wikipedia:Notability. He is a Japanese composer and arranger. but His Articles in the Japanese wikipedia has been deleted as Non-notable.--ぱたごん (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bensci54 (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not seeing any third-party sources or in-depth coverage to verify notability or justify a self-standing biographical article like this. --DAJF (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - if his Japanese article was deleted due to a lack of notability and independent coverage, then what more here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I find it very strange that he is not mentioned on any of his album articles. Does not meet WP:CREATIVE. Mkdwtalk 02:25, 5 February 2013 (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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zaguehi
- Zaguehi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very short, unsourced article about a surname. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT. - MrX 13:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This article has not encyclopedic value. It is just a meaning of a african name. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 13:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research unless it can be supported by a reliable source and then subsequently an assertion to notability in multiple reliable sources. Mkdwtalk 02:26, 5 February 2013 (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clifford Percy Evans
- Clifford Percy Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been tagged with the issue of notability since July 2009. It does not appear to meet notability guidelines for creative professionals. iComputerSaysNo 13:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Notability is the real concern on this article, I don't think any reliable source may sustain the maintenance of this article on WP. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 14:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm still undecided on this one. I should note that doing a "Google test" is unlikely to be accurate with this particular individual because he isn't a contemporary architect and most of his work was done nearly a hundred years ago. I've seen some blogs and what I'd call "semi-reliable" sources (certainly would be in dispute as reliable sources) that seem to indicate there might be some much more appropriate sources found elsewhere such as architectural journals or some architectural historians who might have made comments about this architect.... but those articles are not found on line. There is a house which was designed by him near where I live which is on the National Register of Historic Places, at least according to a plaque on the outside of that house. While again not a reliable source in and of itself, it indicates there may be some real notability here. I wouldn't completely write this guy off as non-notable without some real investigation first. Architecture is not something I'm very familiar with, so I'll defer to others with expert knowledge of this particular topic. --Robert Horning (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If worse, comes to worse, the article can be redirected to that place. What is its name?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article for which you are suggesting it should be redirected to has not been written yet. I would think that most things on that register is likely notable and and of itself, but my greater point here is that just because you can't find find information about a topic on the internet does not make it non-notable thus ineligible for inclusion into Wikipedia. The current sources for this particular article came from a collection at the University of Utah, who felt that the work of this architect was notable enough for them to take this architect's work and notes and include them in its "Special Collections" archive. Typically a university doesn't do that for every citizen in their state or for even every alumni, so that does indicate at least some other level of notability. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If worse, comes to worse, the article can be redirected to that place. What is its name?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - I've had a bit of a look and have managed to come up with a few things - likely the same "half-sources" referred to above:
- Building Taliesin: Frank Lloyd Wright's Home of Love and Loss by Ron McCrea (Wisconsin Historical Society, 2012) - includes a couple of mentions and a couple of photos. Probably not "significant coverage" but enough to suggest, as far as I'm concerned, that he had a longer-term historical impact.
- Clifford Percy Evans papers - the ones referred to above.
- Ashton, Evans, and Brazier architectural blueprints - the biographical note refers to the Evans in question (brother of the Evans cited in those papers) as "prominent Utah architect Clifford Evans". That would certainly suggest, at least, local notability in his own time.
- Gilmer Park Historic District - I'm not really sure what this is or whether it would be considered a reliable source but it mentions the subject a number of times in a number of contexts.
- LDS Architecture - obviously a blog, so reliability is questionable, but it does mention him a whole lot, in relation to the LDS building he helped to build.
- National Register of Historic Places - Belvedere Apartments - about an NRHP building co-designed by the subject. This would seem to be one of a number of NRHP-listed buildings designed by the subject.
- Mormon Americana: a guide to sources and collections in the United States by David J. Whittaker (BYU Studies, 1995) - looks to be a self-published book or academic paper, but it does discuss (in passing) his work and later efforts by the U of U to preserve document collections, seemingly including the one above.
- I suppose my take on it is that we're talking about someone who has had some coverage, whose contribution has been considered significant enough for a collection of his papers to be maintained by a university library and who has, from what I can tell, a number of his "works" listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I'm inclined to think such a person might pass criteria number 2 of WP:ANYBIO. Stalwart111 01:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep due to excellent research on notability by Stalwart111. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Easy Keep. I've gone through and added two facts and references that I think prove notability. He designed 150 LDS church buildings, and was one of only two apprentices to Wright in Utah, the other being his future business partner, Woolley, who has an article. I think this is an easy keep. Cdtew (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2013 (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. MBisanz talk 00:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tam Sheang Tsung
- Tam Sheang Tsung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – It states in the infobox that he has played on the Malaysian national team. Bensci54 (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No. It states that he has not played for the national team. WP:NSPORT excludes those players who have been called up, but never played for a national team. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - until he actually plays for the Malaysian national team, then I can't see how he is notable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level. Also fail WP:GNG, as he hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 author request. No need to use AfD for this. JohnCD (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firoza Khan
- Firoza Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I create this article some time ago and provide some references too but unable to find any reliable reference for this BLP.Moreover,the person is not so notable to remain as i realize.Please delete it. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 12:09, 29 January 2013 (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. MBisanz talk 00:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of songwriter collaborations
- List of songwriter collaborations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No clear criteria for inclusion. Terms like "few", "lengthy", "influence", "measured in decades" are completely subjective, and assigning any actual number would be arbitrary. For instance, The Peach Pickers have dozens of hits, but would theirs be of lasting impact? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 12:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced, long, and non-notable IMO Vacation9 12:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Incomplete, unmaintainable and non-notable list, it lacks several influential duets, and also does not cite any source to back-up what is claimed in the article. Wikipedia is not a personal playlist or any of some sort. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 14:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't usually like to insert threaded replies in such discussions, but in looking this over again I think I'd better. Almost all lists are incomplete—this is Wikipedia, the ultimate work in progress—so the claim of incompleteness is specious. There's zero evidence in the article history that the list has had maintenance problems, let alone has been "unmaintainable". It does meet the notability guideline. It not only lacks "several influential duets" but lacks any duets: it's a list of people. (Ditto re your mention of playlists.) So of all the points you crammed into that short !vote, we're left only with the issue of sourcing (which has already been addressed below and can be fixed in the article). Please consider actually looking at the article in question before commenting here. Rivertorch (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This list is pointless and unencyclopedic. I say pointless because it only lists names, and unencyclopedic because lists like these are not proper encyclopedia references. Besides, most of these songwriter collaborations can be mentioned on the article songwriter. Epzik8 (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with the simple criterion "This is a list of famous songwriting teams." References aren't all that hard to find[21][22][23][24] and the academics have sunk their esoteric teeth into the subject.[25][26] It just needs some cleanup and sourcing, along with eras and genres. Clarityfiend (talk)
- Keep. This is a tremendously useful starting point for anyone seeking information about collaborative songwriting, and I'm not aware of any other article that could appropriately have similar scope. (Songwriter? Absolutely not.) The inclusion criteria can easily be tightened up, and perhaps they should, but they've actually worked quite well thus far: the article has actually been well maintained, entries that don't meet the existing criteria have been removed, and constructive discussion about the criteria has taken place on the talk page. As Clarityfiend notes, sourcing wouldn't be difficult, but it's also not an urgent problem, since the content easily meets WP:V and isn't controversial. Just a list of names? Yeah, at the moment. But a brief description can be added to each entry to explain who the names belong to and why they're noteworthy. Missing entries? Well, of course. Is there such a thing as a finished Wikipedia article? Even Featured Lists have been known to have omissions! The fact that a list is imperfect isn't a valid reason to delete it. A more appropriate solution is to improve it. Rivertorch (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, how do we improve it? Any sort of criterion would just be arbitrary. Those that have written X amount of songs over Y years = arbitrary. Those with a "lasting impact" = totally subjective and unverifiable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the point on the talk page last year that impact is subjective. That's not an insurmountable problem, though. Lots of criteria for lists (both standalone and within articles) involve setting various thresholds. It's not a completely arbitrary process—it just requires someone making a reasonable proposal and other editors agreeing with it. I do not believe impact is unverifiable. There surely are ample reliable sources testifying to the lasting impact of lots of songwriting teams. Rivertorch (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see that there's a problem here. We don't have to (nor should we) set arbitrary standards. The criterion is simply that reliable sources say they're notable collaborative teams. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've started a major overhaul. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The topic of "songwriter collaborations" is a notable one. This book, for example, focuses entirely on seven songwriting teams. This Rolling Stone piece also discusses many of these teams at length. Another book contains a 66-page chapter on British songwriters, with much of it devoted to collaborations (e.g., Carter/Lewis, Lennon–McCartney). Billboard magazine has this article from 1995 on the "team-writing trend" in Nashville. This 1977 column from the magazine ranks the songwriting teams with the most number-one hits. These books on the business of songwriting address the process of collaborating (with notable examples) in detail. So, the topic satisfies WP:LISTN in my view. As to what the list's criteria should be, Clarityfiend's suggestion of "famous songwriting teams" works for me as a starting point. The Peach Pickers would seem to qualify (Billboard and Reuters call them a hit songwriting trio). To use a request from the list's talk page, Mark Hoppus and Tom DeLonge would not qualify for inclusion here as I'm not seeing reliable sources identify them specifically as "songwriter collaborators". Gong show 21:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Warden (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not too sure, but keep I guess. Songwriting collaborations (mostly duos) are a notable phenomena. The points about inclusion criteria are valid, but so are the rebutting points. FWIW I watch this page and try to keep to it trimmed somewhat. If if ever goes unwatched it could turn into a mess though. On the other hand the new format changes do add more useful info. Herostratus (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per Gong. As to the argument "this is incomplete", that is true of a high percentage of our lists. We don't generally delete on that basis. Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2013 (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. MBisanz talk 00:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Richmond
- Robert Richmond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
BLP of questionable notability. The only sources I was able to find was the subject's member profile on the subject's web forum. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP
12:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable per WP:N. Only sources, as the nom said, were self-published or just a forum. Vacation9 12:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Dubious BLP, the sources on the article are fabricated by the person which this article is suppose to describe. This violate the principle of neutrality. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 14:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:57, 30 January 2013 (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. This deletion is without prejudice to re-creation if sources can be found later. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of Thailand provinces by Human Development Index
- List of Thailand provinces by Human Development Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced, and I was unable to verify any of the given information. The latest UNDP national reports for Thailand (2007 and 2009) use only the Human Achievement Index (HAI) and make no mention of an HDI-type score. HDI values were given for the 2003 report, but they don't match what is claimed in the article, and its lack of inclusion in later reports suggest that the UNDP has abandoned it as a reliable indicator (and therefore not suitable for basing a Wikipedia list article on). Many other local organisations compile their own development indices, but none of them that I've seen features a similar aggregated score. The inclusion of Pattaya, which is not a province, casts extra doubt on the list's accuracy as is. Paul_012 (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This case is not for deletion, the article is malformed and unsourced, but I see an undeniable encyclopedic value just by reading its article. The article needs a clean up and proper source. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 14:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that without a source, there's nothing in this article left worth keeping. It may well be WP:MADEUP or even a WP:HOAX, for all we know. If someone is able to identify the claimed source, I'll gladly withdraw the nomination. But I have tried with considerable effort and failed. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable but needs sight of the source it would be notable if there was any hard evidence this 2007 (2550 in Thailand) report existed.. I left a message on the creator of Thai page, but he may have just copied it from English, Thai years always confuse me. I would think though HDI numbers for Thai Provinces must have been published in 2009 otherwise why state "The latest complete national report was 2007 report, published in 2009. Bueng Kan Province did not included in this report as it was not yet separated." In ictu oculi (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another thing is that the claimed values seem very suspicious. They are way higher than those given in the 2003 UNDP report. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, it's seems notable but the only references I could find in a a Google search are mirrors.King Jakob C2 17:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article creator has responded on his/her talk page. Quote follows on the next line. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it's from UNDP or not. But I have found another "Human Achievement Index" by UNDP. But I don't know if it is same as HDI. But I got the information long time ago.--DKH2010 (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator comment: There have been keep !votes with the reason that the list is encyclopaedic and notable. However, this was never in doubt. The issue here is that other editors and I have not been able to locate reliable sources to verify the topic at all. WP:DEL-REASON #7 clearly states that "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" is a valid reason for deletion. The HDI is published by the UNDP, but the UNDP reports for Thailand contain no such data (after 2003). The figures given in the article are vastly different from the UNDP figures for 2003. The issue has been raised on the article talk page over a year ago. The article creator isn't able to recall the source of the information. I believe this has been a reasonable attempt to locate existing sources. Sources are available to support a new list based on the Human Achievement Index, but that would be better created as a new, unrelated article. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the HDI data has been reasonably challenged and no source has been found, despite substantial effort. The unsourced data should be removed. However, since this leaves the article without any effective content, the article should be deleted. I agree with the nominator that this is not a matter of notability. Thincat (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I'm now convinced that the total lack of references makes this article not worth keeping.King Jakob C2 18:06, 16 February 2013 (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spanishpod101
- Spanishpod101 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't pass WP:CORP. I couldn't find any sources about this online, and the only sources in the article are primary. The parent company, Innovative Language Learning, also does not seem notable. (However, one of their products, Japanesepod101, does pass WP:CORP.) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 05:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There is a related deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innovative Language Learning. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 05:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 10:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I could find a couple reviews - it seems this software is widely used. I don't know why it would need to pass WP:CORP either because it is software. [27] is one example. It's a bit on the edge but I would give it the benefit of the doubt. Vacation9 12:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]- I was thinking about WP:CORP#Products and services, but probably saying WP:GNG would have been better. About the link you posted - it looks very much like a self-published source, and we can't use those to count toward notability. Do you have a link for the other review you found? Maybe that one will fare better with relation to WP:RS. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As Stradivarius said, that source I linked isn't really a reliable source. The other one wasn't reliable either. Don't know what I was thinking at the time, but I'm changing my vote to delete. Fails WP:GNG. Vacation9 22:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This company and its roost of softwares are not notable, with the sole exception of the Japanesepod101, there are few reviews from few unreliable or self-published sources, only mentions or whatsoever. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 14:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It doesn't meet the notability guidelines. More coverage is needed to satisfy this. — ṘΛΧΣ21 02:20, 31 January 2013 (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. MBisanz talk 00:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Xian Ju Three Mountain Palace
- Xian Ju Three Mountain Palace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
unintelligible to the point it's not even clear where this is, and unsourced Jac16888 Talk 18:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – Similar articles Cheng Huang Temple and God Temple are also nominated see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheng Huang Temple & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Temple ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For reference, this article is supposed to be about a building in the Zuoying District of Kaohsiung, but I haven't been able to identify from the article which one. Uncle G (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is about this temple [28] Uaat (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete As the nom said, you can't tell what they even mean. Nothing for a Google search for the subject; doesn't appear like it exists or if it does it isn't notable. Vacation9 12:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As per nom. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 14:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as Uaat pointed out, it's about a building located near Lotus Lake named "先樹三山宮". You'll probably not find much with a partially translated Chinese phrase. Plus, a poorly written article isn't a valid criteria for deletion. Funny Pika! 00:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TNT is. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:38, 5 February 2013 (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 City god. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheng Huang Temple
- Cheng Huang Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
unintelligible and unsourced Jac16888 Talk 18:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Certainly verging on the unintelligible, but independent sources can be found: [29]. That leaves the question of whether the place is notable? AllyD (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A page with this has been recently deleted by a administrator. The recent page was also proposed for deletion. --74.131.177.233 (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – Similar articles Xian Ju Three Mountain Palace and God Temple are also nominated see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xian Ju Three Mountain Palace & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Temple ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Are there multiple Cheng Huang Temples in Taiwan? I was looking through Google Books and found some independent sources which describe Cheng Huang Temple in Hsinchu City, Cheng Huang Temple in Taichung, Cheng Huang Temple in Taipei, and Cheng Huang Temple in Tainan (which AllyD pointed out). I couldn't find any listings of a temple in Kaohsiung. Am I missing something? Braincricket (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheng Huang(城隍) is City god. Temples worshiping city gods are called "Cheng Huang Temple", so there are hundreds of them. The article being nominated was about one of them: "Zuoying Cheng Huang Temple". I rewrote the article about the general Cheng Huang Temple and redirected "Zuoying Cheng Huang Temple" to a section about it in Lotus Lake.Uaat (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to City God. As Uaat mentioned, the article was initially created for Zauying Cheng Huang Temple in Kaohsiung but has evolved into a general definition. City god already covers both subjects in detail so I don't see a point in another content fork. Funny Pika! 21:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or Merge to a correspondent article. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 14:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to city god. In English, the current title is slightly misleading; this is about a class of temples, not one temple of Cheng Huang; and the subject seems to be best covered by the chief article. If an specific city god temple is notable an article can be written about it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:39, 29 January 2013 (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mohd. Masood Ahmed
- Mohd. Masood Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This subject fails WP:BASIC notability guidelines for want of substantial coverage by unrelated parties. He also fails alternative criteria at WP:PROFESSOR; at least no part of the text before BLP & RS cleanup contained claims approaching that threshold, and no reliable sources that I've found indicate those criteria are met. This subject also fails WP:POLITICIAN despite his political connections and public positions, none of which confer automatic notability or even indicate substantial coverage of the subject because he is most often covered as a spokesperson, speaking about other (possibly noteworthy) topics. This living person's biography seems to be dedicated to promotion of a non-notable figure. JFHJr (㊟) 00:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Googling is infeasible due to popularity of names like Mohammed, Masood, and Ahmed. As nominator has noted, insufficient coverage in originally supplied article to pass GNG. A review of the subject's CV on his own website doesn't have anything jump out at me as likely to help provide a pass of WP:PROF. RayTalk 17:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be a strong possibility of the subject passing WP:PROF criterion 6 as principal of the Deccan School of Management, a government-accredited higher education institution, and president of the Association of Indian Management Schools. I don't recall any instances of any equivalent institutions in the anglophone West not being considered major enough for the purposes of this criterion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say so. A stand-alone school hosting a 2-year program with 120 students per year, with a total of 10 faculty members, is not a "major academic institution" in the sense of WP:PROF criterion 6, nor would I consider the Deccan School of Management a "highly regarded academic independent institute or research center." There is actually am ambiguity here, since the Deccan School of Management falls under the Dar-us-Salam trust which manages several other schools, which together may constitute an institution of some importance, but if we take that interpretation, the head of a component of a school is not the highest academic officer. There may be a claim with respect to the Association of Indian Management Schools, but since that organization bills itself as a "networking organization" on its website I don't think it falls under the academic rubric, and we revert to the GNG. RayTalk 19:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also note that Phil's position may be tenable on a cursory reading of the guideline and of that particular criterion. But according to the general WP:PROF notes, the criterion notes, and WP:GNG, meeting one criterion tenuously on a single ground is not adequate, especially when the reliability of sources giving substantial coverage is in question. Here, no reliable source appears to provide substantial coverage, and overall academic impact is apparently negligible. JFHJr (㊟) 01:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. I only found social networks and youtube videos with a search. This doesn't pass the BASIC guideline and thus delete. Vacation9 12:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non notable, a quick search only results what my comrades already stated as above, a bunch of youtube videos and social network profiles. Unless someone provide some reliable source to sustain its notability factor I don't see why this person deserves an article within WP. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 14:15, 29 January 2013 (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. postdlf (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SKB Cases
- SKB Cases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a non-notable corporation. Unable to find significant independent coverage. Danger High voltage! 10:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable manufacturer of cases for musical instruments. Google News Archive found a few passing mentions and a few press releases; not nearly enough to meet WP:CORP. Unreferenced for the past six years; thanks to Danger for finding and nominating it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please thank instead an employer of a competitor who used it to argue OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Danger High voltage! 17:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 22:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I recognised the name immediately - I'm pretty sure you could buy these in any music shop in the UK. It's a really tough call, there isn't a lot of goog-lable news coverage exactly, but my instinct is that it is such a well known brand in the music world that there must be something out there, and I find it hard to believe its not notable.
I'll keep lookingI looked and couldn't find much save some video reviews of their products in NME videos, not really worth reproducing, shame ---- nonsense ferret 19:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable manufacturer with extremely short article. Per nonsense above, there isn't anything that indicates the subject's notability per WP:GNG. Vacation9 12:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unverified stub about a seemingly non-notable manufacturing company. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This business makes cases for musical instruments. No showing of significant effects on history, technology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:40, 29 January 2013 (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. An unnecessary sidetrack, but consensus is clear.Kubigula (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary war
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}} . |
- Unnecessary war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There's no there there. Contains only a list of "unnecessary wars", and a list of "See also" entries, most of which would be inappropriate even if there were an article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me rephrase that. Not only is there nothing of interest in the present article, I can't imagine an encylopedic article being written. Even a definition would be problematic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been greatly expanded, but with nothing related to the topic. I do ask those who have !voted to consider whether the changes would affect their decision or reasoning. It doesn't affect mine. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Having served in Afghanistan for a year, it's hard to think of a more notable topic. --Xerographica (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say the topic wasn't notable; I said that there is not and is not likely to be anything in reliable sources about the topic, as opposed to about individual wars (necessary, or not). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read through all the reliable sources that I included in the article? --Xerographica (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources? The material in the article consists only of an unsourced quasi-definition, a list of wars said to be unnecessary, a "See also" section (mostly irrelevant). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm referring to the sources in the "References" section. It's the section immediately after the "See also" section. --Xerographica (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In context, I should only need to look at them to see if they support the lead. Whether or not they do, the lead doesn't have anything which can be supported, or would support the existence of an article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm referring to the sources in the "References" section. It's the section immediately after the "See also" section. --Xerographica (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources? The material in the article consists only of an unsourced quasi-definition, a list of wars said to be unnecessary, a "See also" section (mostly irrelevant). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read through all the reliable sources that I included in the article? --Xerographica (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is a classic example of Wikipedia:Citation overkill. None of the claimed "references", with the exception of this one (and possibly another which requires subscription), are actually focused on the term. The rest just used it as a descriptive phrase in normal language, not differently from how a food columnist may call a place a "good restaurant". As such, those refs do nothing to support the existence of the article as a distinct concept. On the other hand, Unused highway, which seems equally absurd as an article, was previously kept. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please help me understand why so many people think that Wikipedia is a dictionary? Because according to core policy...it's really not. --Xerographica (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is an interesting case. This reads like original content and aren't any sources directly about this topic. It's a bit like an ESSAY as well. Vacation9 12:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not surprising. In his time here, Xerographica has racked up a long record of "articles" that are basically original research and synthesis, often presenting them more as essays than anything else. If you try to call him on it, he says you're an ignorant amateur and should shut up. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's be fair. 1. The merits of this discussion turn on the value/merits/whatever of this article, not the original contributor or his behavior. 2. His recent comments on talk pages have been quite civil. He may even qualify for a Barnstar in this regard. – S. Rich (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not surprising. In his time here, Xerographica has racked up a long record of "articles" that are basically original research and synthesis, often presenting them more as essays than anything else. If you try to call him on it, he says you're an ignorant amateur and should shut up. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article does not meet WP:SAA. it is hard to see how this could be anything other than "advocacy and controversial material". Each of the entries is someone's opinion that particular wars were unnecessary. And then the list would go on and on and on. (Too bad we do not see Pig War listed.) To balance the article, other peoples' opinions would have to be added to say "no -- that war was necessary." If the article is intended to talk about war as an unnecessary event in general, then pacifism and anti-war are available to cover the subject. It won't work to say "'Unnecessary war' is a concept that should have its' own article -- look at the RS that use the term." They only use the term because the RS is advocating their views about those particular wars, and not about unnecessary war as an overall concept.--S. Rich (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No encycloped value, is this some kind of philosophical or motivational poster. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 14:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Delete - it's easy to argue all wars are unnecessary; or that every war is necessary. This article would never be able to be neutral (the title itself already marks it out on a specific side) either. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. Also a classic example of my own Timbo's Rule No. 14: "Whenever you see multiple stacked footnotes in a lead to document a subject phrase as encyclopedic, it probably isn't." Carrite (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I will state though that philosophers have for centuries been debating the question of what constitutes a "just war", and conversely, what makes some wars "unjust" or "unnecessary". A rewritten article referencing prominent philosophers discussing this topic could be encyclopedic and satisfy WP:NPOV. However, just war theory already covers this subject reasonably well, so introducing an overview of this philosophical debate into the article in question would simply be redundant. Moreover, my Google searches do not suggest that "unnecessary war" has become a widely adopted phrase, so I don't see the need for a redirect to just war theory. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please, I beg of you folks. Please, please, please, please learn enough about economics in order to make an informed decision on the topic. Otherwise, you're simply doing me, and the readers, a huge disservice. Please see the talk page for my explanation of basic public economics. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please look over the entry. I hastily added some relevant and useful content. There's plenty more reliably sourced content that can be added. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didn't notice you said that. It doesn't affect my reasoning, but I also ask that those who have !voted to consider whether the changes affect their votes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't affect my reasoning either. Some of the freshly added material in the section entitled "Opportunity costs of war" is, in my opinion, worth discussing from the standpoint of just war theory - which is precisely where it is best to discuss it. In my view, it has still not been sufficiently demonstrated that the need for a separate article exists. --Mike Agricola (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read what I posted on this talk page? It's the difference between philosophy and economics. --Xerographica (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't affect my reasoning either. Some of the freshly added material in the section entitled "Opportunity costs of war" is, in my opinion, worth discussing from the standpoint of just war theory - which is precisely where it is best to discuss it. In my view, it has still not been sufficiently demonstrated that the need for a separate article exists. --Mike Agricola (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didn't notice you said that. It doesn't affect my reasoning, but I also ask that those who have !voted to consider whether the changes affect their votes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if you were to focus on the economic aspect of wars, you'd have to find some reliable sources to support your claim (for example case studies or research papers). Then find sources linking this to the phrase "unnecessary war". At the moment, I can only see opinion piece references describing wars as unnecessary. Funny Pika! 01:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you dispute what I posted on this talk page? --Xerographica (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're trying to merge two distinct issues into one extremely subjective topic. I still can't see a verifiable link between the two. Funny Pika! 02:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What are the two distinct issues? --Xerographica (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps philosophy and economics?--S. Rich (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Xerographica, yes I did take a look at the Talk page to which you linked. The problem as I see it is this: Although the article could (conceivably) be rewritten to satisfy WP:NPOV, the subject matter just isn't sufficiently unique to warrant its existence as a separate article. Some of the arguments made do touch on philosophy (e.g. value of human life). The cost of conflict already discusses some of the economic arguments including the opportunity cost of war. Indeed, cost of conflict would be a good merge destination for some of the material that has been recently added to the article, especially as cost of conflict already has its own subsection entitled "Opportunity Cost". Other relevant articles like antiwar have already been mentioned. Moreover, it also needs to be demonstrated that "unnecessary war" is an established idiom of economics, analogous to "just war" in the context of philosophy. --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You bring up a lot of good points. Honestly I didn't even know that there was a cost of conflict article. But there's an article for unused highway and bridge to nowhere...so it didn't seem that much of a stretch, given the numerous reliable sources that have covered the concept, for there to be an article on unnecessary war. From the economic perspective...there's absolutely no difference between an unused highway, a bridge to nowhere and an unnecessary war. It's simply where the government has supplied a greater amount of a public good than the public truly demands. This is a direct result of the preference revelation problem... User:Xerographica/Preference_revelation. Can all this be covered in the cost of conflict article? Sure...just like it can also be covered in the opportunity cost article...and in the article on the parable of the broken window. But, from my perspective, based on a thorough review of public economics...User:Xerographica/Principles of taxation...this topic is certainly notable enough to warrant its own entry. Unfortunately, it seems doomed by a consensus of Wikipedia editors who are not familiar with public economics. So I moved it over to a subpage...User:Xerographica/Unnecessary_war. You're certainly more than welcome to give me a hand developing it. --Xerographica (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know that some of the editors here are not economics majors, or experts in the field? "Unnecessary wars" is not an issue, in my eyes, that has ANYTHING to do with economics - to me, that title is to do with morals, and whether one perceives a war has removed a perceived oppression, or not. Any economical aspect in this article is a duplication of the opportunity cost and cost of conflict articles by default, and belongs there. Anything else will almost certainly violate WP:NPOV. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If an editor who has voted here was even remotely familiar with public economics then they would have replied to my post on this talk page with an informed comment. --Xerographica (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad assumption. You can't assume everyone will go to the talk page... Lukeno94 (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously? You're arguing that in any given group of editors...there's going to be a reasonable amount who've read James M. Buchanan and Elinor Ostrom? I WISH! No, your assumption is extremely far-fetched...while mine is based on a firm understanding that our society is based on a division of labor. Isn't it a moot point though? There's a clear consensus that this article should be deleted. It's very unfortunate...but that's just how Wikipedia works...sometimes...too many times...User_talk:Bwilkins#Concentrated_benefits_and_diffuse_costs. Personally, I think the solution is that, given that a division of labor increases productivity, the deletion review process should occur at the relevant projects. --Xerographica (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not how consensus works, and goodness knows that would be a disaster (take the MMA setup, for example...). As people pointed out on the talk page, that essay has absolutely no relevance to whether this article should be kept. And just one properly informed member would be enough to swing a consensus, which is based on policy-based arguments, not vote counts. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A firm understanding of policy is useless if somebody doesn't have an equally firm understanding of the topic in question. And clearly, based on a complete lack of counter-arguments on the talk page, nobody here has a firm understanding of public economics. Therefore, the outcome of this AFD will simply reflect a lack of relevant knowledge. --Xerographica (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it won't, and no, it doesn't. The thing you put on the talk page is borderline inappropriate, and is irrelevant to this deletion debate anyway. The fact you still fail to see is that this is a combination of two Wikipedia "sins": duplication of other topics, and it will be impossible for this not to violate WP:NPOV. You can make good judgements based on policy without knowledge of a field, as they're generally written well enough for an evaluation to be made. If you want to keep your information about the financial aspects of war, then by all means contribute to the appropriate articles, as, being blunt, this particular one belongs in the bin. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- An article should be deleted because it would be impossible for it not to violate WP:NPOV? LOL. That's ridiculous. Articles don't violate NPOV...editors do. So basically you're saying that this article should be deleted because editors, such as yourself, would not be able to maintain a NPOV. Is there something in the article that currently violates NPOV? If there is...then DIY and correct the deficiency. --Xerographica (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think if you go over that last comment again you might realise that most people here are trying to correct that by advocating for its deletion. There are many issues on this page, so it would be easier just to delete then start over. I am not against this article in principle but it currently reads like an opinionated essay rather than an encyclopedic article, which may put off quite a few people. To summerise the main problems on this page:
- The only useable content is currently a dictionary definition. The lead would have to be expanded to cover more analysis on the phrase for it to pass as an article.
- Most of the sources on the page are biased ones. The phrase itself is not supported by any reliable sources. People will continue to debate whether the term is notable or original research until this happens.
- The term "unnecessary" is contentious because there are many ways one can view it. The fact that it comes just before a list of recent American wars does not help it maintain a neutral point of view. Include more non-American/historical examples with why they were referred to as an "unnecessary war" to balance it out.
- The addition of economics only serves to add more problems to the article rather than support it. The link between economics and "unnecessary war" is not obvious and should be explained. It is not that the majority of people here do not understand economics, but rather how economics relates to the term "unnecessary war".
- Some links in the See also section may not directly relate to the subject and instead infer a point of view. Either explain their relevance in the article or replace them with more relevant links e.g. Cost of conflict and Just war theory
- Try and improve the article addressing the above points. Funny Pika! 17:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- FunnyPika, those are all great and wonderful suggestions, and clearly it's not a mission impossible to build a neutral article on the subject of the main reasons why people perceive a war to be unnecessary. But somehow it strikes me wrong, and against the very idea of a collaborative project, for there to be the expectation for me to do all the heavy lifting of creating a half-way decent article. Clearly the article is going to be deleted...so I moved it over to my subpage...User:Xerographica/Unnecessary_war. You're more than welcome to post your suggestions on the talk page and, if you're so inclined, also more than welcome to make whatever contributions you see fit. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think if you go over that last comment again you might realise that most people here are trying to correct that by advocating for its deletion. There are many issues on this page, so it would be easier just to delete then start over. I am not against this article in principle but it currently reads like an opinionated essay rather than an encyclopedic article, which may put off quite a few people. To summerise the main problems on this page:
- I'm fed up of this, so won't continue the debate, but the majority of people here also agree that this would never be neutral... Lukeno94 (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Xerographic's pretensions of being an academic are funny, in that at least one of his pseudo-articles ostensibly on economics was nominated for deletion by an actual Harvard-educated professor of economics. --Calton | Talk 17:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which pseudo-article was it? --Xerographica (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Xerographic's pretensions of being an academic are funny, in that at least one of his pseudo-articles ostensibly on economics was nominated for deletion by an actual Harvard-educated professor of economics. --Calton | Talk 17:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- An article should be deleted because it would be impossible for it not to violate WP:NPOV? LOL. That's ridiculous. Articles don't violate NPOV...editors do. So basically you're saying that this article should be deleted because editors, such as yourself, would not be able to maintain a NPOV. Is there something in the article that currently violates NPOV? If there is...then DIY and correct the deficiency. --Xerographica (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it won't, and no, it doesn't. The thing you put on the talk page is borderline inappropriate, and is irrelevant to this deletion debate anyway. The fact you still fail to see is that this is a combination of two Wikipedia "sins": duplication of other topics, and it will be impossible for this not to violate WP:NPOV. You can make good judgements based on policy without knowledge of a field, as they're generally written well enough for an evaluation to be made. If you want to keep your information about the financial aspects of war, then by all means contribute to the appropriate articles, as, being blunt, this particular one belongs in the bin. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A firm understanding of policy is useless if somebody doesn't have an equally firm understanding of the topic in question. And clearly, based on a complete lack of counter-arguments on the talk page, nobody here has a firm understanding of public economics. Therefore, the outcome of this AFD will simply reflect a lack of relevant knowledge. --Xerographica (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not how consensus works, and goodness knows that would be a disaster (take the MMA setup, for example...). As people pointed out on the talk page, that essay has absolutely no relevance to whether this article should be kept. And just one properly informed member would be enough to swing a consensus, which is based on policy-based arguments, not vote counts. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously? You're arguing that in any given group of editors...there's going to be a reasonable amount who've read James M. Buchanan and Elinor Ostrom? I WISH! No, your assumption is extremely far-fetched...while mine is based on a firm understanding that our society is based on a division of labor. Isn't it a moot point though? There's a clear consensus that this article should be deleted. It's very unfortunate...but that's just how Wikipedia works...sometimes...too many times...User_talk:Bwilkins#Concentrated_benefits_and_diffuse_costs. Personally, I think the solution is that, given that a division of labor increases productivity, the deletion review process should occur at the relevant projects. --Xerographica (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad assumption. You can't assume everyone will go to the talk page... Lukeno94 (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If an editor who has voted here was even remotely familiar with public economics then they would have replied to my post on this talk page with an informed comment. --Xerographica (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know that some of the editors here are not economics majors, or experts in the field? "Unnecessary wars" is not an issue, in my eyes, that has ANYTHING to do with economics - to me, that title is to do with morals, and whether one perceives a war has removed a perceived oppression, or not. Any economical aspect in this article is a duplication of the opportunity cost and cost of conflict articles by default, and belongs there. Anything else will almost certainly violate WP:NPOV. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You bring up a lot of good points. Honestly I didn't even know that there was a cost of conflict article. But there's an article for unused highway and bridge to nowhere...so it didn't seem that much of a stretch, given the numerous reliable sources that have covered the concept, for there to be an article on unnecessary war. From the economic perspective...there's absolutely no difference between an unused highway, a bridge to nowhere and an unnecessary war. It's simply where the government has supplied a greater amount of a public good than the public truly demands. This is a direct result of the preference revelation problem... User:Xerographica/Preference_revelation. Can all this be covered in the cost of conflict article? Sure...just like it can also be covered in the opportunity cost article...and in the article on the parable of the broken window. But, from my perspective, based on a thorough review of public economics...User:Xerographica/Principles of taxation...this topic is certainly notable enough to warrant its own entry. Unfortunately, it seems doomed by a consensus of Wikipedia editors who are not familiar with public economics. So I moved it over to a subpage...User:Xerographica/Unnecessary_war. You're certainly more than welcome to give me a hand developing it. --Xerographica (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Xerographica, yes I did take a look at the Talk page to which you linked. The problem as I see it is this: Although the article could (conceivably) be rewritten to satisfy WP:NPOV, the subject matter just isn't sufficiently unique to warrant its existence as a separate article. Some of the arguments made do touch on philosophy (e.g. value of human life). The cost of conflict already discusses some of the economic arguments including the opportunity cost of war. Indeed, cost of conflict would be a good merge destination for some of the material that has been recently added to the article, especially as cost of conflict already has its own subsection entitled "Opportunity Cost". Other relevant articles like antiwar have already been mentioned. Moreover, it also needs to be demonstrated that "unnecessary war" is an established idiom of economics, analogous to "just war" in the context of philosophy. --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps philosophy and economics?--S. Rich (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What are the two distinct issues? --Xerographica (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're trying to merge two distinct issues into one extremely subjective topic. I still can't see a verifiable link between the two. Funny Pika! 02:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you dispute what I posted on this talk page? --Xerographica (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if you were to focus on the economic aspect of wars, you'd have to find some reliable sources to support your claim (for example case studies or research papers). Then find sources linking this to the phrase "unnecessary war". At the moment, I can only see opinion piece references describing wars as unnecessary. Funny Pika! 01:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Xerographica, himself, has not made any pretense about being an academic. And comments in this regard are unfair. Furthermore, they detract from the topic at hand -- whether this article should be deleted. Let's drop this unnecessary and unhelpful PA.-- – S. Rich (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Baloney -- about Xerographica's pretension of knowledge, the claim my statement is a personal attack, AND that it's "unnecessary and unhelpful". Xerographica has -- here and elsewhere -- proclaimed authoritative knowledge AND claimed implicitly and explicitly that others do not have said knowledge. This empty assertion of authority should be highlighted.
- Which pseudo-article was it? I'll let you figure it out. More amusing was your attempt to lecture the aforementioned economics professor on his field during the AFD. --Calton | Talk 12:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like the consensus is to delete this article (and I wish the discussion would close). But my point is that Xerographica has not claimed he is an academic. He only goes about saying he knows a lot of stuff. In any event, whether his statements are empty assertions of authority, here or in any discussion, does not matter much. Let's simply get this discussion over with. – S. Rich (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Calton, if there was any truth to your claim, then you would have absolutely no problem substantiating it by sharing the "psuedo-article" that you are referring to. --Xerographica (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have the slightest difficulty with backing up the simple truth of my claim -- and it is straightforwardly factual, so I'll expect your apology after you figure it out -- but perhaps you should be used to dodging proof of claims made (though in my case I have actual facts on my side). But given your crack research skills, it should be child's play, right? Further hint: it's at least TWO pseudo-articles which were nominated for deletion by an actual economist. Even among the pile of your WP:OR quote farms that you've had nuked, that should narrow it down, don't you think?
- But I'll make you a deal: explain 1) where your authority as an economics expert derives; 2) your specific education in economics; 3) how you know, exactly, that this background outweighs all the editors you've proclaimed incompetent (and for which you've been blocked for proclaiming); 4) how you know what the other editors' backgrounds are. Do so, and I'll reveal the really simple fact you don't seem to be able to figure out.
- And Srich32977, has both claimed to know things AND said that no one else is competent to discuss his edits. Including to you. Which is, you know, false. --Calton | Talk 00:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Any "expertise" on my part derives from being interested enough in the articles I edit to actually read the relevant reliable sources. That's it. It's really as simple as that. But because I do make the effort to read what the RS's have to say about the topic...I can easily identify other editors who have not read what the RS's say about the topic. Despite the fact that these other editors have never read a single RS on the topic...they still feel qualified to make substantial content cuts to the article. That's a problem.
- Why would I apologize if you actually substantiated your claim? That makes absolutely no sense. Are you saying that I should apologize to this unknown economist for disagreeing with them? LOL. That's too funny. --Xerographica (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would I apologize if you actually substantiated your claim? For your constant -- and pure imaginary -- implication that the simple (and easily checkable) claim is false and for your laziness in making that implication without even the slightest attempt to substantiate it by simply looking at a few user pages. And speaking of which...
- I can easily identify other editors who have not read what the RS's say about the topic. Except that, given that the subject of one of your "identifications" and subsequent snotty lecturing was, in fact, the aforementioned Harvard-educated economics professor, I'd say your psychic powers aren't as reliable as you think they are. In other words, the answer to numbers 3 and 4 is "my imagination".
- But thank you for clarifying: you've mistaken amateur reading for education,: that is, you've never actually tested in any real way what you think you know against what is actually known, which is a basic part of education. It's the sort of thing which leads to garage tinkerers thinking that they've invented perpetual motion machines, and to basic logic fails like this. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's your claim...so why should I have to be the one who substantiates it? The burden of proof is on you. Once you provide your proof then I'll look it over and decide for myself whether there's any credibility to the editor's claim. But what difference does it make if the editor truly is a Harvard-educated econ professor? When it comes to content disputes...whether somebody is "right" or "wrong" should be determined by what the RS's have to say about the subject. And thus far, really the only editor that I've interacted with who has shown any real interest in what the RS's have to say about the subject is Thomasmeeks... Talk:Public_choice_theory#Hansj.C3.BCrgens.27_Definition. Pretty much everybody else is far more interested in discussing their opinions on the subject. --Xerographica (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a soapboxing essay on a topic that can never be neutral. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 02:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article doesn't even stick to its ostensible topic, but instead switches to editorializing in favor of tax choice (violating neutral point of view). If, somehow, this article manages to get kept, it needs to be revised to avoid systemic bias -- every war that this article suggests may have been an "unnecessary war" is a war that the United States engaged in during the last 65 years. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny that. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I see that the editor is putting a lot of effort to put this article into a encyclopedic format, lets give him/her a break, and see where it goes. So far it is lacking neutrality. It is a delicate subject, but I think that if the editor put some effort into it, I'd even sum up´my effort to the editor's. The subject is clearly notable, it needs to avoid any devise. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 05:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete completely impossible to define. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - regardless of the effort puts in to this subject, or any canvassing going on in here, my vote still stands - as I stated, anyone can argue that all wars (not just war X) are unnecessary, whilst also anyone can state that all wars are indeed necessary. This article will also be highly unlikely to become neutral. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Buckshot; having an article with this topic is like having an article on 'bad books' or 'Unsuccessful politicans' - it's about a generic viewpoint, and not something which can ever be defined in a sensible or consistent manner. The fact that the article as written is an essay basically illustrates this problem. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Buckshot, Bushranger, and Nick-D. Intothatdarkness 15:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The nomination is correct. This article is irredeemable. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Soapboxing quote farm, padded with a bunch of irrelevant "See also" links. Trying to format it as an encyclopedia article makes it as actually encyclopedic in the same way that building a wooden framework would really get you a DC-3. --Calton | Talk 17:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - obviously as a Quaker I consider this term redundant; obviously others would disagree with me. There is no way on earth a NPOV encyclopedia article on this subject could be written. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - silly article that will never be NPOV, whats next? Necessary war?--Staberinde (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, see WP:NOTESSAY or WP:NOTSOAPBOX.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a "Speedy" reason. Perhaps it should be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Would the Opt Out of Iraq War Act have been neutral content for the unnecessary war article? --Xerographica (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not. Still no real indication that the war is/was "unnecessary" as a statement of fact. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 100% SYNTH, OR, POV, and SOAPBOX. SPECIFICO talk 01:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - maybe this should be closed as a Snow Delete? Lukeno94 (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the deletion arguments in fact illustrate uneasiness with the article's title, which indeed contains an implicit opinion. It should rather have been called "Necessity of War". This is indeed a notable philosophical issue that has been debated for millenia (Plato devoted a book to it). This article should contain a summary of various notable opinions on the issue. At most it should be renamed. The topic is adjacent to Bellum iustum but is distinct from it. Imperfection does not mean the debate does not exist. Alfy32 (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a good argument for Delete. There's nothing in any revision of this article which should be there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seven days have elapsed since this AfD was initiated. Dear non-involved administrator -- please close this discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2013 (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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (whisper) @ 10:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paris Ouest
- Paris Ouest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am a bit embarassed by this article. It seems to be done in good faith, shows some knowledge of Paris, and suggests some personal effort from the contributor. But the thing is there is no such thing as a well defined "Paris Ouest" that "has been associated with great wealth, elitism and social hegemony in French popular culture as well as in some masterpieces of French literature such as Balzac's La comédie humaine or Proust's In Search of Lost Time. ". The problem is that this phrase "Paris Ouest" is not commonly used, neither in every-day speech, nor in scholarly articles. If you look for it in Google, you mostly find references to "Paris Ouest" as a purely geographical area, that is often much larger that what the article states, and many working-class areas. So an article about "Paris Ouest" has a metonomy for "upper-class Parisians" is irrelevant. The article also defines Paris-Ouest as " four central and western Parisian arrondissements: the 6th, the 7th, the 8th and the 16th; and of the city of Neuilly-sur-Seine". But I cannot find that source for that outside Wikipedia, that sounds rather gratuitous to have an article aggregating those places into a single entity. Now, an article about upper-class neighborhoods in Paris could be interesting but it would be quite a bit different from this "Paris-Ouest" -- Superzoulou (talk) Note: This AfD is posted on behalf of Superzoulou at his request. I personally have no opinion either way. He prodded the article. I deprodded it as not being an uncontroversial deletion, as I believe it needs further discussion from those more knowledgeable about the subject. He requested I took it to AfD as he was not sure of the procedure. I have done so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any relevant information into Paris and delete it. It seems the main sources are the books written by Monique and Michel Pinçon-Charlot and some parts of the article might very well include original research. I couldn't find any significant coverage, even inside the book sources (see: [30], [31], [32]). It is only mentioned twice in the first book and not even mentioned once in the other two, so if it is an expression, it is rarely used by the main sources. Nimuaq (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2013 (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. MBisanz talk 00:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Farrell (soccer)
- Andrew Farrell (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and has not played in a fully pro league. PROD contested based on the fact that substantive news coverage was found, and seemed likely to be notable according to the person that contested it. However, there is still no significant coverage for the article to meet GNG. – Michael (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but only just. At the moment he fails WP:NFOOTBALL, but the honours he has recently won (Big East Defensive Player of the Year and First Team NSCAA All-American) are pretty notable awards, and the media coverage they've given him are just about enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines, in my opinion. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 11:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, and the coverage he has received is routine, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Although he hasn't yet played, but he has been drafted into a pro league. He has also received multiple awards. Bensci54 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He was the overall number one draft pick at the just-concluded 2013 MLS SuperDraft, and has been the subject of piles of coverage in reliable sources, which discuss not only his performance as a college star and his prospects under his new MLS contract, but also his interesting background story as a kid from Louisville who learned to play soccer in Peru where his parents were missionaries for 10 years. Passes GNG, and I can't see how deleting this article would be a net positive for Wikipedia's coverage of American soccer.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Week Keep based on post-secondary awards garnered and prominence of being chosen first in the MLS draft which seems to meet GNG. However, I do see that he currently fails NFOOTBALL. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. as noted he was the first overall draft pick in this year's draft, there's no doubt in anybody's mind that he will be the most "used" rookie in the MLS and making a page is inevitable. Look at previos MLS SuperDraft and anyone at the top does not go unnoticed 2012 MLS SuperDraft, 2011 MLS SuperDraft, 2010 MLS SuperDraft, etc. .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpapolo716 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)— Gpapolo716 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the #1 draft pick by the top professional soccer league in the United States plus significant coverage in reliable sources sufficient to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets GNG. Has significant coverage in reliable sources. Eldumpo (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - has received significant coverage in reliable sources and passes WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2013 (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. Reliable sources have been provided (non-admin closure) -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP
02:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Rich
- Doug Rich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
From what I can tell from the website given this looks like an enthusiast who has built a telescope out of their garage. Reliable third party sources are required to establish notability, and they are not present in the article. The article also appears to be an autobiography. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP
08:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Appears to have been featured in a local paper[33] and mentioned in several local publications. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I consider Astronomy magazine a reliable source. The amount of his discoveries (22!) also mean this is not just some guy with a telescope. --Auric talk 16:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- RS added since nom. -- Patchy1
REF THIS BLP
16:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- RS added since nom. -- Patchy1
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. We have one in-depth story reliably covering the subject, but only in a local newspaper (the Bangor Daily News piece). The other sources either have no in-depth coverage of the subject (the IAU supernova list) or are not sources about the subject at all (two publications by the subject). I don't think that's quite enough for WP:GNG. But I'd be willing to change my mind if we could find a couple more sources of similar quality to the one we have. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Here's an article in Newsday, which isn't local. Here's coverage by the Associated Press. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sources I've found:
- Bangor Daily News - Jan 28, 2005 article
- Sun Journal (newspaper article) - Jan 27, 2003
- the Sun story was picked up by the Associated Press and reported at seacoastonline.com
- Bangor Daily News - Jan 24, 2003
- Looks like he is in a Newsday.com (New York) article but it is behind a paywall, so I cannot confirm in-depth
- So we have multiple articles over a couple of years in local newspapers, one story that went national (AP), and a peer-reviewed article previously mentioned (Astronomy magazine). Is this enough for notability? I would recommend marginal keep, but I have no experience in judging biographies. --Mark viking (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) DoctorKubla (talk) 09:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations
- List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Repeated listing; refer List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names Ninney (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I had nominated the article for deletion on grounds of duplication but later realise (only after clicking on the EDIT tab) that it is actually calling an article (transcluded) & not maintaining a list on 2 separate articles. This is the original article & this is where it is actually listed again. Generally, I had seen that the main article has a wikilink of the sub article but this was not the case which led to confusion.
- About half an hour later, after clicking on the EDIT tab to update the article for _TOC_ which I thought was a must for the article, the truth of the way the listing has been done was unfold, I realised I had unnecessarily marked it for deletion & that was the reason I undid my revision (Refer this edit). Later, Snotbot found that there is no AfD template, but article is still at AfD & hence it reassigned the 'Bot adding template' & issued me a level 1 warning [[34]] on my talk page.
- Anyway, now I am suggesting a Speedy keep, since The Transhumanist had done the necessary requisite changes in the main article & the confusion has been solved & logically this sub article is now needed for the main article & hence to be retained.
- Thanks DoctorKubla, DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER, Cnilep & The Transhumanist
- Move to Template namespace. This article began life as one of the adjectival and demonym templates that are transcluded into List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names. In January 2009, User:BD2412 somewhat inexplicably moved several of these templates into article space, resulting in the redundancy referred to by the nom. This article should be moved back into template space, along with the following:
DoctorKubla (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just noticed the previous AfDs, here and here. Neither of these discussions really address the redundancy issue, though. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: User:BD2412 commented, "Move to better namespace for this content" when moving it to Adjectivals and demonyms for countries and nations in 2009. User:The Transhumanist moved it to its current name on 6 January 2013. I have notified both users about this discussion. There was also relevant discussion in 2007 at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 28, which reached no consensus. Cnilep (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The last AfD discussion on this was less than a month ago. Too soon for another. Wikipedia:Deletion policy states:
Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.
- ...(cont.): By the way, this article is no longer transcluded in List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names. Because this is a rather extensive list article, now there is a link to it from there. Also, AfD is not the appropriate venue for move discussions. That's what we have talk pages for (see also the notice page Wikipedia:Centralized discussion). This AfD thread should be closed, and the discussion concerning moving it restarted on the article's talk page. The Transhumanist 08:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- After some weighing of the pros and cons, I would keep this as is. Harmless, possibly useful. No need to put it into a template. bd2412 T 17:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP
05:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mohammed Amin (politician)
- Mohammed Amin (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced BLP. I haven't been able to find any useful sources to add to the article to provide evidence of notability. If anyone can find reliable sources I would be happy with a speedy keep. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP
07:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Members of national and sub-national legislatures and ministers of sub-national governments are considered to be inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: same logic as provided by Necrothesp.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:POLITICIAN. This document [35] lists former members of the Rajya Sabha between 1952-2003, with surnames beginning with the letter A. Amin is listed midway through the 8th page. He's also listed here [36] as having had two terms (1988-1994 and 2007-2011). Funny Pika! 01:48, 30 January 2013 (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. Clear WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of gay premiers in Canada
- List of gay premiers in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A list article is not needed for one entry. 117Avenue (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agree with 117Avenue. A list article of one is unencyclopedic and unneeded. Jusdafax 07:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. As unneeded as a List of black presidents of the United States article - not enough entries and content to make a list article encyclopedic. Hwy43 (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Dickie Hatfield of NB was apparently gay, but never formally came out; but even so, two names do not a list make.Skookum1 (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Insufficient entries to constitute a valid list. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a list of one is not needed. Insomesia (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete misleading title - one item does not make a list. Unnecessary split as well since she's already been added to List of first LGBT holders of political offices in Canada. Funny Pika! 02:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for obvious reasons. Kevin12xd (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (looks snowy to me). We don't need this at all; including her in List of first LGBT holders of political offices in Canada is all that's necessary or warranted here at this time. When there've been five or six or twelve or twenty of them, then maybe this can be recreated. Bearcat (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:LISTN. We cannot have a list of one single item because it is not a list; it contradicts the purpose of lists. And also, as a list, the topic has not been surely discussed as a whole on a non-trivial fashion to be deserving of a list. — ṘΛΧΣ21 05:43, 31 January 2013 (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. Jujutacular (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OpenBVE
- OpenBVE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Open source package with no assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of every single software package and this one simply doesn't belong. We have Wikia for stuff like trainspotter software. Biker Biker (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDelete There is a somewhat in-depth review of openBVE at Rock, Paper, Shotgun, some in-depth information about the program at railsimroutes.net, and a one paragraph review at TechnoZoom. I think all of these are secondary sources. Rock, Paper, Shotgun is a reliable source and TechnoZoom and railsimroutes.net look reliable.Right now, it looks like a marginal keep.Update: Looking more closely at the railsimroutes.net website, there is a connection to OpenVBE, so the source cannot be considered independent. Given that, we only have one independent RS and the topic does not meet WP:GNG notability guidelines. Thanks goes to DreamGuy for encouraging me to take a second look. Mark viking (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Maybe. Should article BVE Trainsim on related predecessor software also be deleted? Microsoft Train Simulator, Microsoft Train Simulator 2, and Trainz would also fall into this arena. GrayMace (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Of the sources listed above, only Rock, Paper, Shotgun has a chance of qualifying for consideration of WP:GNG. The other two aren't reliable and one paragraph is clearly trivial coverage. We need *multiple* independent, *reliable* secondary sources giving *non-trivial* coverage of the topic in order to justify having an article. Looks like an interesting game. It might qualify someday if other sources take notice of it, but it's not up to us to make others notice it. Similar software that doesn't meet WP:GNG rules should also have their articles deleted for that reason, not just because they're similar types of games. The Microsoft games seem like thye'd very easily have multiple qualifying sources. DreamGuy (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per above. There seems to be very little coverage of this piece of software in reliable sources. — daranz [ t ] 17:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Open source software will always be at a disadvantage in establishing notability since commercial software will have a company website and will attract more independent reviews that can be used to establish notability. One feature of openBVE is the fact that users can create their own content and, as a result, there are a large number of community websites, in several countries, set up to share this content. Does a large number of users websites in several countries indicate notability?
I can offer a few more references for notability: http://vr-blog.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/openbve-has-arrived.html , https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/natty/openbve/ , http://sourceforge.net/projects/openbve/reviews/
There was a problem with openBVE in 2012 in that the main programmer left the project and closed the official website and user forum. These have now been re-established, but it seems that some openBVE users have been trying to use the Wikipedia article to provide information during this period of uncertainty. One user HijaKuda opened an Wikipedia account on 25th September 2012 and since then has almost completely rewritten the article in that it has become a list of features and a list of external links. He has does not seem to understand Wikipedia policies on these matters or has chosen to ignore then. He has not contributed to any talk page to explain his views. This editing removed the references that gave the article notability, which led to a refimprove tag being added.
The constant edits and reversions of the same material have brought the article to the attention of experienced Wikipedia editors who have now proposed deletion.
My view is that the article should be kept, but reverted back to the version of 13th August 2012.The openBVE users who have added inappropriate information since this date should be asked to put this on the user website instead.Chris1515 (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There's some coverage in Eurogamer as well, though I realize that might not count as "significant" coverage. -Thibbs (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Although the author requested deletion, it doesn't qualify for G7. After 3 full listing periods, a consensus for deleting wasn't fully established. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Grono.net
- Grono.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I created this before policies were more clearly defined. Obviously it never met requirements. Shii (tock) 22:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Pl wiki article (pl:Grono.net) has a number of reliable references in Polish media suggesting this site is (was...) notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 05:36, 29 January 2013 (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. MBisanz talk 00:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moo Moo Generation X
- Moo Moo Generation X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable video game map. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Deletion recommended under WP:GAMECRUFT. Mkdwtalk 05:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability, nor is any claim to it made. Likely self-promotion, based on the author's username. InShaneee (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:10, 30 January 2013 (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. MBisanz talk 00:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
International Osteopathic Association
- International Osteopathic Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable, for profit organization that only references sister companies as references. Appears to exist only to promote and advertise themselves. Mike (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree that this is not a genuine professional organization but more of a referral source. --MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2013 (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. MBisanz talk 00:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Elliot Loney
- Elliot Loney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:N Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This could be speedily deleted. No legitimate assertion of notability and could not find any widespread coverage to meet WP:BLP. Mkdwtalk 06:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't find any coverage. Getting lots of YouTube views is impressive, but it doesn't always translate into wider media coverage necessary to meet WP:WEB or WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of notability. It's borderline, but the claim of 2 Million+ Youtube views is a claim of notability, thin though it may be. Now, if there were sources that discussed his youtube stardom, we might have an article - but I can't find anything, really. This might also be a case for WP:USUAL; he seems to be early in his career. If he does become notable, then an article would be a no-brainer. But we're not there yet. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of significant coverage and not meeting WP:ENT, despite the NUMBER of Youtube hits, there are Youtube pages and channels with FAR more "hits", Facebook pages with far more "likes", and creators with far more coverage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus to delete UBLP following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 05:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Erfan Qaneifard
- Erfan Qaneifard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability has not been established, unsourced BLP -- Patchy1 09:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Little or no grounds for notability, no references, little context. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 14:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patchy1
REF THIS BLP
03:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per unsourced WP:BLP (could have gone by BLPPROD) and lack of asserted notability (could have gone by db-bio). DMacks (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Too old for BLPPROD. -- Patchy1
REF THIS BLP
04:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Too old for BLPPROD. -- Patchy1
- Delete Did a little digging around and couldn't find anything. Does not meet WP:BLP. Mkdwtalk 05:14, 29 January 2013 (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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Malawi–Malaysia relations
- Malawi–Malaysia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:GNG. originally the article was a direct copy of this. I can find almost no third party coverage of this relationship except this article. all other coverage is multilateral and passing mentions. [37]. Bilateral relations are not inherently article, if you want to show they meet the 5 pillars of WP, demonstrate actual significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Lack of third party coverage, if at all. hmssolent\Let's convene 04:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. 99of9 (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While bilateral relations are (as I've said before many times in these discussions) a core and essential encyclopedic topic, this "article" is literally only "X is Y, and both A and B are Z". There is literally no content on the subject of the article here. WP:TNT. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Kudos to 99of9 for expanding the article significantly. More expansion is feasible using sources which demonstrate formal bilateral relations such as this. Warden (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Ok, this discussion and others like it make me think that we need a solid consensus on bilateral relations. Where should I look to start a discussion on this? Howicus (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements. Well doen! --143.105.49.234 (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— 143.105.49.234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep - Encyclopedic topic, adequate sources showing to pass our General Notability Guideline, in my estimation. This, additionally, sorta well done as far as these Country A-Country B Relations articles tend to be... Carrite (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. 99of9 (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. 99of9 (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears to be well sourced due to subsequent expansion.'Malawi–Malaysia relations' is basically an omnibus title. Searching for things such as the individual trade agreements reveals potential expansion of which information would be suitable for this article. The more of these AfD's that appear show a clear need for a policy on diplomatic related articles. Mkdwtalk 21:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I cannot see any circumstances where diplomatic relations between 2 sovereign nations cannot be notable. Unless we're talking Vanuatu and the Conch Republic - which Malawi (10 m) and Malaysia (26 m) aren't. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- bilateral relations are not inherently notable, over 100 have been deleted. Significant coverage in sources not population size is what determines notability. LibStar (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And far more have been saved. It usually depends on how many people notice and show up to comment. Dream Focus 14:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is still wrong to say bilateral articles are inherently notable like say a geographic location. Inherently notable is not an argument for keeping. LibStar (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep These nations share knowledge with each other, learn from each other, and join together with one other to set the price of their main product, tea. They have a notable relationship. Dream Focus 14:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- the level of trade using 1996 figures is only a meagre $1M, does not indicate even a minor trading relationship. One article about tea (noting this is far from Malaysia biggest agricultural product) is far from significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shafig bin Laden
- Shafig bin Laden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable person. Notability is not inherited per WP:INHERITED. There are numerous problem with the article (although that can be edited out). Part of it is a copy vio of [38], it contains trivia, it countains irrelevant info, and it has unexplained acronyms. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, not notable enough in his own right. Kierzek (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable beyond being Osama's half brother. No Arabic references found, either. ~dee(talk?) 20:07, 1 February 2013 (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. While the article needs improvement, the subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. SouthernNights (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
W. H. Pugmire
- W. H. Pugmire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete The subject of this article is non-notable. The article itself reads as promotional material. There are no references to independent secondary sources that demonstrate the subject's notability. The cited sources that do appear are by personal friends of the subject, and therefore violate the principle that cited sources should be independent of the subject. For these reasons, the article should be deleted as soon as possible. Pernoctus (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)</small[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete I find it rather remarkable that this page even exists. Having championed Wikipedia since its inception, I can't even begin to imagine why the encyclopedia would not include references to someone as respected and influential in the world of Lovecraftian fiction (a genre that grows in popularity with each passing year) as W.H. Pugmire. I do not know Mr. Pugmire. I've never met him. But I certainly am aware of him and his influence. I would add references to corroborate that influence, but I see that others have already done so, and a simple Google search should put this issue to rest once and for all. Let's keep Mr. Pugmire exactly where he belongs--in the pages of Wikipedia. I thank you for your time and attention. --Brett J. Talley, Bram Stoker Award Nominated author of That Which Should Not Be and The Void. --113.190.56.237 (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pernoctus, what you're ignoring here is that within the community that encompasses Lovecraftian authorship, scholarship, and fandom, it is almost inevitable that people will eventually become acquaintances, friends and even collaborators. It would make no sense to reduce someone to non-notable status once they become friends with the major experts in the field, claiming that one could no longer find unbiased references. GCL (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am Julia Morgan, better known on the internet as MorganScorpion. It is true that I am a friend of W H Pugmire, but I became his friend because I am a fan of his work, and Mr Pugmire has always been very kind to his fans. He has been publishing stories in a Lovecraftian vein for at least 15 years. I am providing a few links that may provide evidence as to why his Wikipedia page should not be deleted. The first is a link to S T Joshi's online autobiography. http://www.stjoshi.org/biography.html
The second is a link to an Amazon page detailing books written by W H Pugmire. http://www.amazon.com/W.-H.-Pugmire/e/B002CQONYO
The third is an interview published in The Arkham Gazette. http://www.arkhamdigest.com/2013/01/interview-wh-pugmire.html
Even a casual search of the internet will throw up countless articles about and by Mr Pugmire who is extremely well-thought of in the Lovecraftian community; not just for his stories, but for his kindness and graciousness to budding authors, artists and creative people of all kinds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorganScorpian (talk • contribs) 18:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am new to this process, so I am wondering how long all this re-listing will continue. Indefinitely? The lack of any ensuing discussion seems to reinforce this person's non-notability, and that the article should be deleted.Pernoctus (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Pernoctus, there's some difference of opinion among AfD regulars about how to interpret lack of participation, and whether repeated relistings are appropriate. In this case, I've been hoping someone more familiar with Seattle and/or Lovecraft might show up to opine, but since that didn't happen, I'll take a shot. Based on what I could find in the usual online searches, it appears that Pugmire is a colorful local character of some note around Seattle (The Stranger called him a "community anti-icon"[39]; also see e.g. [40][41][42]), but probably not notability since I could not track down any significant coverage in reliable sources. His writing does have some coverage (as in the sources in the article) but I am not clear whether any of these qualify as reliable sources. So I have to conclude that notability is not established, though I'd remain open to being convinced otherwise if more substantial coverage shows up. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a fallacy to conclude anything based on lack of replies. It could be that editors simply have bigger fish to fry. In my case, I reviewed the source material a couple weeks ago and simply couldn't decide. Pugmire seems to come up a lot in fan works, and some semi-professional criticism. There might be just enough to pass the bar, but then again, maybe not. I decided not to waste other editors' time saying "no opinion." So I said it by saying nothing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree with Dennis Bratland's comments: in particular, I would be more comfortable about deciding this if we could hear from someone familiar with the Lovecraft world who could opine on how much weight to give to those critical discussions of his work. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a fallacy to conclude anything based on lack of replies. It could be that editors simply have bigger fish to fry. In my case, I reviewed the source material a couple weeks ago and simply couldn't decide. Pugmire seems to come up a lot in fan works, and some semi-professional criticism. There might be just enough to pass the bar, but then again, maybe not. I decided not to waste other editors' time saying "no opinion." So I said it by saying nothing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely know I will not write this note correctly, because I don't edit Wikipedia as you guys do (just use it frequently!). I'm the publisher of "Lovecraft eZine", which is a very popular online magazine. I say that not to pat myself on the back, but just to make it clear that I'm very much a member of the Lovecraftian community, and many in that community look to me for my opinions on HPL, etc. Anyway: W.H. Pugmire is one of the most revered authors in said Lovecraftian community. He has also been called "the world's greatest living Lovecraftian writer" by MANY. He has published many Lovecraftian books. Any other specific questions, please ask and I'll do my best to answer. -- Mike Davis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.77.38 (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think Mr. Pugmire's widespread professional publication credits in the Lovecraftian field would speak for themselves on this topic. The world-renowned Lovecraft scholar S. T. Joshi has already cited Pugmire's credibility in Lovecraft literary culture on the existing page for W.H. Pugmire. Independent online interviews with Pugmire such as http://nicolecushing.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/fiction-that-is-audaciously-ones-own-an-interview-with-w-h-pugmire/ also lend evidence that he's a notable figure in Lovecraftian horror literature. H P Lovecraft himself was a member of a close-knit circle of writers and readers who appreciated his brand of fiction; the fact that Pugmire's page cites material or is assembled via close associates should not suggest he is not otherwise notable outside of his personal circle just as Lovecraft was notable beyond the familiarity of his close associates. Writing in his scholarly "The Rise and Fall of the Cthulhu Mythos, S. T. Joshi notes that "Pugmire's volumes... contain some of the richest veins of neo-Lovecraftian horror seen in recent years. (p. 268). -Randall Larson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjscoml (talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a Lovecraft scholar of note, but I AM a Lovecraft fan, and have been for over 20 years. I have never met WH Pugmire, nor do I know him personally, but I CAN attest that he is one of THE best Lovecraft-inspired writers in the industry today. I read, watch, listen to, study anything and everything I can find that is Lovecraft related, and it would be a shame to delete this page. If you have any doubts as to his writing ability, and his place on Wikipedia, I urge you to please read some of his work and judge for yourself. As a Lovecraft aficionado, I can tell you that the horror community LOVES Pugmire, and strongly feel he should remain featured on Wikipedia. Thank you so much for your kind consideration! Sabella M Hess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.14.54 (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a friend of W.H. Pugmire. I’ve never met him. Also, I have never been to Seattle. I am a 43-year-old advertising copywriter, aspiring screenwriter, and a Lovecraft enthusiast. I have been collecting and reading the works of H.P. Lovecraft and those authors who made up the Lovecraft Circle since I was a teenager. I also actively collect and read the works of the many contemporary authors who write Lovecraftian/weird fiction – magazines, anthologies, novels and so on. W.H. Pugmire is probably the most significant Lovecraftian author alive today. His impact on the genre is tremendous. These are big statements, I know, but they are true. I don’t know what more I can say on the subject. - Bill Barnett — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.83.52.14 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not limit the scope of information provided by Wikipedia!
Few (if any) have captured Lovecraft's dark aesthetic like Pugmire. Perhaps those outside the Lovecraftian 'circle' are less familiar with his work, but since when has Wikipedia been an exclusive club? It's strength lies in its broadness of scope. Removing Pugmire would limit the depth of knowledge Wikipedia provides about Lovecraft, his influences and those he has influenced. In short, the information you provide would be incomplete. You would be hard pressed to find a better and more highly regarded Lovecraftian writer alive today. In fact, I would encourage you to read his work before making any decision about this article. A few choice stories and a closer look at the modern Lovecraft circle would undoubtedly convince you to retain this article.
Wikipedia is valuable because it is (normally) inclusive and because it encourages thoroughness in all its articles. Pugmire is an extremely influential author, and a mainstay of the modern Lovecraft circle. Removing his entry would provide users of your tool with an obviously incomplete picture. JasonERolfe (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Jason Rolfe[reply]
- Comment. The comments just above confirms one side of what I think is the main problem here. Pugmire's literary output seems to have been almost entirely short stories and poems, most of them published in small-press magazines and anthologies aimed at Lovecraft enthusiasts - and Google searches strongly suggest that within the community who read these, Pugmire's reputation is sky-high. Basically, if we can take "Lovecraft eZine" or any similar publications (online or in print) as reliable sources by Wikipedia standards, then Pugmire is certainly notable. However, if we can't, then establishing Pugmire's notability becomes far more difficult. Given S. T. Joshi's standing as a critic and Lovecraft scholar, I regard the quotations given in the article as certainly contributing to Pugmire's notability - but equally certainly as not being enough to establish notability by themselves. But going beyond these to more general recognition of Pugmire's talent seems difficult. He seems to have had several stories published in Weird Tales under Ann VanderMeer's editorship - but I have not found reviews of them. There was apparently an in-depth review of a collection of Pugmire's stories in the October 2011 issue of The New York Review of Science Fiction, but I have not been able to see it. And there could be enough more in publications we generally accept as reliable to firmly establish notability - but if so, it is not very visible. PWilkinson (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pugmire's work has also recently been selected by notable weird fiction editor and critic (S.T. Joshi) for inclusion in an upcoming hardcover book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.63.118 (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My name is Derek Ferreira, I'm 29 years old and I work in the Hospitality Industry in Providence, Rhode Island. Forgive the potentially improper formatting as this is the first edit that I have ever attempted. I am a fan of the Lovecraftian horror genre, which (if you are interested in reading great new material) pretty much predestines me to having become a fan of W.H. Pugmire's. Of the authors working in the Lovecraftian microcosm W.H. Pugmire is the most notable; both because of his incredible talent and his welcoming, amiable nature towards the Lovecraftian community as a whole. Willum is a driving force within the community and as others have pointed out above, beloved by those in the same strange, wonderful circles. If you have any interest in the genre, you would be doing yourself a favor by checking out W.H. Pugmire's 'Sesqua Valley and Other Haunts,' or any of his numerous publications. The fact remains, if you're serious about Lovecraft, you know the name W.H. Pugmire. - Derek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Ferreira (talk • contribs) 19:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Robert M. Price cites Pugmire in the role of editorial influencer of emerging Lovecraftian work in the introduction to his book The New Lovecraft Circle. His publications are deemed of enough merit to be noted multiple times in The Year's Best Fantasy and Horror summations, (8th Annual, 13th Annual, 16th Annual, 17th Annual), an industry standard. The editors at the very pinnacle of Lovecraft's hometurf besides the pages of Arkham House, Weird Tales magazine, mention him as "a noted Lovecraftian." [Editors (Betancourt, John Gregory et al). "The Eyrie." Weird Tales. #337, July 2005 Published: Page: 17. Print.]. There is more, but if these major notations in addition to those already mentioned in the discussion do not suffice, what will?
In addition, when you're dealing with a niche subject matter such as the Lovecraftian field, in which many notables know each other personally due to the field's size limitations and general tradition of camraderie, it seems counterproductive to discard noted opinions and documentation of someone's career simply due to the collegial relationship of the person stating the material. So far as my own authority pertains to the discussion, my name is Michelle Y. Souliere. I am an independent blog and print editor, published author, artist, and bookshop owner operating on the mere fringes of the Lovecraftian field, and even I know of Pugmire's reputation, and have for some years. Please excuse any errors in protocol here -- this is the first time I've had need to engage in one of these discussions. Misfitgirl (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE As the organizer for the H.P. Lovecraft Film Festival, which has been running continously for the last 18 years, I can attest to the fact that Wilum H. Pugmire IS a notable celebrity in the community of cosmic horror and weird tales authors. He has been a featured guest several times at the H.P. Lovecraft Film Festival & CthulhuCon when his schedule permits. Centipede Press published and sold out a limited edition collection of his work which featured an introduction by S.T. Joshi, who is one of the most highly regarded Lovecraft scholars. Despite being such a noted author, in person, he is also a charming and warm individual, and is exactly the kind of celebrity who should be lauded on Wikipedia. http://hplfilmfestival.com/2010/portland/guests/wilum-hopfrog-pugmire[1]Arkhambazaar (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT- My name is Mark McLemore, and I just recently became a fan of W.H. Pugmire's work. Where can I find a list of his works so I may read more? Wikipedia. Great. WHAT? There is no reference to W.H. Pugmire on Wikipedia.
I did this comment to show how Wikipedia is used for finding such information. I am thankful I can look up many things on here. The moniker I have heard for the years of Wikipedia is "The Free Online Encyclopedia". Well, let's take that at face value and keep adding to the work here. Just because someone sees it as free advertisement, it is actually a great place to find information leading to other works by published authors. This alone should allow the page to remain. I believe there should be some citations set as to who you are Pernoctus to come to start this debate. Who are you? What are your credentials? And furthermore, who really cares? I mean, as far as I know, you could be some envious or wrathful person seeking to restrain others from furthering their knowledge of Mr. Pugmire. We don't know, because you offer no citations. Seriously, Pernoctus, WHO ARE YOU? Should you be someone I should be worried about if I become a published author and wish to put my works up for others to find? You are quick to cite evidence why the page should be taken, however, you lack any depth to reason with. You almost sound like someone with a fake name who likes to start arguments. Then again, who am I? I am just a reader and a hobby writer. I have read a few works by the author for whom this debate was begun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Mclemore1973 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Pugmire - I don't know the man. I've never been in the same room with WM Pugmire - I'm a bit agoraphobia so I don't do conventions. I'm sure my psychological handicap physically hampers my dreams of success being self-published.I've never even spoken to him but I am envious. Regardless, damn him to Hell, but don't delete his history. Such an affront would mirror the legacy of jealous Egyptian kings and pharaohs. Please, don't begrudge the small infamy he's gained. Keep this article about him. He is larger than life. He's been a beacon and milestone and his renown will grow postmortem. And here is my impetus to beg on another man's behalf. My own writing is inspired and modeled upon the horror of HP Lovecraft – note I am too divergent to be labeled a Lovecraftian. But after coping with a hundred rejection letters, I sought the examples of modern and productive aspirants. WM Pugmire is a shining example, not so young but he is earnest. Wikipedia helped me to re-discover him. Removing the article will close this avenue. He's earned his place and obscurity on Wikipedia would come undeserved. Isylumn (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. One of my biggest complaints with Wikipedia is that the standard of notability, especially in specialized areas of interest, is not how notable that person actually is within their field, but whether enough AfD regulars respect that area of interest to begin with. A good example being the fact that the Lovecraft community being small enough that Willum Pugmire is acquainted with the majority of significant figures in the field, which should be a sign of his own significance, is counted against him because those people are not considered ″objective″ enough. I don't think I've met Mr. Pugmire, though it is possible as we both live in Seattle and I know several members of the local horror community. I've read his work in a number of anthologies. From the quality I've seen in his work, I have no doubt of his skill as a writer, and understand why he is highly regarded in the Lovecraft community. Rhonan (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE Speaking as someone who is neither a "friend" nor a "member of the circle" of W.H. Pugmire, I find it disgraceful, embarrassing and moronic that his page would be even briefly considered for deletion from Wikipedia. There is only one possible reason that anyone has called his "notability" into question, especially given the overwhelming mass of links, evidence of publication, interviews and public appearances attached to his page: BIGOTRY, plain and simple. Pugmire is not a conventional personality and his lifestyle causes offense to the small-minded and mundane. He draws ire just as other queer authors did before him: see the life history of Oscar Wilde and so many others.
It is a testament to the enduring power of the childish bigots to damage ALL aspects of public knowledge that this discussion even needs to take place. I personally would request that whoever has moderator authority over this issue do the following: 1) Close this discussion immediately, 2) remove the "Deletion" notice from the page of an author and critic whose "Notability" is beyond all question, because it is an EMBARRASSMENT to Wikipedia and to the community of Lovecraft and weird fiction scholarship, 3) Ban the person who created this problem from having any further power to edit, vandalize, or otherwise damage Mr. Pugmire's page.
Wikipedia is a public trust, not a bathroom wall for bigots to scrawl their imbecilic hatred upon. This whole affair is inexcusable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.41.198 (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Wilum Pugmire, gifted with a richly evocative prose style, has produced noteworthy short specimens in such works as Dreams of Lovecraftian Horror (1999) and The Fungal Stain (2006)." Excerpt from the entry "The Cthulhu Mythos", by S. T. Joshi, page 123 in ICONS OF HORROR AND THE SUPERNATURAL. An Encyclopedia of Our Worst Nightmares. Volume 1. Edited by S. T. Joshi, Westport, Connecticut - London, Greenwood Press, 2007. ISBN 0-313-33780-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaBonazzi (talk • contribs) 22:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Now I'm convinced. There really isn't anything substantial enough to meet Wikipedia's standards. There's a lot of material out there in the fan and fanzine and forum world, but it never quite reaches the level of professionally edited publications that is required for notability. Fails the standards of WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. User Rhonan's !vote of "strong keep" rests on an objection to Wikipedia's standards of notability themselves, not an assertion that the community's standards have actually been met. We should not keep this article to prove a point. In addition, it's an unfortunate misconception among non-Wikipedians that a person is a nobody until they have a Wikipedia article, and that information is "lost" if you delete an article. The information remains right where it was before Wikipedia came along, and the subject's stature remains what it ever was, and an article that was getting under 500 hits a month has no effect on that stature. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I normally don't like to comment on people directly is such discussions, but Dennis Bratland's comment needs to be directly addressed, because it shows that he is either not a very good reader, or was intentionally misreading what I said. I did not voice any objection to Wikipedia's standards of notability, I objected to how they are frequently miss-applied in these discussions. Wilum Pugmire has had work published in significant Lovecraftian anthologies, as well as literary journals of note within the field. He has had works of criticism of his work published in significant journals of horror fiction. In short, any reasonable person should be able to recognize that he has met the standards in WP:AUTHOR. Of course, I recognize that the standards of reason and logic are not used by everyone in AfD discussions. I have found that to be especially true with Wikipedia purists who want a Wikipeda that meets their high standards. I'm a pragmatist, and think Wikipedia itself is nothing more than a tool. My standard is whether the inclusion of an article makes Wikipedia more useful to people. Does Wikipedia answer questions people have? If 500 people are looking at Pugmire's page in a month, that means that a good many of them probably had at least one question answered. That's notable enough for me. Rhonan (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with maintaining Pugmire's page? He's a talented writer with a relatively small fan base. Wikipedia shouldn't be a popularity contest! It should be a source of information.98.93.155.70 (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:WHYN. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE I am the editor of Lovecraft zine, Innsmouth Free Press. We've published work by W.H. Pugmire and considered it a major coup because he is a prominent living author in the field. Deleting his bio shouldn't even be in question. With all due respect, anyone who is so unaware of Pugmire's reputation in Mythos fiction as to be unsure whether or not he merits inclusion on Wikipedia as a Mythos writer is simply not qualified to make such a judgement. Everybody and their mother in the field knows about Pugmire. Whom will you delete next, S.T. Joshi?
I also can't help wondering if this is not more a comment on Mr. Pugmire's sexual orientation than on whether he's "famous enough" for Wikipedia - as in, would this page even be up for deletion if it were a page for an equally well-known straight Mythos author? The suggestions for deletion, on top of their belittling and ignorant attitude toward Mythos fiction in general, give off just the faintest whiff of homophobia. All things considered, I think Wikipedia would be better off erring on the side of inclusion, if only to avoid the question of whether it's choosing to marginalize authors that don't fit certain editors' extremely narrow worldviews. Paula R. Stiles —Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfounded accusations and personal attacks are a violation of Wikipedia's civility policies. There is zero evidence that this has anything to do with anyone's sexuality. This type of thing does not help you keep the article. Rather, displaying a lack of understanding of Wikipedia and the use of fallacious reasoning undermines your own credibility. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE I am a voracious reader and enjoy Mythos fiction among others. Within that community, the prolific Mr. Pugmire is very known and equally well respected not only by me, but also by respected authorities in the field such as S. T. Joshi. In addition to excellent short stories and poetry, he is a prolific reviewer of Mythos fiction and media whom people like me look to for advice. I do not understand why only writing short stories and poems (of which there are many) would determine the reason someone is "notable" within the realm of Wikipedia. As a regular financial supporter of Wikipedia, I do not understand the rationale for removing an author: I appreciate being able to find information about many topics on Wikipedia. I agree having someone on Wikipedia shouldn't be a popularity contest determined by people who don't read the genre.Tanuki2001 (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE Wilum Pugmire of one of the most interesting living authors writing horror-fiction in the field. To delete his Wikipedia entry in an outrageous act of discrimination considering how talented he truly is. The persons advocating the deletion really need to examine their own motivations in a non-biased way. It is ridiculous that someone is to have their page deleted because a hipster does not consider them to be famous-enough or conventional-enough. Blackwingbear (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Darren Mitton[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE Pugmire is certainly a nationally known author of Lovecraftian fiction and poetry. This year he will be a guest of honor as Poet Laureate at the Necronomicon-Providence convention. He knew or corresponded with several important figures in the Lovecraft Circle (Robert Bloch, H. Warner Munn, Fritz Leiber, J. Vernon Shea, L. Sprague de Camp, and others), and is now habitually anthologized with authors at the top of the Lovecrafian subgenre, as evidenced by his stories in such major releases as The Book of Cthulhu, The Book of Cthulhu 2, Black Wings of Cthulhu. Blastr.com named his story "The Fungal Stain" one of the 15 top Lovecraftian stories to read not by H. P. Lovecraft (click through to image 11 at the link). While Pugmire was once a writer for fanzines, he has emerged in recent years as a major voice in Lovecraftian fiction. His work has certainly been edited by professionals in the field, as evidenced above. --Chezdon (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "DO NOT DELETE" Mr. Pugmire is a well established Lovecraftian author, lately producing 2-3 hardcover books per year that are snapped up by collectors. He is valued as a guest speaker at Lovecraftian conventions and has a loyal following on his videoblogs. I have reviewed hundreds of books of Cthulhu mythos and Lovecraftian fiction, and write a quarterly column about the mythos scene for a Japanese magazine. After sifting out much chaff for a little wheat, I know his artistry is quite unique. Many authors in this genre can merely ape the master or churn out tired pastiches. With Joe Pulver and Caitlin Kiernan he has brought a much needed high level of craftsmanship into Lovecraftian fiction. If Wikipedia is supposed to be educational, this is one avenue for someone just beginning to dabble in Lovecraftian fiction to discover what heights of expression they can aspire to. What constitutes a celebrity? Furthermore he is very generous with his time with aspiring artists. Here is a partial list of his books:
The Fungal Stain and Others (Hippocampus Press, 2006, 978-0977173433) The Strange Dark One (Miskatonic River Press, 2012, 978-0982181898) Weird Inhabitants of Sesqua Valley, CreateSpace 2009, 978-1448699544) Gathered Dust and Others (Dark Regions Press, 2012, B00AGAZK22) The Tangled Muse (Centipede Press, 2010, 978-1933618784) Sesqua Valley and Other Haunts (Mythos Books, 2008, 978-0978991142)\ Uncommon Places, A Collection of Exquisites (Hippocampus Press, 2012) Some Unknown Gulf of Night (Arcane Wisdom, 2011, 978-1935006114)
These are all professional publications, not self published. It does not attempt to include his short fiction included in other anthologies. In the current Lovecraft circle he holds at least as important a place as Robert Price, Ramsey Campbell or ST Joshi. - Matthew Carpenter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.132.211 (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE It is clear that someone has publicized this proposed deletion to the Lovecraft fan community and requested that they come here to support the subject of the article. This is fine, I suppose, and I am happy to see the discussion begin--provided that the subject's supporters understand what "notability" is, according to Wikipedia.
- The problem, though, is that the "do not delete" voters appear not to grasp Wikipedia's notability standards. If they did, then they would understand that merely being a well-known local personality and a popular figure among fan fiction aficionados, with multiple non-professional publication credits, is not enough to establish notability, as Wikipedia defines that term. The suggested databases for establishing notability--JSTOR, Google Scholar, and the like--should offer an idea of what sort of outside recognition is required.
- S.T. Joshi's testimony might be probative, if he hadn't appeared in videos such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXZAORWEFH4. In any case, and as another commentator has indicated, Joshi's praise alone does not establish the subject's notability.
- As Dennis_Bratland summarizes, "There's a lot of material out there in the fan and fanzine and forum world, but it never quite reaches the level of professionally edited publications that is required for notability. Fails the standards of WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC."
- In essence, all that is offered in support of the subject's notability are a gaggle of anecdotes about the subject's high standing in a relatively small community of fandom and small/vanity horror presses, spiced with a few rants that fail even to make an attempt at rational argument, and falsely accuse me of bias (and hover perilously close to libel in doing so).
- To summarize: Nothing in the above series of "do not delete" votes has convinced me to change my mind. This is a non-notable author who is published and touted only in the small press, or by print-on-demand outfits such as Hippocampus, via a reciprocal chain of promotion. For this reason, the article should be deleted at the earliest opportunity.Pernoctus (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wilum has appeared in small presses AND large commercial ones. He has stories in:
Book of Cthulhu (Night Shade Books) Children of Cthulhu (Del Rey Books) The Recent Weird (Prime Books, 2011) Future Lovecraft (Originally Innsmouth Free Press, reprinted by Prime Books 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.234.115 (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC) \[reply]
I find some of the delete viewpoints deeply problematical. There seems to be a lot of subjective goalpost-changing going on. First, there is the complaint that Pugmire isn't important enough (Really, so all those people listed on Wikipedia who are famous mainly for having killed someone are important now?). When posters gave references showing that Pugmire was quite well-known in his field, and therefore "notable," the complaints change to the lack of academic sources and Pugmire's allegedly localized celebrity. Unfortunately, the objectivity is marred by the classification of some sources as being "fan works" unsuitable for sourcing on Wikipedia. This classification is vague, emotive and not at all academically rigorous. Before you can dismiss a source as a "non-notable" "fan work," you first need to define what that is and how that applies to the page at hand, which that commenter failed to do. In short, the criterion for a good source here seems to be whatever the commenter and his friends believe it is, based on their own interests.
And the complaints that the posters arguing against deletion don't understand Wikipedia rules for validation are rather amusing. Academics target Wikipedia as a place of poor scholarship (which, I'll grant you, isn't universally fair) specifically because Wikipedia's criteria are so arbitrary and so much can be put up on its pages with little or no attribution. That's what happens when anybody can contribute. Yet, a well-known genre author suddenly has to have references to his fame that are suitable for an academic press or his page will be deleted? Why is that? And why the denigration of the preeminent Lovecraft scholar, S.T. Joshi, as some kind of Pugmire fanboy? That's going to make the sourcing on the Lovecraft page very iffy, should you choose to follow that argument to its logical conclusion.
If you really want to present this as an argument for deletion due to lack of appropriate attribution, then set out specific guidelines that have some authoritative basis somewhere (cited properly, of course) and stick to them. What's required? Print sources? What kind? Pro sales? How many? Appearances in Google News? How far back? And how do these rules correlate with how other author pages are judged? If you're going to claim that the page doesn't follow Wikipedia rules, then how about listing the rules it doesn't follow and how it, specifically, doesn't follow them instead of mocking the newer posters as newbies who don't understand the rules? Otherwise, the comments of "Nope, not convinced" are, shall we say, very unconvincing.
For example, it is not at all clear why articles like this interview from Lovecraft News Network: http://lovecraftnewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2009/09/lnn-interviews-author-wh-pugmire.html or this one from Motley Vision: www.motleyvision.org/2010/pugmire-interview/ or this one from the Arkham Digest: http://www.arkhamdigest.com/2013/01/interview-wh-pugmire.html are dismissed as self-promotion or fanlove, or chats with friends. Nor is it clear why his extensive bibliography (as here: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?11256) makes him not good enough for Wikipedia. The man hasn't been self-publishing all these years. He is indisputably a noted pro horror writer, even important enough to appear prominently in Horror Writers Association press releases: http://stokers2012.lisamorton.com/spress.html.
A far better approach would be to suggest that the page needs improvement without getting into the sticky thicket of whether or not Pugmire "deserves" a Wikipedia page (these being two different issues, anyway). I think there would be much more support for a product that is worthy of inclusion on the Wikipedia site, if improvement were suggested over deletion, rather than the current argument started due to arbitrarily deciding to throw out the baby with the bathwater, as it were. Paula R. Stiles
- You've been given links to Wikipedia's guidelines, but everyone is falling over themselves to rush to their keyboards to bang out long speeches, instead of taking the time to click on the links and read. The main one to understand is Wikipedia:Notability. What is a reliable source? Read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and especially note WP:SPS. Are there specific guidelines for a writer and critic? Yes. See Wikipedia:Notability (people), more specifically, WP:AUTHOR and Wikipedia:Notability (academics).
Excellent advice can be found at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions.
The publications everyone is citing are wonderful, but Wikipedia's community consensus is to draw the line for sources demonstrating notability above that of amateur and fan works. They need to be serious academic journals, national level media, or books from major publishers.
All these words by fans of Pugmire aren't going to help; you have to first understand the guidelines and cite sources that clearly meet those requirements. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, as I understand what is being said here, unless you are Stephen King, Daniel Steele, Dan Brown or Shakespeare, you shouldn't be a writer covered on Wikipedia. Also, will we be deleting the pages for the books that most people haven't heard of? Whatever the guidelines may be, I would think it goes against the spirit of the site to say that we won't have information about someone that isn't quite as famous as other writers because they aren't as famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.177.59 (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, Dennis Bratland has offered a cogent reply to my most recent respondent, so I needn't waste further words rebutting her response.
- What I do want to make clear is that I studied the Wikipedia notability guidelines very carefully and performed several database searches before I posted both the "notability" tag--which was an invitation to interested parties to improve the article--and the request for deletion. I wanted, and I still want, to be fair to the subject. The unfortunate but unavoidable conclusion, however, is that he and his work do not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Of course, some relatively obscure writers do meet the guidelines--Malcolm de Chazal comes immediately to mind--but this person does not.
- Not surprisingly, some here have tried to "move the goal post" by making the discussion about the validity of Wikipedia and its standards, or their alleged misapplication. I would be the first to admit the subject's notability, if "notability" in Wikipedia parlance meant "notable to a subset of fan fiction enthusiasts". Unfortunately for the latter, however, "notability" according to Wikipedia does not mean that, and my use of that term has always been in the sense that Wikipedia intends.
- If articles such as this one are allowed to stand, then what is next? Un-deletable pages devoted to the most popular authors of Harry Potter or Twilight fan fiction? Unlike others here, I am not trying to tell Wikipedia what its standards should be. I am trying to uphold Wikipedia's standards in their current form by requesting the deletion of an article that clearly does not meet them. Unless Wikipedia intends to expand its definition of notability to include recognition by the amateur press, bloggers, and the like, it should take a strong stand and delete articles such as this one.Pernoctus (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is Doubleday an amateur press? Is Tor an amateur press? Is Daw Books an amateur press? Because Pugmire has been published in those presses, which are all large, commercial presses. Anthologies that he has appeared in (Black Wings, Book of Cthulhu) have been reviewed and mentioned in places like Wire http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/09/the-cthulhu-sized-cthulhu-books-review/ Why, his name is on the cover of Book of Cthulhu I and II, right next to Neil Gaiman and Ramsey Campbell. As far as dismissing him as a fan fiction writer, this shows little understanding of the Lovecraftian writing community. Ramsey Campbell started off writing Lovecraftian stories and then went on to write some other stuff, becoming a well-known horror novelist. Laird Barron has written many Lovecrafian stories and one of his collections won the Shirley Jackson Award. Elizabeth Bear won a Hugo Award for Best Novelette for "Shoggoths in Bloom", a Lovecraftian story. If you are going to dismiss all Lovecraftian inspired stories and authors, you need to delete entries for Thomas Ligotti and Caitlín Rebekah Kiernan, who are also notable Lovecraftian writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.234.115 (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Having a handful of stories published in anthologies that contain works by truly notable writers--as opposed to the bulk of this writer's corpus, which appears mainly in small fandom editions--does not establish notability. For instance, the story published by Doubleday is in such an anthology, and is not even the sole work of the subject; it is co-written. The story in the DAW anthology was edited by a friend of Pugmire's, Karl Edward Wagner, about whom Pugmire has written, "Karl was extremely supportive when I was a young beginning writer, and I loved him for his kindness and generosity as an editor." http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/525599-karl-edward-wagner-thoughts.html.
- 2. Further, such publications alone do not establish notability. From the Wikipedia notability guidelines: "Wikipedia's general notability guideline requires that in order for a subject to be notable, it must be sourced by multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. In establishing notability, those sources must meet the guidelines found on the reliable sources page." In other words, not only must the subject be considered notable by those outside fandom, and outside his personal circle of friends and admirers, but he also must be considered notable by those outside the publishing industry, e.g., by critics and reviewers in major, reputable publications.Pernoctus (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant delete. Pernoctus is, I think, being rather over-stringent in his/her reasons for rejecting the various claims put forward for Pugmire's notability, both in the article than here, though I do think most of the claims fail anyway. I am not sure that any of the claims of personal friendships with possible sources actually stand up to the point where we would reject the sources just for that reason, and some of the claims obscure the actual reasons why suggested references don't help establish notability. For instance, the evidence for "friendship" with Karl Edward Wagner is a blog comment by Pugmire himself, made years after Wagner's death - the reason why the inclusion of a story by Pugmire in one of Wagner's anthologies (which may by itself have led to Pugmire's blog comment) does not contribute to notability is not because of friendship but because inclusion in anthologies never does unless that has led to the story concerned being discussed in reliable sources. And, despite the rhetorical question, we do have Wikipedia articles on Twilight fan fiction (for instance, Fifty Shades of Grey - though that is admittedly a distinctly exceptional case). For that matter, Wikipedia rightly has many articles on what is at least in some sense Lovecraft fan fiction, right through from the early days of Arkham House to recent (admittedly rather more peripherally Lovecraftian) works such as A Study in Emerald and Shoggoths in Bloom. But in these cases, we are looking at work which has received significant (and sometimes award-winning) recognition beyond the core Lovecraftian community.
- In Pugmire's case, that doesn't, at least yet, seem to be there - though, in one way, the [Horror Writers of America]] press release mentioned in a comment above, announcing a Bram Stoker Award for one of Pugmire's publishers, comes tantalisingly close. However, it is in practice unusable for several reasons - Pugmire is only mentioned in passing (even if in a list with ten other authors, nine of whom have Wikipedia articles), press releases are in practice only regarded as reliable on Wikipedia as an expression of the releaser's opinion (though the HWA's opinion of who has won a Bram Stoker Award is definitive), and this copy of the press release is not from the HWA's website but from a personal one (though this point might be arguable as the person concerned had apparently been appointed by the HWA to organise that year's Bram Stoker Awards ceremony). If Pugmire himself had won the Award, we would pretty definitely assume he was notable just because of that - unfortunately, he hasn't, at least yet.
- So we are back to critical notice from reliable sources by Wikipedia standards - of the material now in the article, I still judge S. T. Joshi to be a reliable source but quotes should be cited and from what are intended as scholarly works, the Publishers Weekly quote may be usable (but there are often differences of opinion in deletion discussions about whether a PW review counts toward notability) if it was cited from Publishers Weekly rather than from the Hippocampus Press website (even if a company is notable, its website is only reliable for direct facts - such as author, title, ISBN - about its publications, not critical reaction), but the other quotes can only really count towards notability if they are from (and can be cited back to) reviews in reliable sources - and quotes apparently produced for use in blurbs would never count as reliable.
- Finally, this deletion could look distinctly stupid in twenty, or even two, years' time if Pugmire has meanwhile won major awards, achieved even mid-list status as an author or received significant (and quite likely deserved) critical attention - as Wikipedia would do now if articles on H. P. Lovecraft or August Derleth had been deleted during their lifetimes (as, by Wikipedia's current standards, they might well have been). But Wikipedia does not try to guess the future - so we are where we are. Also, Wikipedia could be undervaluing the reliability of some of the Lovecraft community's internal news or critical publications, print or online. But if so, that is probably for a more general discussion - and would need at the very least some evidence that at least some outside reliable sources (news, literary, academic, whatever) were from time to time picking up on them. PWilkinson (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate PWilkinson's input. In response, let me reiterate that I am not trying to be over-stringent. I am simply trying to present the opposite side of the case, so that those who finally decide the issue can do so from the broadest perspective. The mention of the relationship with Wagner, for instance, is not absolutely disqualifying, I agree, but it ought to be noted. By contrast, I would still insist that Pugmire's close personal relationship with S.T. Joshi disqualifies the latter from consideration in establishing Pugmire's notability. On the other hand, I think it is a point in Pugmire's favor--though not a strong enough one for me to change my mind regarding deletion--that Harvard's library owns a copy of one of Pugmire's Hippocampus short story collections.
- For the rest, the key point is "recognition beyond a given community of fans". One person alludes to Ramsey Campbell as having begun his career as a Lovecraft imitator, but what matters is that Campbell quickly outgrew this phase. His subsequent acclaim was for fiction produced outside fandom, and for work published by major publishers. Likewise, a book such as Fifty Shades of Grey rapidly outgrew its narrow origins and became a popular culture phenomenon. When something similar happens with Pugmire's output, then I will happily withdraw my objections. But, as PWilkinson rightly observes, Pugmire is not there yet, and at present his work does not merit a Wikipedia entry, still less one of the length and detail it currently has.Pernoctus (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"By contrast, I would still insist that Pugmire's close personal relationship with S.T. Joshi disqualifies the latter from consideration in establishing Pugmire's notability." - So, you're stating that Joshi is a poor scholar, since he allows his critical faculty to be over ridden by personal sentiment? Interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.169.94 (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If we are to ascertain Pugmire's "notability" by taking note of major universities that carry his work in their libraries, then we should note that: "The Children of Cthulhu" is held by Yale's Sterling Memorial Library, "The Book of Cthulhu" by the University of Baltimore's Langsdale Library, "Cutting Edge" by William Paterson University of New Jersey's David and Lorraine Cheng Library, the City College / CUNY, Queens College's Benjamin Rosenthal Library, and Adelphi University's Swirbul Library, "Black Wings" by Yale University's Sterling Memorial Library, Harvard University's Harvard College Library, and the University of Virginia, "The Fungal Stain" by Harvard University's Harvard College Library, the University of Michigan, and Texas A&M University, and "New Cthulhu : The Recent Weird" by Hamilton College's Daniel Burke Library. Pugmire's "Sesqua Valley & Other Haunts" is held in the University of Michigan's library (itself an institution known for its literary scholasticism). "The Tangled Muse," a retrospective compilation of W.H. Pugmire's work, is part of the University of Denver's Penrose Library collection. Pugmire's fiction is referenced in literary scholar Michael Ashley's "The Supernatural Index: A Listing of Fantasy, Supernatural, Occult, and Weird Literature," reviewed in Robert A. Collins' "Science Fiction & Fantasy Book Review Annual," discussed in Daniel Harms' "The Encyclopedia Cthulhiana: A Guide to Lovecraftian Horror," and Cosette N. Kies' "Supernatural Fiction for Teens: More Than 1300 Good Paperbacks to Read for Wonderment, Fear, and Fun." I'd also like to point out that I serve as an intern at Hippocampus Press, a widely-respected publisher of not solely Lovecraftian literature, but books of literary scholarship and criticism by such international luminaries as Messimo Berruti (professor of Semiotics of Art & Literature, narratology, and Interpretative Semiotics at the University of Helsinki, author of "Dim-Remembered Stories"), S.T. Joshi (whose influence on literary criticism cannot be understated), Douglas A. Anderson (the world's foremost expert on textual issues in Tolkien, editor of the peer-reviewed academic journal "Tolkien Studies," co-editor of Barlow's poetry), Stefan Dziemianowicz (a senior editor at Barnes & Noble), Jim Rockhill (one of the most knowledgeable and well-respected scholars of J.S. LeFanu), Gary William Crawford (contributor to the "The Penguin Encyclopedia of Horror and the Supernatural," author of bio-bibliographies of Ramsey Campbell, Robert Aickman, J.S. LeFanu, and others), among countless others. Hippocampus Press is the leading publisher of the corrected texts & scholarly editions of Lovecraft's works, including the whole of his letters, fiction, essays, and soon, poetry, and should not be dismissed as a "vanity press" or a "print-on-demand" publishing imprint/outfit. Hippocampus Press utilizes the same printing and binding services as Ingram, a major provider of books and content to libraries and bookstores. 68.196.217.23 (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Michael J. Abolafia[reply]
- "If we are to ascertain Pugmire's 'notability' by taking note of major universities that carry his work in their libraries"
- We aren't, actually. We are to assess Pugmire's notability by using the criteria of Wikipedia as they currently stand. I merely mentioned library ownership in the interest of fairness and objectivity. I also mentioned that it is not enough to make Pugmire a notable subject.
- "S.T. Joshi (whose influence on literary criticism cannot be understated)". I assume the intended term is "overstated", but the statement is accurate as it stands.
- As to Hippocampus, no one is "dismissing" it as a print-on-demand press. That fact is mentioned because, well, it is a fact, and not a mere statement of opinion (such as, for instance, "Hippocampus is a widely-respected publisher"). As such, that fact ought to be considered in the discussion, for individuals to weigh as they choose.Pernoctus (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pernoctus, I appreciate your taking the time to reply to some of the points raised in my last brief missive. I examined carefully the author standards criteria enacted and upheld by Wikipedia, and fail to see precisely where W.H. Pugmire falls short:
- ——1.) "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."
- Pernoctus, I appreciate your taking the time to reply to some of the points raised in my last brief missive. I examined carefully the author standards criteria enacted and upheld by Wikipedia, and fail to see precisely where W.H. Pugmire falls short:
Nobody would argue against this, Pernoctus. This has been amply defended, and I imagine you would not contend the validity and/or extent of Pugmire's influence, even if it is largely within one "niche" area of literature. "Tales of Lovecraftian Horror," a magazine Wilum edited in the 80s and 90s, published fiction by writers like Thomas Ligotti, Donald R. Burleson, Robert Price, Michael Cisco, Darrell Schweitzer, Gary Myers, Peter Cannon, Richard Gavin, and Joseph S. Pulver, Sr. This is also noteworthy, I think.
- ——2.)"The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications."
The phrase "major news agencies or publications" presents an ambiguity that raises some thorny issues. Pugmire has been "the subject of" articles in such publications as Seattle's "The Stranger" (one of its largest newspapers) and "The Seattle Times" (see: "Ghost Writers -- Seattle's Horror-Fiction Authors Find Our Region's Gloomy Days Nourish Their Creative Spirits") -- these have already been noted. He has contributed letters and editorials to "The Seattle Weekly," was cited/acknowledged in the article "Supernatural Verse in English" by Steve Eng, and has a not insubstantial role in a recent documentary on Forrest J Ackerman (an "expert source," arguably).
- ——3.) "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique."
Wilum Pugmire's Sesqua Valley, a fictional locale situated in the Pacific Northwest, is considered by the Lovecraft community at large to be among the most significant and original contributions to Lovecraftian literature in recent times. Pugmire's fictional country was referenced in the Darkest of the Hillside Thickets's song "Six-Gun Gorgon Dynamo," and lauded in "The Year's Best Fantasy and Horror," ed. Ellen Datlow.
- ——4.) "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
No question that he has played a major role in creating a significant or well-known collective body of work. His books have been reviewed by "multiple independent periodicals," including Asimov's (http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0409/onbooks.shtml), Fantasy Magazine (http://www.fantasy-magazine.com/reviews/weird-inhabitants-pugmire/), The New York Review of Science Fiction (October 2011), Publishers Weekly, etc. There is no dearth of professional reviews of Pugmire's writings.
- ——5.) "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."
Wilum fits option (c) here; he has certainly won "significant critical attention," as his books have been reviewed favorably in the venues indicated (as well as dozens of others, probably more, unknown to me), discussed by scholar S.T. Joshi, and has won/been nominated for a number of notable awards. I understand that you have some questions regarding the validity of S.T. Joshi's scholarship, which I can somewhat understand, seeing as he's Wilum's personal friend, although your concerns are not wholly valid. Jeffrey Thomas, for instance, was roundly lambasted by Joshi in one of his critical commentaries, despite the two being on relatively friendly terms. Joshi is a critic and scholar first and foremost -- at least, this is my impression of him. More later. Thanks again for the interesting dialogue.68.196.217.23 (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Michael J. Abolafia[reply]
- I appreciate your thoughtful advocacy. Nonetheless, I continue to believe that Pugmire's work fails the following summarized test of notability: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." As I mentioned in a previous comment, I would be the first to admit the subject's notability, if "notability" in Wikipedia parlance meant "notable to a subset of fan fiction enthusiasts". Unfortunately, it does not. Most of the sources you cite merely reaffirm the impression that Pugmire is simply a local celebrity and a denizen of Lovecraft fandom. One day, Wikipedia's standards may be changed to include such persons. As matters stand, however, the standards do not allow such an interpretation today, in my view. Pernoctus (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Absolutely noteworthy. Do not delete. The continual denigration of fanzines and fandom on Wikipedia flies in the face of the best evidence that a substantial number of notable writers, artists and musicians included in this very encyclopedia all began their careers in fanzines: Donald Wollheim, Frederik Pohl. Damon Knight, Judith Merril, James Blish, and all the Futurians, Ray Bradbury, Forrest J Ackerman, Julius Schwartz, Robert Silverberg, Harlan Ellison, Lee Hoffman, Michael Moorcock, Poul Anderson, Karen Kruse Anderson, George R.R. Martin, Charles de Lint, Robert Price, Jessica Amanda Salmonson, William Gibson, Greg Shaw, Robert Eggplant, G.B. Jones, Kathleen Hanna, Allison Wolfe, Molly Neuman, Tobi Vail, Aaron Cometbus, to name just a few - this is a small selection of notable people who published fanzines, along with W.H. Pugmire. So, to assert that fanzines, and fandom are unimportant or non-notable contradicts the inclusion of a long list of notable people who were involved with fanzine and fandom from thoughout the 1900s, into the 2000s. From his first appearances in Forrest J Ackerman's Famous Monsters of Filmland, to his stint at the Jones' Fantastic Museum, to his punk and horror fanzines, to his present day highly regarded short stories and novels, and appearance in the film The AckerMonster Chronicles! (about Forrest J Ackerman), W.H. Pugmire has ALWAYS been notable in several fields of activity. I do not know Mr. Pugmire, and I do not live in the U.S.A., but I have been following his career for many years now, and I would not have been able to do so unless others found him notable as well, and reported on his activities and many accomplishments. Intheshadows (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2013 (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 Georgia . MBisanz talk 00:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
University of Georgia College of Education
- University of Georgia College of Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Do we really have articles for all schools in a university? I see no reason to consider this one independently notable. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to University of Georgia what can be reliably sourced. In general constituent colleges justify their own page when they award their own degrees, separate from the University, or there is something particularly notable about them. In addition Law and Medical schools are generally considered notable. However, for 'run of the mill' schools like this (and for that matter a number of others at this University, that have pages) I see no justification for their own article. TerriersFan (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to University of Georgia as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Faculties_and_academic_colleges as there is no evidence of individual notability for this department. AllyD (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this College is over 100 years old and reliable sources are available; why do you think that no content should be merged? TerriersFan (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2013 (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. Courcelles 23:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bole Dembel Shopping Center
- Bole Dembel Shopping Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced article that fails notability as well. Jetstreamer Talk 16:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Move: This article is about one of the first few modern western-style shopping centers in Ethiopia. The article is just badly written and mislabeled. It should be moved to Dembel City Center. It has a good
firstprimary source; Dembel City Center website that can be used along with secondary sources: News articles that mention Dembel, more news articles: Ethiopia: DBE Moves to Foreclose Dembel.... You get the idea. This article is just badly written. I have begun improving it. I will however not move it until it is off review. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Move, given Janweh64's improvements to the article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (and rename), please search for variant names and in foreign sources before AfD nominations. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but it's not the nominator's responsibility to find sources for an unsourced article. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Please become more famiilar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Jetstreamer, sometimes the best way to bring attention to sub-par articles is to bring them up for review. At nomination, this article had ZERO sources and an incorrect name. What is the next move however. I think even you, the nominator, Jetstreamer will agree this AFD is no longer necessary. Can I now simply move this article and consider this issue resolved. Or is that up to an Administrator. — አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- An administrator should close this debate, but yes, I now support moving rather than deleting.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I will contact Courcelles (talk · contribs) for closing this debate.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BURDEN is part of a content policy, not a part of WP:Deletion policy. What WP:Deletion policy says in regard to WP:V is, "Reasons for deletion include...Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Unscintillating (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Elektra Initiative
- Elektra Initiative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged for notability for 5 years; unreferenced Boleyn (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
Speedy keep #2deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the nomination of this article for deletion provides a valid reason for considering deletion. Nominating a number articles in a short time is not against Wikipedia policy. Dialectric (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no 3rd party refs to establish notability, tagged for notability since 2008; created by an anon IP / SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. IT department trivia promoting non-notable software. Instead of each program having its own text configuration files, with a variety of formats, Elektra tries to provide a universal, hierarchical, fast and consistent namespace and infrastructure to access configuration parameters through a key-value pair mechanism inspired by the Windows Registry. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:44, 29 January 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 11:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tegu
- Note to closing admin: to preserve relevant edit histories, a history un-merge was done during this AfD. This AfD is about the article now found at Tegu (toy company). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tegu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article coopted a redirect to the lizard genus Tupinambis and was deleted out-of-process by restoring the redirect over it. My reading of the sources is that this may be sufficiently notable, so I'm putting it through the process for confirmation one way or the other. Consider this a procedural nomination for now; I may add a !vote later. Mangoe (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO, there are two issues here. One is whether this toy company is notable enough for its own page. Another is where it goes. If the toy company is not considered notable, the page should be returned to its former state - redirecting users from the common name of a taxon to the scientific name of the taxon. If the toy company is considered notable, its page should be moved to "Tegu Toys" or "Tegu_(company)" or somesuch, and the current page could become a disambig page linking to the toy company and the reptile. The key point is that users searching for the reptile should be able to find the page on that reptile easily, not be directed to some minor company with no links to the much more common and valid use of the term. HCA (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Promotional article, contents not properly cited, alleged sources (a mere list of links) appear to be mostly just informal customer reviews, with little or no serious coverage of the company as such in reliable sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, so far there seems to be a dearth of support for keeping it as the toy company. How long should we let this continue before returning it to the lizard redirect? There certainly don't seem to be many opinions on the matter. HCA (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley (what's up) 02:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The lizard is a definite Keep, of course; the toy company less clear. HERE is a piece from Slate.com dealing with what would seem to be their main product, magnetic wooden blocks. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- THIS BLOG POST might be helpful if someone wants to write this up into a better form, although it won't probably count towards GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gotta get ready for work now, but I suspect sourcing towards GNG may well be in Spanish. This is the company name: Manufactura Tegu S.A. de C.V. and THIS is company-published but does add more material towards verifiability if anyone gets fired up to improve this. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- THIS BLOG POST might be helpful if someone wants to write this up into a better form, although it won't probably count towards GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Playing a hunch here, but I suspect sources are out there for the toy company. TV time limit for now, I hope to revisit this later. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2013 (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 Demonic Toys#Merchandising. The Bushranger One ping only 00:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Demonic Toys (comic book)
- Demonic Toys (comic book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yet another comics article that floats around in its own in-universe bubble with no evidence whatsoever of 3rd party notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Demonic Toys -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Demonic_Toys#Merchandising and merge pertinent data. I wish I had been able to find the sourcing to show notability for this spinoff as I'm a FM fan, but it just isn't out there. There are the various inevitable fan blog entries about this, but ultimately the reliable sourcing doesn't seem to exist. We can merge some of the information to the parent article and redirect to that section.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Demonic Toys, then redirect, per User:Tokyogirl79's rationale above. Makes sense. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Demonic_Toys, appears the most reasonable solution here. Cavarrone (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SamyGO
- SamyGO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Most of the sources are from the official site. I can't find any significant coverage, just a few unreliable blog posts. —Torchiest talkedits 23:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm seeing some very basic coverage but it's all very specialized and minimal. I can't find a lot information about the DMCA issue re: their domain name, which would grant some notability. I don't think this passes WP:GNG at this point. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:44, 29 January 2013 (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 Scouting in Scotland. maintaining the history in case anyone wants to merge any of it into Scouting in Scotland J04n(talk page) 11:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Haddock
- Graham Haddock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is supported by a single news article, it is not about the subject but about a comment the subject made details about the comment do not make the subject notable but, if not already added there, should be added to the Scottish scouting article rather than be used to create a biographical article - my Google search did not reveal additional independent sources reporting the subject having a notable life to a limit to warrant/quality the standards of WP:BIO - related to WP:GNG - Youreallycan 20:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am sure he is a fine person, but he is not notable per Wikipedia's definition. A Google News search found only the one article already cited on the page. Being one of the National Commissioners within The Scout Association does not appear to be an automatically notable position. I see no place in that article that names the commissioners, so I don't think a merge or redirect to The Scout Association is advisable. The subject is a physician, but there does not appear to be anything notable (by Wikipedia standards) about his medical career. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with The_Scout_Association#Promise_and_Law as the news item is a useful counterpoint/addition to the discussion referenced there. Otherwise does not meet WP:BIO so I agree with no re-direct per MelanieN above.—Baldy Bill (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect -- we have an article on the Chief Scout for UK and overseas territories (with a list of holders). WE have one on the equivalent Irish position (without a list), but none on the Scottish position. Until we have a list article, I do not think we can accept that the position makes him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I'm misreading this, but it looks to me as if the Chief Scout is the head of scouting for the UK and overseas territories, and under that person are commissioners for the various parts of the UK - including a commissioner for Scotland, one for England, etc. Thus, Mr. Haddock's position as Commissioner for Scotland is not equivalent to the Chief Scout; he is at the next level below Chief Scout. See The Scout Association#Organisation. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't see anything notable, and agree that a redirect is pointless ---- nonsense ferret 01:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley (what's up) 01:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 02:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Contrary to the nominator, I see a number of interesting sources in my Google search. Subject is notable for being head of the Scottish Scouts, if you will, and has made some startling and controversial statements about dropping part of the UK scout oath to "God" and "Queen" which I find additionally notable. There is plenty of material to build a decent Wikipedia article here. Jusdafax 07:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say borderline, although on balance Keep. He is apparently National Commissioner for Escouts as well. If not keep, then an appropriate merge would be to Scouting in Scotland, which already mentions that there is "a Chief Commissioner of Scotland". Ben MacDui 10:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarify -- I voted "redirect". I was suggesting that Cheif Scout desrved an article by national commissioners did not. I will now supoort a merge with Scouting in Scotland. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I !voted "delete" but I would accept a merge/redirect to Scouting in Scotland. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2013 (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 Bushranger One ping only 01:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Athlone Group of Companies
- Athlone Group of Companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Company appears to fail WP:CORP and WP:GNG. As with the previously deleted articles on the same subject--The Athlone Group and Athlone Group--this article contains sources about Jojar S Dhinsa, but notability is not inherited. The remaining sources establish the existence of the company and some of its activities, but do not appear to rise to the level of significant coverage. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Extensive Governmental Membership & Recognition Athlone Group of Companies has a long list of Government ministers as members, namely;
- HE Karin Wade, Minister of State for Energy for Senegal
- Finance Minister of Senegal
- Claude S. Bouah-Kamon Ambassador for Ivory Coast
- Sinknesh Ejjigu, Mining Minister of Ethiopia
- Berhanu Kebede, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ethiopia
- Mr Otabek Akbarov, Ambassador of Republic of Uzbekistan
- Roosevelt Jayjay, Mines and Energy Minister of Liberia
- Prime Minister of Sri Lanka
- Trade Minister of Sri Lanka
- Joan K.N.Rwabyomere, High Commissioner for Uganda
- Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud
- Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz, King of Saudi Arabia
- Fahad Bin Migrin Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, Prince of Saudi Arabia
- Edward Turay, High Commissioner of Sierra Leone
- Tilahun Gemechu Gelashe, Ethiopian Investment Minister
- High Commissioner of Sudan
- As documented and evidenced by photographs here http://www.athlonegroup.com/gallery.html The sheer number of high-profile figurehead members make this group a significant entry for recognition to Wikipedia. The member companies of Athlone contribute approximately $2.5 billion to humanitarian projects and causes annually, and is worthy of note.
Regards
MarcelBrandon (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also like to offer the following example; Athlone Group runs a program called UBUDO - a program set up to take children off the streets in Kenya, by giving them shelter, and then running fitness classes to help them stay healthy and fit.
- Please check these videos and I'm sure you will see the good work that is being achieved here.
Kind regards
MarcelBrandon (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of good work achieved, a bunch of YouTube videos doesn't make a group notable. Nor does having notable members necessarily under WP:INHERIT. A quick Google search of mine turned up nothing. Delete. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete after some detailed research, I have to conclude not notable, and quite likely doesn't exist. ---- nonsense ferret 00:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC) A previous version of the page was deleted some time ago - The_Athlone_Group ---- nonsense ferret 00:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Were all the information in the article verifiable, then the organisation would almost certainly be notable. But like nonsenseferret, I have to conclude that there is something very wrong here. --AJHingston (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - and for very good reasons;
This was not just a "bunch of YouTube videos" ...
However your comments do reflect the very reason for this Group being on Wikipedia;
As you noted that the Group does 'good work' - there is not nearly enough recognition from the general public as to the efforts these ministers go to in order to support the underprivileged nations, and to bettering their conditions of life.
Many charities spend huge amounts of their budget on advertising, tv shows, and news releases - which is a huge waste of money that was intended to help those in need. The youtube videos are more than just an advertisement of a branded charity, they are proof of REAL charity work going on to help those in need, and I find the comment about them rather distasteful. I would respectfully invite you to withdraw the comment. -Regards, MarcelBrandon (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact is, my comment is 100% correct. We're not looking for advertising (which is what this page is being used for anyway, one way or another), TV shows, news releases or YouTube videos. We're looking for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: please read WP:GNG. And the fact is, there isn't a reference present that I can fully assert helps pass this guideline: Refs 1, 4, 5, 11 and 15 are primary sources, refs 2, 3, 6, 8, 14 and 16 are not on the internet, so I can't evaluate them (ref 16 is a reliable source, but I'm not convinced there'll be significant coverage there), ref 7 doesn't make any sense whatsoever, ref 9 mentions the Athlone Group in passing once, ref 10 makes no mention of this group, ref 12 is not useful (sponsoring some random kid's team is not a grounds for notability, and technically makes that a primary source as well), ref 13 is actually not about this group in the slightest, but it is in fact about people FROM Athlone (for someone not checking properly, they'd accept that ref), and I couldn't find anything anywhere else. If it wasn't for ref 9, I might switch my vote to Speedy Delete as a pure fabrication, but that small mention there makes no difference to my vote. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not correct. This is not advertising, rather, it is documenting a group of investors that have contributed a huge amount to a great number of suffering nations. Personally, I believe you are somewhat prejudiced into voting to delete items, rather than seeing the genuine good nature of others. With reference to your comment, "refs 2, 3, 6, 8, 14 and 16 are not on the internet, so I can't evaluate them" - since when was the internet the only acceptable form of reference? - MarcelBrandon (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did I say the internet was the only acceptable form of reference? I'm making a judgement based on those I can see, and using the sources that are in the article to guess at the amount of information in those that aren't on the internet. Oh, and prejudiced against deleting items, am I? Care to take a look through my contributions and to see my keep votes and positive contributions? This article has a history of deletion and recreation. The presence of a Wikipedia page on any organization is automatically advertising, regardless of how it's written. Your comments STILL don't address the concerns myself and other editors have raised several times here. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Worth mentioning also the policy regarding conflict of interest WP:COI - people connected to Athlone are strongly discouraged from editing directly or submitting articles about Athlone, and should declare the nature of their relationship with the 'group'. ---- nonsense ferret 13:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the user's talkpage, and see a previous SPI there - I've opened a new one based on the fact there are now more shared edits: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marcelhudson. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As you said yourself, it was closed down because there was no connection. My additions have been fair, and genuine, and frankly do not understand reluctance to see the positive attributes, and notability of a group of high profile people that support a large number of suffering people, and I find the unwarranted negativity quite distasteful - MarcelBrandon (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say that, I said it was closed before. Now there is more evidence supporting this. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps Marcel, you can provide details of the group structure of Athlone - after all it would be pointless having an article about a corporate group without that - it would be good to get the exact names of companies that are part of this group, with their registered address and company numbers. I'm sure this information will remove any confusion about this article. ---- nonsense ferret 14:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did, in the article, and above, the list of government members. Feel free to contact them to confirm their involvement, as per their photograph with J Dhinsa on the gallery page, as linked. MarcelBrandon (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It would help us if you could point to exactly where you have provided the information about the Athlone Group that nonsenseferret has asked for. There are a lot of references in the article but they are not very helpful to us and some such as this one appear very strange indeed. They do not help your case. --AJHingston (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did, in the article, and above, the list of government members. Feel free to contact them to confirm their involvement, as per their photograph with J Dhinsa on the gallery page, as linked. MarcelBrandon (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As you said yourself, it was closed down because there was no connection. My additions have been fair, and genuine, and frankly do not understand reluctance to see the positive attributes, and notability of a group of high profile people that support a large number of suffering people, and I find the unwarranted negativity quite distasteful - MarcelBrandon (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the user's talkpage, and see a previous SPI there - I've opened a new one based on the fact there are now more shared edits: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marcelhudson. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not correct. This is not advertising, rather, it is documenting a group of investors that have contributed a huge amount to a great number of suffering nations. Personally, I believe you are somewhat prejudiced into voting to delete items, rather than seeing the genuine good nature of others. With reference to your comment, "refs 2, 3, 6, 8, 14 and 16 are not on the internet, so I can't evaluate them" - since when was the internet the only acceptable form of reference? - MarcelBrandon (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact is, my comment is 100% correct. We're not looking for advertising (which is what this page is being used for anyway, one way or another), TV shows, news releases or YouTube videos. We're looking for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: please read WP:GNG. And the fact is, there isn't a reference present that I can fully assert helps pass this guideline: Refs 1, 4, 5, 11 and 15 are primary sources, refs 2, 3, 6, 8, 14 and 16 are not on the internet, so I can't evaluate them (ref 16 is a reliable source, but I'm not convinced there'll be significant coverage there), ref 7 doesn't make any sense whatsoever, ref 9 mentions the Athlone Group in passing once, ref 10 makes no mention of this group, ref 12 is not useful (sponsoring some random kid's team is not a grounds for notability, and technically makes that a primary source as well), ref 13 is actually not about this group in the slightest, but it is in fact about people FROM Athlone (for someone not checking properly, they'd accept that ref), and I couldn't find anything anywhere else. If it wasn't for ref 9, I might switch my vote to Speedy Delete as a pure fabrication, but that small mention there makes no difference to my vote. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- The article on the founder Jojar S Dhinsa is rather brief. Normally the members of a company are its shareholders, but being a minor shareholder in a company is not something we would categorise a person by. I would not expect a company to be the forum for an international conference, which is what the artcile seems to imply. Do these sponsors ("members") meet? If so, how often and where? Rather than a list of the alleged sponsors, I would prefer to see details of what the subsidiaries are, where they operate, and what they do; details of its capitalisation and profits. If the founder is really worth £40M, I would expect his company to have greater assets, especially if there are other shareholders. In that case, it would cerrtainly be notable. At present, I am very doubtful as to the article's merits. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many meetings, as documented on the Gallery page which is listed, along with details of the projects being funded / discussed by those members appearing in the photographs for the meeting. Each of these members are verifiable in their own right. It is the government ministers themselves that are contributing, not merely subsidiary companies. I do hope this will clarify the point, because this sort of work is what the world needs. MarcelBrandon (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Marcel, you seem to be very good at dodging the legitimate questions people have about this. There is a stark lack of legitimate references anywhere, and I don't see how you've addressed any of the points made by Peterkingiron, or several others here. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have gone to a lot of effort writing this article, more than a day in fact because I believe the work is genuine and valuable.. I don't know chapter and verse about their meetings, where or everything they do - and don't understand why I am being treated like a criminal when merely offering valuable information to an encyclopaedia about a company at has in fact been in the media numerous times, and shows their own evidence of meetings and involvement with many high profile government officers around the world. Why is that so difficult to accept? Check the gallery and tell me at this number of ministers working as a conglomerate isn't notable? I do hope that an admin will see past the short sighted prejudice shown here. MarcelBrandon (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- are you suggesting that you are not personally connected to Athlone? I think it would be good in the interests of openness if you were to make this clear. Independent sources, ie substantial coverage received, not from your Athlone website are required. These black and white photos are no evidence whatsoever. Maybe some registration details from the UK companies house so that we can see some audited accounts might go a long way to dispel this cloud of suspicion? If it is a genuine charity then details of the registered charity number might also work? ---- nonsense ferret 19:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You may have gone to a lot of effort writing this article, but there have been some fantastically written hoaxes in the past. We're not asking for information on all of their actions and meetings - we're asking for some proof they are notable, from reliable sources. (Again, you're ducking every question we ask) A bunch of photos is not going to prove anything. You constantly namedrop all these officials - but you never once give a reliable source to back up your claim. Accusing myself and other editors of prejudice, when all we're doing is following guidelines that you're either unaware of, or neglecting to follow, is grossly unjust. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have gone to a lot of effort writing this article, more than a day in fact because I believe the work is genuine and valuable.. I don't know chapter and verse about their meetings, where or everything they do - and don't understand why I am being treated like a criminal when merely offering valuable information to an encyclopaedia about a company at has in fact been in the media numerous times, and shows their own evidence of meetings and involvement with many high profile government officers around the world. Why is that so difficult to accept? Check the gallery and tell me at this number of ministers working as a conglomerate isn't notable? I do hope that an admin will see past the short sighted prejudice shown here. MarcelBrandon (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Marcel, you seem to be very good at dodging the legitimate questions people have about this. There is a stark lack of legitimate references anywhere, and I don't see how you've addressed any of the points made by Peterkingiron, or several others here. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many meetings, as documented on the Gallery page which is listed, along with details of the projects being funded / discussed by those members appearing in the photographs for the meeting. Each of these members are verifiable in their own right. It is the government ministers themselves that are contributing, not merely subsidiary companies. I do hope this will clarify the point, because this sort of work is what the world needs. MarcelBrandon (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't see a reason why this conglomerate should stand by its own and have an article in wikipedia. I don't see the encyclopedic relevance of it on being on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an advertisement magazine, or sponsorship partner for every company in the world. Even if the company is non-profit, for-profit or commercial company. Or even if the company engage into charitable works, the charity is notable, but it does not sustain the fact to the company itself. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:56, 29 January 2013 (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. Consensus is clean-up. (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 11:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Otc clearing
- Otc clearing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
unsalvageable, unreferenced FAQ created by clear spam account. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources I found with a quick Google search:
- Reuters article "Fed: central OTC clearing would curb market risk"
- Bloomberg article "Asia OTC Clearing Efforts May Stall, Euroclear Says (Update1)"
- Reuters article "Don't impose OTC clearing on industry: E.ON"
- Risk magazine article "Bundle in the jungle: Cut-price OTC clearing threatens competition"
- tradeweb.com article "OTC Clearing Part 10: A Corporate Treasurer's Nightmare"
- thetradenews.com article "OTC clearing presents risk shift, not mitigation" might be non-neutral
- "Centralized clearing for over-the-counter derivatives" Journal of Financial Economic Policy article
- Pirrong, Craig. The economics of central clearing: theory and practice. International Swaps and Derivatives Association, 2011
- Morrison, Joanne. "The Operational Challenges of OTC Clearing." Futures Industry (2010): 27-30
- Except for possibly sources 6 and 8, these all seem to be secondary sources and are in depth about the subject. Reuters, Bloomberg and Risk magazine are reliable publishers; I expect that the Journal of Financial Economic Policy is, too. thetradenews.com looks legit, but I haven't heard of it. The existence of multiple reliable secondary sources indicates that this topic is notable. I agree that the article needs a lot of work to convert to an encyclopedic tone and structure. But these problems are surmountable (see WP:SURMOUNTABLE for details) and AfD is not for cleanup (see WP:NOTFORCLEANUP for details), so this article should be kept. Mark viking (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't understand the accusation of spamming. Does the creator have deleted edits? Because his User Contributions relate only to this article: which (while it may have other failings) doesn't read as promotional and in which (so far as I can tell) Comunytek is never mentioned. 79.123.57.130 (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment We do have an article Over-the-counter (finance), which might be a suitable merge or redirect target for this. 79.123.57.130 (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This article needs a proper writing to fit an encyclopedic article, the article looks like a manual. If this article is not re-written then it should be merged/redirected into a suitable article. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 02:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stub and provisionally keep. Most of the current text is unusable; unreferenced and written in a how to style. I also suspect a copyright violation, mostly because this doesn't read like it was written for Wikipedia. But the subject seems a real one that could support an article. If it proves to be a copyright violation, then delete it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean-up. May need to be stubified to remove unsourced, potential original research. Reliable sources are inherently present about the topic; this article simply needs to be rewritten into an encyclopedic tone. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Certainly needs clean-up. At the same time, clearly has coverage to meet GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2013 (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 Brooklyn avenues, 1–28. --Kinu t/c 21:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
20th Avenue (Brooklyn)
- 20th Avenue (Brooklyn) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I gave one year to see if the article would expand or any references and sources be added to prove its notability and/or significance to the city and as I suspected, none of that has been done and the article looks exactly the same as it was when it was created in November 2011, a mere duplication of what already exists in its entry in List of Brooklyn avenues, 1-28, albeit in complete sentences. This is why I am renominating it for deletion. 20th Avenue is a secondary road in Brooklyn that fails WP:NTSR and Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Streets#Guidelines. There is no evidence that it has become synonymous with an industry or organization, was the site of an important historical event, been mentioned by name in a major motion picture, song, television show, or other mainstream media, or subject of a documentary or an article in a major media source. Searching it on Google Books only comes up with directories and magazine entries that only have brief passing mentions. The article's first AfD ended in No Consensus solely due to some editors voting Keep just because two New York City Subway stations are named after the street. This violates our policy of no inherited notability (i.e. the street is inheriting its notability from the stations) and subway stations alone do not determine notability since they are meant to serve their surrounding area, not just one particular street (I doubt everyone who uses the 20th Avenue stations actually live or work on 20th Avenue) and there are scores of other streets in the city that have one, two, even three stations named after them and we do not have articles on them. If every street in the city with a subway station serving it is "notable" for Wikipedia, we would have dozens of short articles by now saying something like Elder Avenue is a one-way residential street in the Bronx served by the IRT Pelham Line or 121st Street is a long, narrow street in Queens served by the BMT Jamaica Line. Also, contrary to what the article states, 20th Avenue is not a major thoroughfare or commercial street. Driving through it on Google Maps shows it is actually mostly residential with small, family owned businesses placed randomly here and there, so it cannot be important beyond to the people who live or work in these buildings and homes. Note that Consensus can change and I have no prejudice against restoring or recreating this article if it gets redirected or deleted should someone find something to prove the street is notable enough to be here. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There were no sources in the article when it was nominated for deletion in 2011, there were no sources when the 2011 AfD closed as "no consensus", and there still are no sources in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subway stations in NYC are named for prominent streets, and the name is evidence that the streets are in fact prominent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Brooklyn avenues, 1–28. Dough4872 17:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the lack of sources showing notability. The idea that the subway stations alone give this street notability is a classic case of WP:NOTINHERITED, as they are merely being named after the location they are in. No particular objection to a redirect, although the title doesn't seem particularly useful for naviagation. BryanG (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley (what's up) 01:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as stated above. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 02:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Brooklyn avenues, 1–28 There's a box for information about the street already. I'm not sure about the rational to keep because of subway stations considering they already have their own articles: 20th Avenue (BMT West End Line) and 20th Avenue (BMT Sea Beach Line). Mkdwtalk 04:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Brooklyn avenues, 1–28. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from the subway. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:02, 29 January 2013 (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 Bushranger One ping only 00:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Latvian Young Farmers club
- Latvian Young Farmers club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 17:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-notable?? On what grounds? OK, so it's not a great article (argument for improvement, not deletion) but we have articles on other national young farmers' clubs or their equivalents (see: National Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs for the UK, New Zealand Young Farmers, Young Farmers' Clubs of Ulster, Macra na Feirme in Ireland). No doubt there are similar organisations with differing names in other countries that are also in Wikipedia. The article needs work - referencing particularly - not deletion. Emeraude (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at WP:Notable. If there are no reliable sources which cover the topic it's likely not notable. NickCT (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agreed. No indication of notability. NickCT (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unlike the nominator, I do not speak Latvian. But a search on Google for Latvijas Jauno Zemnieku klubs (JZK), which is the appropriate term I understand, produces a lot of hits for sites that describe the organisation as well as its activities and make clear, for example, that it works with official bodies in the promotion of agriculture in Latvia. For example, a search on http://www.diena.lv which I understand to be a leading national daily shows that it is frequently referred to in its pages. I agree with Emeraude that on the face of it this is an organisation at least as notable amongst farmers in Latvia as are the other associations he mentions in their respective countries. Obviously Edgars2007 knows more, but it is difficult to comment further on his reasons for nomination without more explanation. --AJHingston (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Who still reads Diena? :D Diena.lv search doesn't seem to have limits for searching phrase, so it brings up Latvia and farmers as well and Google search brings up social networks and clones of company catalogs. I found this here saying they have 60 members, not sure it is comparable to organizations mentioned by Emeraude, just being mentioned in press doesn't always warrant notability ~~Xil (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. AJHingston (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A google search fails to bring up proper sourcing, in my view. Article is unencyclopedic and reads like a promotion. Jusdafax 07:18, 29 January 2013 (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. MBisanz talk 00:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blasius Chocolate Factory
- Blasius Chocolate Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are only a couple media articles in a Google News Archive search, which only mention the company briefly. There are not enough source materials to write a properly verified article. CorporateM (Talk) 17:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning towards delete - I recovered the Northeast Times article here and a Google News archives search provided a somewhat detailed article here which does not mention Phil Bernick, not Phil Kerwick but it seems he uses both? I also found a reprint of that article here through a different newspaper. This 1990 article mentions a William Blasius on Paul Street and says this store belongs to a confectionery association so it's probably relevant. I'm not from Philly but I'm receiving some evidence that suggests it has since closed and that may explain the lack of recent news coverage. Continuing my news search, I found an article here (not archived at the philly.com website) and other news articles here (very brief mention), here, here and here (first page) and here (third page). One of the recent articles I found is from last year here (CBS Local News) and I also found two candy blog reviews here (from 2006 and also mentions no website so they may never have had one) and here. At the beginning, I started going towards weak keep because I found many news links but I'm realizing there isn't much coverage overall and it is more known in the Philadelphia area. A search at other Philadelphia newspapers provided no additional results. Although it has been around for many years, it seems they mainly received coverage for the Halloween and Easter festivities which makes sense. SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - while the mentions are passing, they use adjectives like "landmark" to describe the company. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- References 2 and 3 are not reliable sources. Reference 1 is, but is both local and does not refer to it as a "landmark". - The Bushranger One ping only 00:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Looks like a nifty place, but notability, alas, cannot be demonstrated. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article does not really give any indication of why this business is notable. I'm sure their products are great, but I agree with The Bushranger. Paris1127 (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability not demonstrated. It's just another chocolate shop, albeit one that's been around awhile. There are a lot of them in Pennsylvania. The news pieces are what you would expect to see on local news; viz., "check out this local business." Richigi (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2013 (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 Exosquad . MBisanz talk 00:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exofleet
- Exofleet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deprodded because of "one reliable source". Which one? the apparently user-submitted encyclopdia, or the Yahoo! listing that does nothing but verify the cast? Everything here is in-universe, and fails to establish out-of-universe notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Exosquad - while unnotable out of universe, it is a reasonable search term, and redirects are cheaper than deletion. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I transwikied the full history to http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Exofleet Dream Focus 17:13, 2 February 2013 (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 Exosquad . MBisanz talk 00:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neosapien Commonwealth
- Neosapien Commonwealth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deprodded as a "suitable split" from the main article, but I see nothing here that's keepable. Everything is in-universe, unsourced, not notable out-of-universe, and overall just fancruft. There is nothing here worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Exosquad under the same reasoning as in the AfD above. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I transwikied the entire history to http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Neosapien_Commonwealth Dream Focus 17:14, 2 February 2013 (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 Havoc Unit. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Dynamic Gallery of Thoughts
- The Dynamic Gallery of Thoughts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced and tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep #2 deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The applicable terminology in WP:SK#2 is "unquestionable disruption". Unscintillating (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing any "disruption" and the term "unquestionable" is ludicrously overblown, so no, not even close to being a rationale. --Calton | Talk 17:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first thing to do is to take a look at the word "ludicrous". It is defined by m-w.com as, "1 : amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity; 2 : meriting derisive laughter or scorn as absurdly inept, false, or foolish". It is readily apparent that such language does not belong in a collegial community discussion. In asserting that there is no disruption to be seen, the statement makes itself an example of a self-referential oxymoron. Removing the layer of hyperbole, there is still the implication that the term unquestionable disruption has no sufficient operational definition. I have previously responded on this point at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ioannis Diakidis. If 350 such AfD nominations in three days is not unquestionable disruption, then how many more such AfD nominations would be? 1000 in three days? 3000 in three days? So it doesn't work to deny that 350 in three days is unquestionable disruption, without having an alternate operational definition. As shown at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ioannis Diakidis, 350 nominations is such a large number of AfD nominations, that the initial capacity of the AfD tool we have is exceeded. Unscintillating (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Havoc Unit (the article about ...And Oceans who recorded this album). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Havoc Unit or delete, if necessary. --Calton | Talk 17:12, 1 February 2013 (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fast + Epp
- Fast + Epp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. Only references provided are primary ones including a press release. And a Yahoo News article which appears to be based on a press release. Google news search on the title brings up zero hits, same with a book search. RadioFan (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Three different searches provided several results here ("Richmond Olympic Oval Fast + Epp", several news articles and only one press release though the Canadian Architect links read like PR but I can't find any evidence to support this) and here (provided some of the same results but with two different, "Forestry: Pine-beetle payback" (dead link) and "This week: Good news/Bad news" (brief mention)). One of the articles from above is this one from the UK which mentions the Richmond Olympic Oval at the second page. Through the third search which also provided some of the same results, I found this which mentions the awards. I also found another news article here which also mentions the 2009 award. I found this which mentions the Richmond Olympic Oval and lists them as a consultant. Finally, I found this which briefly mentions them. I know it seems they haven't received much attention recently but could they be notable for all of this especially for recognition from the Institution of Structural Engineers? If so, I vote keep. This supports one of their recent projects, VanDusen Botanical Gardens. SwisterTwister talk 20:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
Several websites have information on this company like those that are listed on the references page; however this article just needs more information and some more research on. If this company exists, as it obviously does, I think it only needs more research. I vote keep it. JoJaEpp (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There must be sources isn't the best justification for keeping an article. Either it does or it doesn't. This AFD has been extended twice. If sufficient references cant be located, it should be deleted. MBisanz, if you feel strongly that you can find resources, at some other time, the other option is to WP:Userfy the article under your care so that you may have sufficient time to find references.--RadioFan (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article is about a local engineering firm. Given their proliferation, trade awards don't really count much for notability, and the rest seems to be obvious PR insertions. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Per SK1, both arguments for deletion have been withdrawn and no other view has been brought forth. Salvidrim! ✉ 02:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
VGMaps
- VGMaps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources based on wikipedia video game source project. Did the google custom search from the project page and it turned up nada for coverage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources SeemsNeedAnAccountForAFD (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Form the references in the article, the Attack of the Show and Joystiq references are secondary references from reliable publishers and the Joystiq source is not quite in depth. The Slashdot, BoingBoing, GoDaddy, and Leung sources are primary, unreliable, or completely off topic. In my opinion, the topic is just below the notability threshold. The article itself has a non-neutral point of view that needs fixing. I marginally recommend deleting the article, but if new secondary sources present themselves, article re-creation is reasonable. Mark viking (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It looks like the nomination has been struck; As the only participant giving a recommendation so far, I'm happy for this AfD to end as "Speedy keep", "No consensus", or "Withdrawn" if that would be the best course of action. Mark viking (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2013 (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 Rename. to Detroj-Rampura The Bushranger One ping only 09:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Detroj (tehsil)
- Detroj (tehsil) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Duplicate of Detroj Kondi (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orRename.Articles are the same, with no meaningful history.Author may have meant to create Detroj (village) and Detroj (tehsil). According to local government sources [43], the tehsil is now known as Detroj-Rampura so will need a page move. Funny Pika! 16:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with User:FunnyPika. Title 'Detroj' should be used for the article on Detroj (village) and Detroj (tehsil) should be moved to Detroj-Rampura. --Kondi (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley (what's up) 05:00, 13 February 2013 (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 Canada–Ukraine relations. The Bushranger One ping only 00:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Embassy of Canada in Kiev
- Embassy of Canada in Kiev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:GNG. embassies are not inherently notable. could not find any indepth coverage of this embassy [44]. any relevant info can be placed in Canada–Ukraine relations. events occuring at Embassy of Ukraine, Ottawa do not add to notability of this article. LibStar (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as noted to prod. The best target seems to be Canada–Ukraine relations. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2013 (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 List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms. Per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cheng_Yuanzhi ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 05:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheng Kuang
- Cheng Kuang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be fictional, based on the real eunuch Cheng Huang (程璜), who, however, was likely deceased long before the events attributed to Cheng Kuang in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Not particularly significant to the (fictional) events of the novel itself. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Include this in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheng Yuanzhi? LDS contact me 23:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:14, 29 January 2013 (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. A redirect or merge needs some sort of target, so if one is created, let me know and I'll change this to merge. MBisanz talk 00:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
UFC Fight Night: Stevenson vs Guillard
- UFC Fight Night: Stevenson vs Guillard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. having notable participants isn't good enough. no third party coverage in mainstream press. mere attendance of 1,700. LibStar (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to an omnibus article. If no such appropriate article exists, the closing admin should close this as "no consensus". The socalled MMA community may be tired of getting all this information deleted. It has been said that putting (cramming) all the stuff (information) into an omnibus is a safe haven. So let's do that for all the events where N fighters just "stand and bang", some looses, some is winning. This concludes my vote. Sorry for not throwing out WP: policies and hope that some sticks... Mazter00 (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge - Does not fall under WP:SPORTSEVENT because one fight card is not the same as one football game. Capacity at the Pearl at the Palms is small, so that shouldn't have anything to do with determining notability. Covered by USA Today (long before most MMA events got mainstream coverage). Worst case scenerio, merge to an omnibus for 2007 UFC fights. Luchuslu (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into an omnibus article, something like 2007 in UFC. I can't make a good case for a standalone article on this event - there was no title fight, and nothing notable happened. The content shouldn't be lost, though. CaSJer (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Specifically, comments related to the target of the merged article as I could not find an omnibus target. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as bad faith nom per WP:TEND. It takes all of two seconds to Google search this subject and find coverage in mainstream newspapers such as USA Today. Considering that at worst there is a redirect target, there is no fact based reason for deletion. Obviously nominator either does not know about the subject, is lying, or is too lazy to actually look for sources. --143.105.49.234 (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article fails WP:SPORTSEVENT in that it has very little in the way of "well sourced prose" establishing why this event is notable. The article cites only two references (four if you count the inline links) none providing more than the usual coverage of an MMA event. I'm unable to find much more in the way of other sources and nothing outside of MMA oriented sites, thus fails WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2013 (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 Glassheart. no convincing argument, including significant coverage, was made to support WP:NSONG J04n(talk page) 11:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Come Alive (Leona Lewis song)
- Come Alive (Leona Lewis song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Song was not released as a single, never charted, and has no sources discussing it in depth as required for a stand alone article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Has been performed several times and has a lot of information about it. 24 reliable and well used sources as well. Considering the staple it has been in promotion for the album, it is likely to become a single. To be honest, this whole thing about not being a single/never charted is becoming tiresome and redundant now. There are a lot of song articles by other singer's where the situation is exactly the same. If the song hadn't of been performed live at all I might have simply posted this is a comment, but as it has had significant coverage as part of promotion it is a keep from me. There is too much information here to condense down into Glassheart. The article is clearly informational and is more than a stub with next to no sources. — AARON • TALK 11:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You can likewise argue that at the DYK nomination, where the issue of notability has been a concern — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability lies in its 5 live performances. Non singles rarely get performed live 5 times on TV. — AARON • TALK 11:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't see that in the guidelines. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not, but it should be. It's stupid saying that articles can only exist if it chart or received an award (says nothing about being a single or not). Some articles on here haven't ever been performed live or charted or received an award and still exist. People have too much time on their hands. This article clearly demonstrates clear and good information for people, why delete it? — AARON • TALK 11:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think it passes WP:GNG and as such meets WP:NSONG criterion 1. –anemoneprojectors– 13:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per the live performances sections. Five times performed on TV is notable enough for a song article to exist on Wikipedia. Also agree with AnemoneProjectors. — Tomíca(T2ME) 13:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Agreed with the above. It seems to have established its notability through live performance. It also has a fair amount of reception and information about the song's production. In addition, it could also become a single and chart. Charting =/= creating an article. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 15:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to album. Looking at the sources presented in the article I don't see how it passes GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Don't see how a live performance of a song makes it notable either, unless it leads to coverage under the GNG.
- No mention of the song [45][46][47][48][49][50][51]
- Brief mention along with another song [52]
- Album review that mentions the song five words short paragraph (every other song gets one too) three sentences, sentence fragmentsentence fragment
- Just listed in a list [53][54][55]
- There are four videos [56][57][58][59] used in the article, which I have not examined (do not wish to watch them all for a mention of this song - but if you give me a time I may look at that part), although most appear to be primary sources anyway.
- Looking at the current sources I say that it should be merged into the album Glassheart AIRcorn (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." It meets this part, and it only needs to meet one of the four. — AARON • TALK 18:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work." — AARON • TALK 21:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- An example please. I have gone through all of them listed in the article and given the source I think best meets this requirement. It is not the subject and even if it was it is only one work (i.e. fails the multiple part). In every other source the mention is trivial. AIRcorn (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The notability guideline for songs is currently being discussed, and changes are being suggested on its talk page. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be a discussion regarding removing or devaluing the chart criteria, so is probably not relevant to this debate. AIRcorn (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - kinda a IAR Keep from me, but appearing 5 times on TV seems notable to me (as a non-single), and the article itself seems very well written and uses a handful of other refs that refer to the song, either in passing or in slightly more detail. In conjunction with the changes being made to the NSONGS guideline, I'd say leave this for now, and maybe come back to AfD again if the guideline doesn't change, or doesn't affect the article. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeep, despite not being release or charted it has received quite a fair bit of coverage both as part of the album and separate from the album. I created the page in an effort to help reduce the information on the parent album's page where people have complained that the article is getting to the stage where its slow to load due to the volume of information which is relatively high quality. It passed WP:GNG and it has been performed live several times at major events. The performance of the song received coverage as did it's composition. Per WP:NSONGS there is notability criteria which this article passes number one. Additionally the guideline states " a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" which also applies here. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How did it pass GNG? Just saying it does does not make it true. Just give me one article that gives it significant coverage and I will be happy to say keep. I don't even think a WP:Split keep is reasonable. The background is obviously already covered in the album article and if you paraphrased the quotes you should quite easily fit the last three in (some of it is already present). AIRcorn (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am actually baffled as to what policy you (and others here) are citing by pointing to live performances as evidence of notability. This is just some made-up theory to have this article kept for all the wrong reasons, such as WP:ITSUSEFUL. Till 01:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How did it pass GNG? Just saying it does does not make it true. Just give me one article that gives it significant coverage and I will be happy to say keep. I don't even think a WP:Split keep is reasonable. The background is obviously already covered in the album article and if you paraphrased the quotes you should quite easily fit the last three in (some of it is already present). AIRcorn (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Where is the significant coverage??? Sources 1-7 are about the album/her past career. Sources 9-10 are liner notes. Source 11 contains one tiny line about this song, "the ticky breakbeats (Come Alive)". Source 12 contains three short sentences and nothing substantial. Source 13 is from Leona herself and therefore doesn't count. Source 14 contains the line ""I don't mind the pain," she confesses on 'Come Alive' over rumbling synths and breakbeats"... not significant in the slightest. Source 15 doesn't even mention "Come Alive". Source 16 has this: "but there's the obligatory drift into dubstep on Come Alive". The rest of the sources are from iTunes, Youtube, or other websites with no significant coverage. Till 00:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also. WP:NSONG makes no mention of a song being performed live as an indicator of notability. Till 00:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Source 13 is from musicrooms.net, not leonalewismusic.com. –anemoneprojectors– 13:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He means it's from her words, so it's irrelevant. Also, ref 13 should be replaced with this, as music rooms doesn't seem reliable. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources, Music Rooms and Digital Spy, are both independent of Leona Lewis. –anemoneprojectors– 15:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He means it's from her words, so it's irrelevant. Also, ref 13 should be replaced with this, as music rooms doesn't seem reliable. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Source 13 is from musicrooms.net, not leonalewismusic.com. –anemoneprojectors– 13:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also. WP:NSONG makes no mention of a song being performed live as an indicator of notability. Till 00:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to album. Aircorn's analysis of sources is correct and being performed live is not a convincing indicator of notability. Cavarrone (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article has a lot of references and well-cited for an album track. As long as there is enough material to show, keep it. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't keep articles based on their amount of references, we keep articles if its topic meets notability. And this one doesn't have any. Till 07:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Till, as long as it meets one of the four guidelines, it can stay: "Has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work." It meets this one. — AARON • TALK 12:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- with respect Aaron days ago you were asked to provide exemples of multiple and non-trivial coverage about this song to rebut Aircorn's (and Till's) analysis of sources. Repeating again and again what the guideline says without providing evidences of how notability is met in this specific case is not a great argument. Cavarrone (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because other people have provided it. — AARON • TALK 12:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh where? Could you be more specific? Cavarrone (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Read this page and you will find out. Or, try reading the article and looking at the sources. — AARON • TALK 14:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, your evasive non-response is pretty enlightening. Thank you. Cavarrone (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's called being pro-active and doing it yourself. — AARON • TALK 12:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's called inability to provide evidences for claims. Cavarrone (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do I have to do as you say? I'm familiar with this article, I know what exists. You don't to know, then you look yourself, then maybe you would have a valid point here. You don't want to look because you don't want to find anything. End of. — AARON • TALK 15:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously I read both this discussion and the article and there is no sign of significant coverage, as I wrote in my vote's rationale. Others editors analyzed one by one every single reference listed in the article. As you insist in saying that this song received significant coverage, you were asked by three editors to show us some exemples and you refuse it. Your childish non-answers just make it patent that this coverage does not exist. Cavarrone (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So if you've done it already what are you asking me for? It's obvious from the size of the article that there is a lot of information about it. I've been through the article myself as well. If this song had charted you wouldn't have a problem with it (even though charting is not a requirement, which many people mistake it for). — AARON • TALK 16:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously I read both this discussion and the article and there is no sign of significant coverage, as I wrote in my vote's rationale. Others editors analyzed one by one every single reference listed in the article. As you insist in saying that this song received significant coverage, you were asked by three editors to show us some exemples and you refuse it. Your childish non-answers just make it patent that this coverage does not exist. Cavarrone (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do I have to do as you say? I'm familiar with this article, I know what exists. You don't to know, then you look yourself, then maybe you would have a valid point here. You don't want to look because you don't want to find anything. End of. — AARON • TALK 15:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's called inability to provide evidences for claims. Cavarrone (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's called being pro-active and doing it yourself. — AARON • TALK 12:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, your evasive non-response is pretty enlightening. Thank you. Cavarrone (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Read this page and you will find out. Or, try reading the article and looking at the sources. — AARON • TALK 14:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh where? Could you be more specific? Cavarrone (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because other people have provided it. — AARON • TALK 12:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- with respect Aaron days ago you were asked to provide exemples of multiple and non-trivial coverage about this song to rebut Aircorn's (and Till's) analysis of sources. Repeating again and again what the guideline says without providing evidences of how notability is met in this specific case is not a great argument. Cavarrone (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Till, as long as it meets one of the four guidelines, it can stay: "Has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work." It meets this one. — AARON • TALK 12:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't keep articles based on their amount of references, we keep articles if its topic meets notability. And this one doesn't have any. Till 07:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect The article appears to have many sources, but most are either non-RS or only mention the song trivially in passing. Also, regardless of what others have claimed, being played live on TV does not make a song notable. LK (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – I've added two more sources to the "critical reception" section just now to the many that were already there. There's not a single source that address the subject in depth, but there are many sources that offer brief, non-trivial coverage, and taken together there is enough to meet WP:N guidelines. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 14:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it comes down to the definition of trivial. Both of the new sources are album reviews with half a sentence mentions of this song. If this is the minimum requirement for a song to have an article then I feel there will not be many songs that will not meet it. AIRcorn (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ... the implication being that what I added to the article was "trivia". I don't think it was. I expanded the "critical reception" section, which is fairly standard for song articles. As for the question of "there will not be many songs that will not meet it", I don't think that's even true for most of the songs on this very album (and Leona Lewis is rather popular and widely written about): I did multiple searches for "Leona Lewis" + "When It Hurts" (a track on the album) and there was just one very brief mention in a Billboard review, not enough for a standalone article in that case. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 12:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it comes down to the definition of trivial. Both of the new sources are album reviews with half a sentence mentions of this song. If this is the minimum requirement for a song to have an article then I feel there will not be many songs that will not meet it. AIRcorn (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment there's been quite a few independent editors who've commented here that this album passes WP:GNG. User:Till has rebuked almost every keep comment and that's why this has dragged on. Seriously can we put this to rest. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say it was probably relisted because the keep arguments are not that strong. Apart from Paul Erik they have just said that it passes the criteria without explaining how it does. AIRcorn (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- not being bias but i've seen plenty of recent AfDs close based purely on the number of keeps/merges/deleted. But I guess that's more a discussion about the process rather than this particular article. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So have I. I would not have been surprised if this had been closed as no consensus. AIRcorn (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was expecting a closure, not a relisting - the AFDs I see relisted are the ones with few or no comments. This one has loads. –anemoneprojectors– 22:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Afd is a weighing of consensus based on policy, regardless of how many people !voted keep. There are a plethora of reasons: a) "It was performed live"—a performance is a primary source, and quite frankly I am baffled as to how a performance would constitute significant coverage unless there was some sort of independent commentary. Therefore any !vote based on this reason would probably be discounted. b) It meets WP:GNG—The topic does not meet the GNG, as shown by the indepth analysis of the sources provided above. We have trivial mentions at best but nothing of "significant coverage", which is what GNG requires. The fact that editors can't find even one reliable source that significantly discusses this topic pretty much proves to me that this fails WP:N. c) It has lots of references—this isn't a convincing argument as none of these sources have the required amount of coverage to meet WP:N. Also @lilunique: you stated that the song meets GNG in your !vote, but when you were asked how it does, you couldn't even provide 1 decent reason. So don't complain about how this was relisted when you can't even address simple nomination concerns. Till 00:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was expecting a closure, not a relisting - the AFDs I see relisted are the ones with few or no comments. This one has loads. –anemoneprojectors– 22:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So have I. I would not have been surprised if this had been closed as no consensus. AIRcorn (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- not being bias but i've seen plenty of recent AfDs close based purely on the number of keeps/merges/deleted. But I guess that's more a discussion about the process rather than this particular article. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say it was probably relisted because the keep arguments are not that strong. Apart from Paul Erik they have just said that it passes the criteria without explaining how it does. AIRcorn (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment there's been quite a few independent editors who've commented here that this album passes WP:GNG. User:Till has rebuked almost every keep comment and that's why this has dragged on. Seriously can we put this to rest. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't a complaint I was just surprised to see it being re-listed. My keep vote contained a detailed ration. "Come Alive" has received coverage from multiple reliable sources both as a song on the album and as part of the album during reviews etc. It was performed several times which also received coverage and both the artist and critics spoke about the song a number of times. Per WP:NSONGS there is enough information from reliable third-party sources (which means not the artist's website, label etc) to produce a reasonable detailed article about the song and I also pointed out that given the relative size of the album's article there is sufficient scope to remove some of the information about the song. This latter bit has already been done. People are making their own interpretations of WP:GNG in this discussion. GNG does not state one source which discusses a subject for at length is more notable than multiple sources that discuss the subject in minute chunks. The way I look at it is, the song was performed several times thus giving people to a reason to search for it, there is significant information about its recording and production meaning an article can be constructed to cover lots of aspects about the song, and the album's page is already quite large so that would suggest that some independent articles might be required. Applying that to WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS the article at the moment is reasonably well detailed. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 13:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is a bigger problem here in that many editors claiming GNG do not understand what it means. For example you are saying that "GNG does not state one source which discusses a subject for at length is more notable than multiple sources that discuss the subject in minute chunks", which is wrong. Right at the top of WP:GNG it says that the coverage must be "significant" and then goes on to explain that this "is more than a trivial mention". In this case the debate comes down to whether album reviews that briefly mention the song are considered non-trivial. The guidelines at WP:NSONGS are even stricter as it says it must be the "subject" of these sources. So far only Paul Erik has really addressed the trivial issue in his keep comment. AIRcorn (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Digital Spy 1 mentions the song was performed live and talks about its composition and origins, the album booklet details the recording information and personnel, Album Preview mentions the song in two sentences and talks about its production, here we find out that Faithless inspired the song and some more about the production, in this review the lyrics and production are commented on, and in this one once again the production is commented on. These sources especially qualify as non-trivial IMO. Finally the song was performed at Radio 1's Hackney Weekend, at a charity concert, on a national radio station and an acoustic performance was uploaded to her Vevo account. Whilst I agree that no single source covers the topic in heaps of detail, collectively there is coverage amongst all the sources (synergy) that produce a reasonably detailed article that covers both the conception and promotion of the song as a track from the album. If you compare page views for January, it was viewed 1,936 times, compared to Glassheart (song) (the other non-single from this album; though that one charted] which was viewed 2,419 times. Only around 500 views behind, I know page views aren't really an official factor for consideration but I do believe they put the article in context. We have NMUSIC for the exact reason that GNG can sometimes cause issues, its mention of "non-trivial coverage" throws things into disrepute in examples like this one where there is actually a reasonably detailed article constructed from coverage in multiple sources. Also if you read NSONGS, under the note for "subject of" it explains that subject of excludes mere mention of the song/single, in the examples above coverage goes beyond simply mentioning the song. It provides some information which is of detail/background. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that is a much better argument. Much, much better than simply asserting that it meets GNG. I felt I was one of the only editors that actually looked closely at the sources. I still disagree, but at least you have provided a line of thought that shows how you think it is notable and used examples of sources to back it up. AIRcorn (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Really @lilnique.... that seems to contradict with your statements here and here. He/she explicitly said "the critical reception comments are part of wider album reviews and could be merged to the album's page", but no, that's definitely not the case here. I wonder why..... Till 04:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Till you really should stop being bitter because two of your GA articles got sent to AfD and the outcome was merge into the album. It was nothing personal and I stand by the fact that I didnt show bias. There is much less coverage for the two songs whcih you worked on. "Come Alive" has quite a bit of coverage as the main subject of a reference (i.e. articles specifically about "Come Alive" or mentioning "Come Alive" as a seperate body of work. It was performed multiple times, even at least once before the album came out. There is a more wider-ranging detailed article about "Come Alive" covering a greater scope of background about the song. Also you seem to consistantly skirt over the fact it was recommended that you create a section about the songs on Sweet 7 and that Glassheart is already a large page, thus concerted effort has been made to remove information about "Come Alive" as it was felt there was enough information instead to make an independent detailed article. You should also pipe down with the uncivilness, wikipedia advocates you be critical of the edits not the editor. Calling me a "hypocritcal fool" in the edit summary makes you come across as bitter. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 11:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care about Heartbreak or Mess (I even changed my vote to merge). My problem is the double standards being applied here. If you don't want to be called that, don't act like it. Btw, it's incivility not 'uncivility'—not that it was, because I am stating a fact Till 14:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Till you really should stop being bitter because two of your GA articles got sent to AfD and the outcome was merge into the album. It was nothing personal and I stand by the fact that I didnt show bias. There is much less coverage for the two songs whcih you worked on. "Come Alive" has quite a bit of coverage as the main subject of a reference (i.e. articles specifically about "Come Alive" or mentioning "Come Alive" as a seperate body of work. It was performed multiple times, even at least once before the album came out. There is a more wider-ranging detailed article about "Come Alive" covering a greater scope of background about the song. Also you seem to consistantly skirt over the fact it was recommended that you create a section about the songs on Sweet 7 and that Glassheart is already a large page, thus concerted effort has been made to remove information about "Come Alive" as it was felt there was enough information instead to make an independent detailed article. You should also pipe down with the uncivilness, wikipedia advocates you be critical of the edits not the editor. Calling me a "hypocritcal fool" in the edit summary makes you come across as bitter. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 11:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Really @lilnique.... that seems to contradict with your statements here and here. He/she explicitly said "the critical reception comments are part of wider album reviews and could be merged to the album's page", but no, that's definitely not the case here. I wonder why..... Till 04:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that is a much better argument. Much, much better than simply asserting that it meets GNG. I felt I was one of the only editors that actually looked closely at the sources. I still disagree, but at least you have provided a line of thought that shows how you think it is notable and used examples of sources to back it up. AIRcorn (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Digital Spy 1 mentions the song was performed live and talks about its composition and origins, the album booklet details the recording information and personnel, Album Preview mentions the song in two sentences and talks about its production, here we find out that Faithless inspired the song and some more about the production, in this review the lyrics and production are commented on, and in this one once again the production is commented on. These sources especially qualify as non-trivial IMO. Finally the song was performed at Radio 1's Hackney Weekend, at a charity concert, on a national radio station and an acoustic performance was uploaded to her Vevo account. Whilst I agree that no single source covers the topic in heaps of detail, collectively there is coverage amongst all the sources (synergy) that produce a reasonably detailed article that covers both the conception and promotion of the song as a track from the album. If you compare page views for January, it was viewed 1,936 times, compared to Glassheart (song) (the other non-single from this album; though that one charted] which was viewed 2,419 times. Only around 500 views behind, I know page views aren't really an official factor for consideration but I do believe they put the article in context. We have NMUSIC for the exact reason that GNG can sometimes cause issues, its mention of "non-trivial coverage" throws things into disrepute in examples like this one where there is actually a reasonably detailed article constructed from coverage in multiple sources. Also if you read NSONGS, under the note for "subject of" it explains that subject of excludes mere mention of the song/single, in the examples above coverage goes beyond simply mentioning the song. It provides some information which is of detail/background. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is a bigger problem here in that many editors claiming GNG do not understand what it means. For example you are saying that "GNG does not state one source which discusses a subject for at length is more notable than multiple sources that discuss the subject in minute chunks", which is wrong. Right at the top of WP:GNG it says that the coverage must be "significant" and then goes on to explain that this "is more than a trivial mention". In this case the debate comes down to whether album reviews that briefly mention the song are considered non-trivial. The guidelines at WP:NSONGS are even stricter as it says it must be the "subject" of these sources. So far only Paul Erik has really addressed the trivial issue in his keep comment. AIRcorn (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Glassheart, per WP:GNG. The coverage is not
more than a trivial mention
.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Consideration of stand-alone existence (as a split from the album) is not solely limited to the WP:SIZERULE - however, that's close in this case (37 kB, 6329 words "readable prose size" for Glassheart)... but independent notability isn't established. -- Trevj (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- I'm including the refs as an aid to qualifying my !vote: the article includes a number of refs, many of which are not relevant to establishing notability. Additionally,
45 new refs are included (which still don't contribute adequately either IMO, even though the 4Music one does address the subject directly, it doesn't do so in detail). Please don't remove refs from here unless a policy can be cited which explains why they shouldn't be included. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm including the refs as an aid to qualifying my !vote: the article includes a number of refs, many of which are not relevant to establishing notability. Additionally,
- Merge and redirect to Glassheart. The article spends a lot of time discussing the album, as opposed to the song itself; so the amount of information needed to be merged into Glassheart is substantially lower. As per Till's argument of WP:GNG, the references used in the article refer to the song in its context as part of the album and not in its own right.
iComputerSaysNo 23:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, five of the sentences in background talk solely about the album, while the rest are about the song. Secondly, how realistic is a merge? The Glassheart article is already 116kb and this article was created to, as Lil-unique already stated, split the information into a stand-alone article, as the album article was getting way to large. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the "readable prose size", easily confirmed using User:Dr pda/prosesize? I make that 37 kB, per my comment above. -- Trevj (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about how big the article currently is, it's about whether this song is notable enough to have a standalone article away from the parent album, which it isn't Till 07:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree, whilst no single reference makes explicit length mention of the song, collectively coverage is relatively detailed. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 12:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't see coverage which wasn't more than a trivial mention. Even the single source I found which directly addresses the subject only says that Lewis
premiered a new track called Come Alive at the Hackney Weekender, surprising crowds with its dubstep direction.
I admit to not really analysing the video sources; do they take a similar approach to the written sources, i.e. do they include some coverage of the song, as just one part of a longer piece? Or do they amount to less trivial mentions? I would expect that most of the other merge !voters probably accept that this song has the potential to meet our notability requirements... IMHO it just doesn't do so right now, per WP:TOOSOON. -- Trevj (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't see coverage which wasn't more than a trivial mention. Even the single source I found which directly addresses the subject only says that Lewis
- Disagree, whilst no single reference makes explicit length mention of the song, collectively coverage is relatively detailed. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 12:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, five of the sentences in background talk solely about the album, while the rest are about the song. Secondly, how realistic is a merge? The Glassheart article is already 116kb and this article was created to, as Lil-unique already stated, split the information into a stand-alone article, as the album article was getting way to large. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References
- ^ http://hplfilmfestival.com/2010/portland/guests/wilum-hopfrog-pugmire
- ^ Leona Lewis discusses new tracks at Hackney Weekend - Music News - Digital Spy
- ^ BBC - Music - Review of Leona Lewis - Glassheart
- ^ Leona Lewis new album 'Glassheart': First listen - Music News - Digital Spy
- ^ Leona Lewis inspired by Faithless | Musicrooms.net
- ^ Leona Lewis: 'Faithless inspired new album Glassheart' - Music News - Digital Spy
- ^ Leona Lewis: 'Glassheart' - Album review - Music Album Review - Digital Spy
- ^ Leona Lewis: Glassheart Album Review - Reviews - Music - Virgin Media
- ^ Leona Lewis: Glassheart – review | Music | The Guardian
- ^ Leona Lewis's Glassheart - The National
- ^ Leona Lewis At Hackney
- ^ Good, but playing safe | Daily Post (Liverpool)
- ^ Crítica - "Glassheart" - de Leona Lewis
- ^ Scherben-Risiko: Beats gefährden Leonas Herz aus Glas
- ^ RECENZE: Leona Lewis se na Glassheart posouvá vpřed jen po-ma-lu
- ^ Leona Lewis premieres album track Come Alive | 4Music
- 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. Meets WP:MUSICBIO, notability demonstrated by reliable sources. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Irene Bridger
- Irene Bridger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This artist does not meet WP:MUSICBIO Thegoosler (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not notable enough for keep. That could change in years to come, but is not the case now. Kierzek (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 21. Snotbot t • c » 21:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This article clearly meets the first criterion of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians; Bridger "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself". Passing one of the criteria is all that is necessary to demonstrate notability. Neelix (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – per Neelix, I think the sourcing here is sufficient, in particular with the 2007 article in The Pilot. As an additional note, this singer was twice-nominated for Inspirational Album of the Year at the Covenant Awards. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per Rs coverage, supported by nominations.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2013 (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. Sources are sources no matter what language. Consensus sways to keep due to reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 11:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Eje
- Thomas Eje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NN actor. Best known for a NN comedy trio called Linie 3, A few webhits but nothing significant enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:ENT Toddst1 (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He is actually very famous in Denmark as an entertainer, and there must certainly be tons of sources establishing that, but unfortunately they are probably mostly in Danish and many of them possibly not online. I agree that the article currently is in a very sad sate and does not in any way give the impression of notability. --Danmuz (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've added some Danish sources, including an encyclopedia entry on him, and a little info. There is so much coverage of his second wedding ceremony last year that he demonstrably meets GNG; if I had a better facility with the Norwegian Kvasir search engine taht I used or knew of a Danish equivalent, I'd be better able to find news coverage from earlier in his career and add more specifics as in the Danish article, but I have substantiated that he is nationally well known as an entertainer. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The whole premise of the nom is wrong. Linie 3 is definitely not NN. This is pretty much like saying that John Cleese is NN because he is mostly known for Monty Python. --Harthacnut (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2013 (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Darjeelings
- The Darjeelings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
They've accomplished nothing - their entire catalog consists of one self-released EP. Although the article looks nice and appears to be well referenced, most of the refs appear to be of the self-published/fanzine variety. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:TOOSOON, this is far short of the standard of WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:BAND Criterion#1 is fulfilled by Preston Leader, Syn, Freeza, and Beat Magazine refs. Criterion#11 is fulfilled by "All in Good Time", being played on both Triple J Unearthed and its radio stations. Only one criterion is sufficient to establish notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lacks the significant coverage independent reliable sources to establish notability. Of the sourcing in the article, the only one I'd count towards notability would be "The Beat". -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Close. The Preston Leader is a minor local interest puff piece. The Beat piece is pretty good but is street press promoting the music scene. Not quite ennough for me. The Syn is just another band on the promotional circuit talking about themselves. Freeza is not an independent reliable source. Being played on Triple J is not rotation so does not satisfy #11. Probably too soon. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I hate the subjectivity of discussions like this, but I'm not inclined to disagree that they don't meet WP:GNG. I like stumbling on these indie band AfDs because you can find some little unknown musical gems, like their tune "All in Good Time"[60]. Hope they have a bright future.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:53, 30 January 2013 (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.