Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 November 18
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination, and no-one else wanted deletion. I left this for 24 hours to see whether anyone dissented, and no-one has. Uncle G (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ber Sarai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable as per WP:GNG. Does not assert significance. Guoguo12--Talk-- 23:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It does seem to be an actual New Delhi neighborhood that has had secondary English coverage. [1][2]--Oakshade (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I never said it was a hoax, thanks for providing the book source. However, there's still the question of the subject's current status, since the book source you provided was published in 1982, almost two decades ago. Guoguo12--Talk-- 19:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The date, nor "current status" wouldn't matter. If the source was published in 1882, it would still be a valid description of a neighborhood. A g-search shows it's still considered a distinct neighborhood. Even if it only used to be, it would still be notable. --Oakshade (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that existence means notability? Guoguo12--Talk-- 20:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you take a look at the Google Books and News search results spoon-fed in the nomination you will see that there are sources for much more than just existence. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that existence means notability? Guoguo12--Talk-- 20:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The date, nor "current status" wouldn't matter. If the source was published in 1882, it would still be a valid description of a neighborhood. A g-search shows it's still considered a distinct neighborhood. Even if it only used to be, it would still be notable. --Oakshade (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I never said it was a hoax, thanks for providing the book source. However, there's still the question of the subject's current status, since the book source you provided was published in 1982, almost two decades ago. Guoguo12--Talk-- 19:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD withdrawn by nominator. Please close, thanks. Guoguo12--Talk-- 21:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: but AfD seems to have been withdrawn. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The objections to this article appear to ones that should be dealt with through editing rather then deletion. If there are issues with content being kept against policy then WP:DR is the way forward with RFC/mediation probably the most useful parts to try, Spartaz Humbug! 06:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kilgour-Matas report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Previous AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China (2nd nomination)
Procedural nomination. The material in this article is controversial, and the article's history has been problematic. It was previously nominated for deletion and kept. Then the material was merged into Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China where it has sat awkwardly as the material is as much (or more) about the Falun Gong movement and its persecution by the Chinese authorities, and the Falun Gong's responses to that persecution, as it is about organ transplantation. The Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China article was listed as a Good Article, but that listing has been challenged because it contained this material. I have moderated a discussion regarding this material, and as part of the agreement of that discussion I said I would oversee editing of the material to restore it to a standalone article, and then - because of the contentious history of the material - would put it up to the community to discuss. My own view is that the material is notable, it has a number of reliable sources, and the topic involves a number of notable people and organisations. I will be ivoting to keep. SilkTork *YES! 23:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Has reliable sources and is about notable people and organisations. Meets WP:N, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:V, and is not excluded by WP:NOT. SilkTork *YES! 23:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article's title is notable and the content is well-referenced. However three sections: "Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China", "Sujiatun allegations" and "Other reports", are excessively long for an article with this title. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Whilst I agree that the article generally satisfies WP:N, WP:OR, WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NOT, I find the article a long way from neutrality, and I have grave reservations that it is ever capable of complying with this pillar of Wikipedia; Needs to be watched carefully to ensure it does not become an attack page. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (vote voluntarily withdrawn). To save myself from stress, I have withdrawn myself from Falun Gong-related pages for months but I am extremely surprised at the resilience of its advocates. I understand that User SilkTork has made a great effort in ensuring the article's neutrality and will now act to protect it, but I alert the users voting here to look at the greater context under which this article was created. One of the major contributers to this article, Dilip Rajeev, is an unabashed Falun Gong practitioner and advocate who has written for Falun Gong newspaper the Epoch Times. Wikipedia's administration has been totally blind in not banning this user for good. Colipon+(Talk) 18:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion here is basically consisting of only involved parties. I do not think this is a fair process nor is it constructive. To ensure neutrality, I will now voluntarily withdraw myself from this discussion. Colipon+(Talk) 10:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Ohconfucius and Colipon, could you please clarify as to which policy matter your complaints on this article relate to? Ohconfucius seems to acknowledge compliance with relevant policies, but then suggests it be deleted because it may not be neutral? I thought neutrality was a separate issue. Colipon's remarks do even less to explain his wish to have the article deleted. I may be lacking some background. I seek to understand these two views more fully before supporting or opposing the page. On the surface, the page seems to clearly comply with notability requirements; I understood that the question of whether an article is neutral or not is a separate matter. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, and while it is not explicitly mentioned in WP:DEL#REASON as a reason to delete, it is appropriate to raise as a cause for concern. Also, future maintenance has been included in various deletion discussions; people evaluate the value of material against the time and effort required to maintain a page in a form that complies with Wikipedia's standards. This page in one form or another has been problematic, as have other Falun Gong related pages. There have been numerous hours spent
debatingfighting over Falun Gong material, and those involved are at this stage frustrated and exhausted. - One question here regards if this page is from this point forward going to be any more problematic than other Falun Gong related articles. Another qestion regards how we deal with disputed point of view issues - there are various processes in place for that, and deletion might be seen as an inappropriate venue as it is purely a seven day unmoderated discussion which doesn't have the means or time for examining all aspects of the dispute. My personal view of this issue is that a number of pro-Falun Gong users don't fully appreciate Wikipedia's role and our standards regarding NPOV, and are a little too keen to get over their message about the persecution of the movement. I feel it more appropriate to listen to their views, and instruct them in how to present the material in compliance with our standards (as the material - once Falun Gong sources are filtered out - is usally highly notable), than to remove or deny the knowledge as being too much effort to maintain. While this is my personal view, I am making no commitment to personally maintain this or any other article. The ongoing maintenance of Wikipedia is for this and future communities, not any one individual; and no decision should be made on Wikipedia based on the promise or commitment of any particular individual.
- Does that help? SilkTork *YES! 09:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That does help. In that case I see no reason to delete the page. Can anyone show an example of how the original page looked (as in, badly sourced, poor research, biased language, etc.) such that it was so biased it had to be deleted? Indeed, per Homunculus's query, I'm not sure why there isn't a page on the topic generally, rather than just one on the Kilgour/Matas situation: It seems that a handful of researchers have turned their hands to trying to get to the bottom of these allegations, and produced a sizable body of research. It would seem to me more sensible to put that all on its own page, rather than have one page just on this report. I do not know if this option has been explored.The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have sorted the article's history so it is all available under the history tag.
- The name of the article has changed several times - you'll see one of the names above under the previous AfD. Part of the previous issue with the material has been the choice of title. This title is very neutral, and does deal with a notable report. The report itself attracted attention - rather more, from my understanding, than the original allegation alone attracted. There is no dispute that the report is notable; however, there might be valid arguments that the allegation alone is not notable. Also, when the allegation is placed against the rather larger allegations of China a) dealing in illegal international trading in organs and b) using the organs of prisoners, both of which are adequately dealt with inside the Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China article, then an argument for dealing just with the Falun Gong allegation in a stand alone article would be unlikely to succeed and might cause rather more dispute. The Persecution of Falun Gong article is the more appropriate place to deal with a quick overview of this allegation, and does already have a section on the matter. The section currently links to the Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China article, but if this AfD passes as a Keep, then that link will be removed, and a link to this article used instead. SilkTork *YES! 10:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for continuing this dialog. I just want to make sure I am understanding right. Are you suggesting that information about this report is more widely available than information about the phenomenon (or alleged phenomenon) it purports to document? Or, I mean, are you saying that the report itself, about allegations of organ harvesting from Falungong, is more notable than the allegations of organ harvesting from Falungong? That would be unusual indeed. Prima facie, it would also not seem to be the case. As mentioned, several other researchers, not just Kilgour and Matas, have published on the Falungong/organ harvesting connection. The notability of the allegations is surely not related to their veracity. Can it be proven that the report has garnered more attention than the allegations? If so, the current approach would make sense. If not, there should be a separate page on the allegations, and the contents of this page rolled into it. Please let me know if there is a fault in this logic. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That does help. In that case I see no reason to delete the page. Can anyone show an example of how the original page looked (as in, badly sourced, poor research, biased language, etc.) such that it was so biased it had to be deleted? Indeed, per Homunculus's query, I'm not sure why there isn't a page on the topic generally, rather than just one on the Kilgour/Matas situation: It seems that a handful of researchers have turned their hands to trying to get to the bottom of these allegations, and produced a sizable body of research. It would seem to me more sensible to put that all on its own page, rather than have one page just on this report. I do not know if this option has been explored.The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, and while it is not explicitly mentioned in WP:DEL#REASON as a reason to delete, it is appropriate to raise as a cause for concern. Also, future maintenance has been included in various deletion discussions; people evaluate the value of material against the time and effort required to maintain a page in a form that complies with Wikipedia's standards. This page in one form or another has been problematic, as have other Falun Gong related pages. There have been numerous hours spent
You raise a good point, though I think this is a discussion better placed on either the talk page of Kilgour-Matas report or Persecution of Falun Gong as part of ongoing development. My view is that the report is notable, and there is material enough for an appropriate stand alone article which deals with the circumstances leading to the report, the report itself, and the responses to the report. I am less certain that the "Sujiatun Concentration Camp" allegations by themselves are as notable or notable enough for a standalone article. Though the allegations have attracted some attention, it was not of the same level as the report itself, which went beyond that particular allegation and involved the general persecution of the Falun Gong as well as the international concerns about the organ transplantation programme in China; added to which the writers of the report are notable in themselves - so when they write a report people pay attention. However, it would be acceptable to build up material in either Kilgour-Matas report or Persecution of Falun Gong (or both) on that specific allegation, and if it was felt the material had grown large enough, to split out into a stand alone article per WP:Summary style. This document is useful - the list of contents shows a section on the allegations with a sub-section devoted just to the report. If you wish to continue this discussion, I have copied the above to here. SilkTork *YES! 10:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable. --JN466 23:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:N. Material in conformance with WP:RS. I compiled the initial article sourcing each sentence to reliable sources, and its was reviewed and refined, over a period of months, by two other editors ( Silktork and Jayen). I request editors to analyze the article, reearch further on the topic, and vote here as per the central criterion for inclusion of an article WP:N; and also considering WP:RS, and WP:NPOV of the content . Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Obviously fits the requirements of notability, sourcing, etc. The travesty and tragedy is just that 1) it took so long for this to happen. 2) the injustice whereby the anti-Falun Gong activists had the page deleted will not be redressed. It took outside editors to come and fix this ridiculous miscarriage of policy. Colipon and Ohconfucius and their pals hijacked the original process, and got the page deleted. The information here is the same as what was on the original, though probably presented differently. The fact that it's now being restored means the two anti-Falun Gong activists were wrong to begin with. They should apologise (and refrain from editing articles where they clearly have such an extremely negative emotional investment that they can't possibly edit rationally and objectively--as has been clearly demonstrated here and all over these pages). --Asdfg12345 21:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Above bad faith attack is not warranted. Neither does this discussion prove me wrong inasmuch as WP:CCC. The above is just another manifestation of the general bitterness now harboured by asdfg since his topic ban which I am on record of not having supported; what is strange is that he seems bitter towards me. I'll let it pass. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 00:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would add that I ceased making any substantive edits to Falun Gong articles for the best part of a year now. I hear all those Falun Gong SPA clapping their hands in glee. ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 00:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly notable. —Zujine|talk 23:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is unnecessary, inappropriate and against Wikipedia guidelines and ethos for people to be making personal comments in this discussion. It is precisely because of such behaviour that Falun Gong related material is problematic. I do note that the personal attacks were started by Colipon, a declared anti-Falun Gong editor, so while the personal attacks by the pro-Falun Gong editors is not excusable, it can be understand to be a response to a provocation. I am putting a warning on the user pages of those concerned, and asking them to retract their personal comments. If they do not do so before the end of this AfD, then I will ask that their !votes are discounted. SilkTork *YES! 09:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge per WP:UNDUE and the previous merger proposal - while the subject is notable, it is a part of a larger issue of illegal organ transplantations in China, highlighted by other investigations by US Dept of State and Harry Wu which came to different conclusions. Solely by their coverage and sources alone, we can have separate articles on US Department State investigations on illegal organ transplantations in China and Harry Wu investigations on illegal organ transplantations in China, but Wikipedia doesn't function that way. The fact remains that K&M remains the only source claiming that organ harvesting is targeted at FLG practitioners, that allegations has never been proven, that K&M is closely associated with FLG and receives most of their publicity from them, and that no further progress in the allegations has been made since - K&M continued to make their accusations and give conferences, the PRC government continued to deny the allegations, and third parties continued to "express concerns" without actually proving anything.--PCPP (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: For ease of access, the merge discussions are here: September 2008: no merge; and August 2009: merge. SilkTork *YES! 10:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whatever you guys do, it won't last long anyways. Rinse, lather, repeat. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable. The topic can certainly stand on its own. Actually, by topic I'm referring to the charges of organ harvesting from Falun Gong more generally; Kilgour and Matas are not the only ones who have investigated these claims. Ethan Gutmann has arguably been researching the issue more vigorously and over a longer span of time than Kilgour and Matas.Homunculus (duihua) 17:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparison between written English and written Chinese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Arbitrary cross-categorization. Why is this more encyclopedic than a comparison between written Chinese and written, say, Korean, Hindi, Arabic, Cree, etc.? For that matter, why not between Chinese and French, Spanish, German, and other languages whose writing system is similar to English? Maybe the argument will be "but this is en-wiki, so English is special, and it's encyclopedic to show how Chinese writing is different from English"; in that case, this whole article could just be subsumed in an article about the Chinese writing system. In fact, the article already is almost entirely about Chinese writing. Anything that's encyclopedic and not already articles such as Written Chinese and Chinese grammar can be sent there, and this article can be deleted. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The nomination seems to be arguing for a merger not a deletion. Deletion would be contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a full merger. This is an unencyclopedic topic, like I said, so there's no point having an article on it. If there is content worth keeping, it belongs in another article, but that doesn't mean I'm proposing a merger, it just means the deletion should be handled that way. Removing most of an article's content and maybe moving a bit of it to another article is tantamount to deletion (even if you leave a redirect, although I don't think it's necessary in this case), and things that are tantamount to deletion generally need consensus, which is why I opened a discussion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only actual content that corresponds to the article title is OR, and there's not much there. Most of the current content are misnomers (since they deal with translation/borrowed content between the languages rather than comparison between the written languages). --Nlu (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think that some of the information here can be mentioned in Chinese language. In looking through here, I see lots of different original observations, only a few of which seem to have any connection to the title. If the intent was to compare written English and written Chinese, I can't find it in here. I would think that the same comparisons would apply between the Chinese system of ideographs (a character stands for a word) and any system that uses "phonemes" (each symbol standing for a sound); in other words, written Chinese would have the same comparisons with written Spanish, or, for that matter, written Hebrew. To the extent that there is something that hasn't already been said somewhere else, it can be referred to in the article Written Chinese. Mandsford 14:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH all the way. Ravenswing 14:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete:' classic WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete *splutter* ----Divebomb is not British 14:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete completely unencyclopaedic topic. Otherwise why not have "difference between 'x' and 'y'" for every language pair? If the answer is this in the English WP then a comparison is unneeded as ever language is described (in English and so on this WP) relative to, or in terms of, English to some extent. The content is very arbitrary (Japanese loan words?) and in some places just wrong (pronouns rarely used in Chinese??).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- JD Lawrence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can find no independent sources to establish notability, fails WP:ENTERTAINER Jezhotwells (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Here's a feature about him in the July 27, 2008 The New York Times,[3]. Here's an article in the October 15, 2009 New York Daily News[4]. Here's a October 21, 2009 interview with BET.[5] The article suffers from some puffery and needs cleaning up, but notability is not in question. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - also had a listing here at the Washington Post. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - but that listing in the Washington Post is no more relevant than a listing in a phonebook; all it does is say that a play he wrote was running. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Advanced Simulated Radar Client (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
'Delete. Non-notable software. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: Merge to VATSIM as they use it. Alan Liefting, before you go AFD'ing every article on Wikipedia about Virtual Aviation why don't you think of other things. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith and don't exaggerate. I am NOT "AFD'ing every article on Wikipedia about Virtual Aviation". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is no coverage about this software in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No opposition, but scant discussion. Treating as a PROD. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Euroscope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Non-notable software application. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Www.languageskillsforexams.ie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Speedy deletion decline twice, recreated. No sources after three notices. No evidence of notability per WP:WEB, WP:GNG, or WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A newly set up website, in no way notable. E. Fokker (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article qualifies for speedy deletion under A7. No google hits, no sources, no claim to notability. --Diannaa (Talk) 01:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As the one who initially tagged it, I stand by my initial tagging, and I too was unable to find sources or any claim to notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Speedy delete as spam for a website that won't even resolve for me. -- Whpq (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason it won't resolve is because, apparently, the DNS name has been allowed to expire. When I tried forward DNS lookup on both www.languageskillsforexams.ie and languageskillsforexams.ie, the result for both was "no records found". See here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not at all notable. Googling for "languageskillsforexams" only turns up the Wikipedia article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as A7. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, it should be CSD templated for "A7 - unremarkable website" and deleted, but apparently the speedy deletion request has been declined twice already. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per WP:WEB, WP:GNG, and lacks WP:RS. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- US Bank Arena concerts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Was trying PROD, but an anonymous IP objected. I have long tried to keep this list off of U.S. Bank Arena as a violation of WP:NOTDIR. It has since been put on this page. It still violates WP:NOTDIR. Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced and unneeded. Just like Wikipedia is not a TV Guide, we're also not a concert t-shirt with dates on the back either, especially in this form without sources. Nate • (chatter) 06:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. WP:NOTDIR. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 02:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I'm basically treating this as a WP:PROD, no opposition listed, and appears to lack notability. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kate Forster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I initially declined the A7 speedy-delete for this biography as I found (and later added) two sources. But these are brief mentions only, not enough to support a BLP, not enough for the notability guideline. WP:AUTHOR also does not appear to be met. The article's creator did not respond to my request for more sources, and I have not found any others myself. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is no significant coverage about her in reliable sources. She has one book out which appears to be self-published as it is published by Dogma, and per this, she was General Manager of commnications agency Dogma. According to teh article, she has book deal with Penguin which means she may become notable in the future, but not right now. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Phil Alan Fischer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've removed some unreliable sources, and I've failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources about him. The current sources aren't great (little independent sourcing, not indepth) and don't verify all of the content. Most of the material online about him is self-published and/or promotional. I just don't think there's enough published on him in reliable sources to write a passable article. Fences&Windows 21:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is almost no coverage in reliable sources. The Kirkland Reporter article is the most substantial piece and is really about the band, but that would not establish the notability of the band much less him as a musician indpendent of the band. There is also an unsubstantiated assertion of being the writer for 9 hit songs from the 90's. The referencing goes to a dead site, but it does not appear to be reliable in any case. A check of ASCAP gives this which shows no evidence of any hit songs. These are either performed by the Ex Box Boys, or have no performer at all listed. So no actual verifiable evidence of writing hit songs. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Todd Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No citations in reliable sources to establish notability. All I can find is trivia mentions of subject's music on gnews archive. Nothing about auto racing. Apparently does not meet wp:creative CutOffTies (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Given the complete lack of any information on what sort of autoracing he was involved with, it's difficult to determine anything of notability there. He could have been doing anything from Formula one to lawn mower racing for all we know. As for his acting career, there are no significant roles. In fact, there are very few roles at all, and not surprisingly, no coverage about it. The best claim for notability would be as a musician, but once again, there is no coverage here that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Road Waffles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Absolutely no notability. No sources found anywhere. Speedy declined due to prior AFD, which was closed as unanimous delete. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete defunct web comic with no real coverage. Gigs (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per OP. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eight, author of the non-defunct Road Waffles, chimes in here on Nov. 19th, 2010; "I don't really understand why a wikimod requests deletion of this article a week after the revival of a long-standing webcomic that still has viewer traffic. I guess this is what happens when somebody links it on somethingawful - the trolls tear your walls down for fun. It should be noted that the only notability the requestor has themselves is a long history of deleting content from wikipedia and various boy scout badges gained for doing it. This article was built by the readers and contains accurate information about the webcomic, sourced by readers reading the comic. Requesting deletion of Ten Pound Hammer for having absolutely no notability. (I've never heard of him, therefore he must not be important at all.)" (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.5.12.28 (talk)
- Delete: Har de har har, while we're talking about trolling. Moving back to a deletion discussion (supposedly) based around Wikipedia policies and guidelines, the article proffers no reliable sources evincing notability. I could find none with a Google search, amidst the blog posts and Wiki mirrors. Ravenswing 15:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eight: "It's obvious that the article's fate was sealed once a certain person went around tagging certain comics for deletion. While you're still here priding yourself on removing content from the web rather than being the one generating it, you can feel my burn for the next decade. If the comic wasn't notable and popular enough to be tagged for deletion amongst the group of other comics targetted and seconded enthusiastically during the last few days despite having withstood several years unchallenged as fan-generated wikipedia content, then I'm sure it wouldn't have been on your radar at all. Why don't you all go and create a notable article on yourselves?" Comment is most sarcastically pending deletion.
Eight: "Also, please read a personal appeal from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. I apologize for not knowing the 'rules' and evidently Wikipedia must be suffering from the twenty or so page hits per month on the Road Waffles wiki article and it is costing them so much bandwidth that anything not recognizable within mainstream media, or has garnered a review from a 'reliable' mainstream media outlet, or won any 'awards', is not a valid constituent in the global internet knowledge archive known formally as Wikipedia. I do not consider my 'self' to be notable, hence there does not exist any article on my pseudonym, but having selflessly contributed my obviously enormous wealth of artistry to the virtual world should constitute my content as valid as an ephemeral molecule in the ocean of human chronology. Since the user-controlled media participants have unanimously agreed to destroy content that they themselves have not thoroughly researched or judged any redeeming value, the wrecking ball looms and a chapter closes. Give yourself a hug."
- Comment: Yes, you're absolutely right: a subject not recognized by mainstream media, or which hasn't won any significant awards, or which hasn't otherwise been noticed by the wider world, does not by Wikipedia policies merit an article. You're more than welcome to thoroughly research it and get back to us if you find our own research deficient; the AfD will be open for a few more days. Ravenswing 18:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eight: "As noted, quite aware :) with a smiley. I apologize that I'm not Lady Gaga, however the attached zinger insinuates that she has not actually done anything remarkable during her career yet qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Upon your invitation I can only recall once doing an interview with Xavier Xerexes"An interview with Eight by Xaviar Xerexes". as well as being listed among Notorious Webcartoonists"NC:17, or 17 Notorious Webcartoonists". on COMIXTALK but I'm sure since the 'review media' COMIXTALK doesn't have its own wikipedia article that this automatically dismisses me from being notable by proxy as my sources are less notable on Wikipedia than I am. Cue the bulldozers!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.5.12.28 (talk)
- Reply: The notion that "notability," as defined by Wikipedia policies, means "This subject is important" is probably, IMHO, the greatest fallacy here ... not merely among newcomers, but among a surprising number of erstwhile veterans who should know better. Instead, Wikipedia's fundamental content policy is WP:V, which holds "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." That's one of the reasons that Lady Gaga qualifies for a Wikipedia article ... although some might claim that having seven singles crack the Billboard Top Ten might just meet WP:MUSIC's threshold for inclusion. Ravenswing 20:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eight: "Motion to investigate FOX News for source reliability." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.5.12.28 (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe if you make some comics making fun of Wikipedia, you'll draw enough coverage to satisfy our WP:Notability guideline. How's that for a dose of surreal? Gigs (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gojoe: Dear Wikipedia Admin,
As a fellow contributor to the Road Waffles wiki article I would like to ask for a couple of days to possibly gather a few sources to cite information in the article and make it as legitimate as possible. The Road Waffles article is a valid article to be placed on Wikipedia in that it was one of the first webcomics to be included on Keenspot, a major online syndicate for online comics. In this way the wiki page is helping to catalog the history of webcomics through the years they has been online. Also it shows how Road Waffles has helped to develop the webcomic mainstream. For us, the fan base of webcomics, and Road Waffles in particular, this is an invaluable source of information.
Another reason would be that as of currently the author for the webcomic, Eight, does not yet have a cast of information page for his comic. Therefore the wiki article is a main source for us, the readers, to gather information on the comic and keep ourselves up to date on cast members, synopsis, current status of the comics update schedule, and website alterations and functions.
Other webcomics have wiki pages used in a similar manner such as Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire.
All I ask is to let us keep our wikipedia page to let us keep our article and in return I, and possible a few other contributors, will cite the article and bring it into the right, Wikipedia, format.
Thank you - Gojoe
- Gojoe, we aren't a free web hosting service. There's other wikis out there like Wikia that you can use if you want to host a Wiki about Road Waffles. This AfD will be open for a couple more days, so there's your couple days. Don't delay though, it's not looking good at this point, and they tend to close these things promptly after 7 days. Gigs (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eight: "Is it possible to call on WP:IAR this rule under the premise that it is understandable that 'Road Waffles' was never intended to be a 'mainstream' comic and thus has never strived to gain any notability through reviewers or popular media and has not once been submitted to any syndication or publisher, even a local one or a school paper, for review - on the grounds that the author never intended for the content to be suitable for newspapers. However, while self-publishing solely on the internet for the sake of having people read it, it garnered somewhat of a 'cult' following and posted some pretty big readership numbers during the first run, at a time when there were very few webcomics achieving that kind of 'fame'. In fact, there were very few webcomics at that time.
Web Archive snapshots of BigPanda.net circa 2000, or internal usage statistics from KeenSpot, unfortunately cannot be used as source material."
- It's asking a lot to invoke IAR on our core policy of WP:verifiability and our primary inclusion guideline of WP:notability. We can do it, but the situation would have to be pretty exceptional. On the plus side, if you do draw coverage in the future, the article could possibly be recreated at some point. The coverage would need to be in reliable sources, usually not blogs or things of that sort. Gigs (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." IAR shouldn't be used - and was never intended to be used - to paper over that fundamental requirement. If this webcomic did indeed have a substantial cult following, then some reliable sources saying so would be necessary. Ravenswing 15:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non-notable. Commenters above who think this article is an invaluable resource and that the topic is more notable than Lady Gaga are free to take a copy via the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete Mandsford 21:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alvarado v. Gorton and the Union Pacific Railroad Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is clearly non-neutral, and primarily consists of unverifiable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.249.58 (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Completing nomination for IP. It has been noted that the IP initiating this AFD is registered to Union Pacific, however I believe that there is indeed grounds for an AFD (as a neutral party). Jujutacular talk 20:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 20:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The lawsuit appears to have generated no secondary coverage, and therefore does not meet the WP:GNG. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting ones grievances against a company, and this case does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia's standard of notability at this point. Edison (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:N. Wikipedia has been overrun by plaintiffs' firms using it to advertise, but for some reason, this has not gotten the same attention as far more minor COI problems. THF (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As others posted above,WP:SPAM seems to cover it. Almost reads like a sheet from the plaintiffs notebook. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete Mandsford 21:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Liaquat javaid mian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disputed prod, subject does not meet standards for notability. PKT(alk) 19:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:. A google news search turns up zero hits. A google search only turns up his company's website and wikipedia mirrors, and a mention in economic review that does not give him significant coverage. DigitalC (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ekram Ahmed Lelin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable poet. Article makes some tall claims (such as the subject being more popular than several famous novelists), without any references backing up the claim. As someone quite familiar with Bangladeshi literature and media, I have never heard of the subject as a notable writer. Article fails WP:N, WP:V. Ragib (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I initially prod'd the page. But the single purpose account that created the page removed the prod notice without showing any justification. Hence, I am bringing it to AFD. --Ragib (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Exactly Zero Google hits for "Ekram Ahmed Lenin". I also tried Bengali language sources for the subject's name in Bengali, but even there, got Zero hits for "একরাম আহমেদ লেনিন". --Ragib (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. Who is this joke? Unless Wikipedia has decided to make entries for all of our highschool friends with an ambition to be a writer and access to a small time printer to get a couple of books printed and circulated among friends, this is a total joke. If WP:N and WP:V haven't changed while I blinked – Delete, and Delete Again. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep Mandsford 21:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hate week (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The fictional event isn't particularly notable, and the only referencing from outside sources is used to support the plot summary, not in fact any Real World information. Though I would probably follow the suggested merge, I also thing that content is non-notable/has considerable OR in it. Sadads (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also suggest deletion of Two Minutes Hate per above rational, Sadads (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There is nothing in either article to indicate these are WP:OR. There are inline citations. There are books discussing this exact subject, using this exact term, which is from classic literature, yet has its moments in popular culture. Is the problem the type of references? I know the books exist. I know that they discuss this exact term in detail. I know they originate from classic literature. However, I do not have access to the exact books, nor do I plan to visit the library anytime soon. As such, I believe we must assume good faith, and keep these articles. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep These are reasonable topics from one of the most influential fictional books ever written. I don't see a problem with having articles on them in WP for people who come across the expressions, or who want to learn more about 1984 without actually reading it. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Kitfoxxe. Sadads needs to put down the monitor and read a bit more of something worth reading. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment This seems a bit crazy. I quote the following elements from Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction) which clearly show that a piece such as this with trivial secondary coverage, does not meet notability.
- "Real-world coverage: This establishes real-world importance or provides appropriate context for understanding real-world importance, versus detailing only the fictional adventures of characters." Cleary it does not meet this element. Where is the real world information?
- "Role within the fictional work: The element, such as a character, must be verifiablity important within the work: the importance of individual elements can be demonstrated when they are referred to in more than passing in reliable sources, or if there is a reference to the casting of the character in a reliable source." - Don't see this element as being more than a passing element with 1984, I respect the book and the author, but fictional elements don't belong.
- "However, the consensus at Wikipedia is that articles about fictional works should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split resulting in undue weight being given to insignificant details or trivial coverage." - this is deffinitely minutiae
- And lastly the big whopper "Coverage of fiction on Wikipedia needs to be more than a plot summary of the work. " - The current citations are not to significant analysis of the work but passing mentions, which is reflected in the plot summary of the work.
I think within the guidelines for fiction, their is hardly any way to actually defend such an article, especially when the references develop plot elements, not any serious analysis, Sadads (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If you look through the spoon-fed links at the top of this discussion to Google Books and Scholar searches you will see that secondary coverage is far from trivial, and contains plenty of serious analysis. If the current content of the article doesn't explain the "real-world" importance, or go beyond plot summary, then that is a reason for editing, not for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic is particularly notable, being discussed in detail in reliable sources. It should be kept for improvement in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear Keep, significant term from one of the most notable books of the 20th century. THere's plenty of references to analysis of the term's significance, and 'hate week' is discussed in classrooms world wide.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep' both Google news search for "Hate week" and "nineteen eighty four" shows results. [6] You can search for results in Google books and Google scholar as well if you wish to bother. Dream Focus 23:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you search for "two minutes hate" you'll find ample coverage as well. This is a good one. [7] Search the page for "two minutes hate" and the first explains what it is, then the second time it appears it states that is what is going on in modern times in the real world when talking about America's enemies. Hmm... Google news says its a credible website, but I'm not certain. Other results out there though. I believe both articles are notable. Dream Focus 00:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those sources give us significant coverage on the subject itself, just passing discussion as a cultural reference. This could be absorbed by 1984 or articles related to it but does not deserve it's own article, notability is not sufficient for significant coverage, Sadads (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep With regard to Sadads's citation of the proposed fiction notability guidelines, one must consider what is written in the paragraphs immediately preceding those three numbered criteria, specifically: " Before proposing that an article is to be deleted, it is important to not just consider whether the existing article meets these inclusion criteria, but whether it's subject has the potential to do so. All Wikipedia articles are unfinished, and an article can be notable if sources exist but have not yet been used in the article. [...] These criteria are not exhaustive, nor universally agreed upon, but are a guide to how to best organise content" The Two Minutes Hate is a key thematic element in the novel 1984 as it typifies the nature of the control of both thoughts and actions which the dystopian state exerts on its denizens. This level of control and its effects on society is the entire rhetorical point of the novel; the Two Minutes Hate is used as a shorthand, just like Big Brother, in both quotidian and academic writing to allude to this. That is in addition to the notion of the Two Minutes Hate being relevant in academic discussions of dystopic literature. For examples, see google scholar search. Bennyfactor (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve It was easy to find sources to WP:verify notability. Too easy. The hard part is sorting through them and writing all of it up. I took a stab at having at least SOMETHING to assert notability. But we can most certainly do better. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete Mandsford 21:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael Halding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Non-notable blogger referenced largely from the subjects own blog and other bits of the blogosphere. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable sources provided. Michael Harding appears to be a pseudonym for an anonymous blogger. Information cannot be independently verified. Wikipedia is not MySpace or Blogspot. Ground Zero | t 22:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All it comes up with is blogspot links on a google search. It's... MR BERTY! talk/stalk 12:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not Delete. Quoting from Mr. Berty above and responding. Criteria search "Michael Halding" linkiest.com, conservativegrapevine.com, www.therealunitedstates.com, lonelyconservative.com, www.icann.org, www.myfreedompost.com/,books.google.com/, www.servinghistory.com, childrenstable.net/, www.wajabu.com, www.dogpile.com/, www.videosgallery.com/, www.celebrityphoto.com, www.spottelecom.com. Again, unless the editors above are unfamiliar with using ("'s)in their searches, I am going to have to jump on the "bias" bandwagon. This writer has had numerous attempts of vandalism. Quoting posts on the fan blog (AND OTHER SOURCES) he has suffered them on all mediums. Under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#Creative_professionals # The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
- The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. Nearly every single fan response to this writer fulfills these guidelines, not unless you can deny all the comments made by his fans? Last I checked they qualify under "peers." It is proven that this writer has made significant impact to a group, which makes him notable by our policy.How do I know this? Because I read and explore all listed references. Unfortunately, it's because I have too much time on my hands. Gelmoth.v6 (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What profession does he qualify for? Is he a professional blogger, i.e., does he get paid to be a blogger, or is he an amateur blogger? If he is the later, as seems to be the case from the article, "Creative professionals" does not seem to apply. If you are going to accuse other editors of bias, then you must provide evidence with respect to each editor, rather than making a blanket accusation like that. Finally, can you provide any reliable sources, i.e., ones that are not blogs, e.g., news websites, newspapers, magazines, books? Ground Zero | t 23:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since he is an anonymous blogger, this may not even be his name. It's... MR BERTY! talk/stalk 19:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. So his name is really Mr Berty...... Peridon (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What profession does he qualify for? Is he a professional blogger, i.e., does he get paid to be a blogger, or is he an amateur blogger? If he is the later, as seems to be the case from the article, "Creative professionals" does not seem to apply. If you are going to accuse other editors of bias, then you must provide evidence with respect to each editor, rather than making a blanket accusation like that. Finally, can you provide any reliable sources, i.e., ones that are not blogs, e.g., news websites, newspapers, magazines, books? Ground Zero | t 23:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I wonder if this could qualify for the title of worst-referenced article? Perhaps not. If those quotes in the article are typical, yes, I would agree that Plato was an influence. The cardboard box is a vaguely interesting take on Plato's Cave - but would Halding consider that the provider of the box would be a god? (And who fed the people in it? - most of these philosophical situations neglect the practical.) But to the question. If compliance with WP:RS could be arranged, I might be willing to reverse my decision. As of now, we have an anonymous writer on the internet with no desire to be identified (sounds like a Wikipedia editor...) with no real evidence to show that he is/was really notable. Note that I use 'notable' in the Wikipedia sense. (See WP:GNG et al.) Peridon (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- VzRoom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Teleconferencing software of no evident notability. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 17:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Author has added some references, so I am withdrawing my nomination. ... discospinster talk 16:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rajat Sharma (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete - non-notable cricketer per WP:CRIC. Poorly referenced and also fails WP:ATH. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete and should have been speedy deleted but for technicalities. The article is a hoax per my message on the talk page. The subject of the article does not exist. In any case, AA is correct that it does not meet WP:CRIN or WP:ATH. ----Jack | talk page 19:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - fails WP:CRIN and WP:ATH. jsfouche ☽☾ talk 22:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per all above. Harrias talk 07:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Johnlp (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 18:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 18:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the sources within don't say much in terms of GNG either, but this definitely doesn't pass WP:ATH/WP:CRIN. —SpacemanSpiff 18:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But it isn't a hoax though. He's not on CA because he hasn't played First Class Cricket, he's only played within the Punjab Cricket Association's league(s). —SpacemanSpiff 18:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, out! S.G.(GH) ping! 16:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only remotely reliable reference on that page says he's playing in an under-14 competition. —Raven42 (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:CRIN.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sridhar Lagadapati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Sirisha Lagadapati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Entirely promotional, no sources, doesn't meet WP:N criteria, it's surprising that it's been on Wikipedia without anyone noticing it. One trivial mention found through a news search, although one would expect sources (if they do exist), to be non-English. Regardless, as of now the article does not meet guidelines. --res Laozi speak 13:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also nominating related article, Sirisha Lagadapati, for the same reasons.--res Laozi speak 13:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete Mandsford 21:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Asit Bandopadhyay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:V, WP:N concerns. Can't find sources under either name to verify the existence of this dramatist. This is not to be confused with the cosmologist of the same name, the Land Reform Commissioner, or the other cofounder of Nandikar (according to that article, which doesn't source that claim), or the fictional character.[8].....
There's no question that digging through this is a potentially error-prone process, so if I've missed some obvious WP:RSs that parse this correctly, I'm all ears, but ... j⚛e deckertalk 17:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Couldn't find an appropriate source. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and lack of available identifiable WP:RS,--Kudpung (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Rabbabodrool (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dr Mrigendra Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable doctor. News coverage consists of a single article that mentions him only in passing. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete, Not notable. -- . Shlok talk . 06:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BIO. Nothing found at Google News (searching without thet "Dr") or Google Scholar. References cite one news article but that's not enough. --MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Soft consensus that the sources lack notability. I will be happy to userify on request. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Syneto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I could find no independent sources demonstrating notability, and there certainly are none in the article. Let's go through what's there, shall we?
- Blind URL #1 is a press release.
- Blind URL #2 is a press release.
- Blind URL #3 is a product description on their distributor's site.
- "Reference" #1 is a press release, the same as blind URL #1.
- "Reference" #2 is a press release.
- External link #1 is the company's official site.
- External link #2 is the company's official site in Italian.
- External link #3 is a press release, the same as blind URL #2.
- External link #4 is a blog posting of a press release.
- External link #5 is a product description from their distributor.
- External link #6 is a product description from a technology consulting firm.
- And external link #7 is a post from "Csabi's blog".
Can we agree that none of these are tantamount to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and that the article should as a result be deleted? Biruitorul Talk 16:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question has been edited based on exhaustive research of similar articles and therefore adheres strongly to Wikipedia guidelines . In this case, the principle of precedence in applicable, older articles such as Fortinet, SonicWALL, Untangle, Endian Firewall and others demonstrate a far wider lack of notability and independent sources. I would also like to point out that Biruitorul has proposed articles for deletion without sound reasoning in the past. It is customary Wikiquette to explain any edits or actions, not just impose your opinions on others. Biruitorul's discussion page bare witness to the many such abuses to common courtesy perpetrated over time. Also, Blind URL #1 is not a press release but rather a short history. To rest my case, I'm currently attempting to find some unbiased reviews of their products. In any event, I don't that any such unbiased resources will fix this, Biruitorul seems to thrive on these exhaustive polemical discussions starded for no other reason than personal gratification. I say Keep it, less we start encouraging summary deletions.```dragos040``` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragos040 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:WAX: pointing to other similarly non-notable articles is not a valid argument for retaining this one. And please refrain from baseless insinuations about my record; the only thing I will say is that all the deletion discussions I initiated in recent months resulted in deletion (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, etc.), so it's not like I'm in the habit of starting these only to see them get no support. So please, comment on content, not on the contributor.
- Now, as to your argument that this is "not a press release but rather a short history", sorry, I don't buy the argument. First, it's hosted on a site dedicated to product promotion. Second, it's clearly labelled a "comunicato", i.e. a communiqué or a press release. And third, the language used is obviously promotional ("Syneto offers rapid, dependable and ready-to-use software"; "since 1988, Techne security has been a leader in information security in Italy", etc). It's even written in the first person, by Techne, Syneto's distributor. So no, this does not qualify as an independent source.
- The challenge remains: find, per WP:GNG, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and notability is demonstrated. And please, do so without pointing out other corporate spam that made its way onto Wikipedia, and without ad-hominem attacks upon me. - Biruitorul Talk 16:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can find no independent coverage about this company. All I could find were press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael Schmidt (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO and searching on Google, Google News and Google Books shows no evidence of the significant impact required. Raising for discussion rather than PROD as the article has been hanging around for two years waiting for sources. Fæ (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The name is very common so it makes it difficult to search, but using a variety of qualifiers to filter the search turns up no reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Have found one source to indicate he wrote the song 'Faded Love'. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, The article seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Vittorio Pelosi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It mostly refers to the website of the person in question. The press articles are often in the local press, and some of them state that his claim to fame was "almost having his own TV programme." I seriously doubt whether mr Pelosi can be considered notable. 82.210.137.132 (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This nomination is on behalf of an IP in accordance with AGF; the rationale above was copied from the article talk page. I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I cannot find significant coverage about this individual and I find intentism to be a bit dubious as well. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per both. Only 2 links work & no notable coverage. Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mohammed Ibrahim (Taliban Deputy Director of Intelligence) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP, over three years old, solely based on a one-sided court document (or equivalent thereof). Tagged for BLPsources for over a year. Searching for independent reliable sources resulted in no Google News Archive results[9], no Google Books results[10], and no Google Scholar results[11]. Regular Google only returned 68 distinct results[12], most of them from Wikipedia and its many mirrors. Note: I redirected Taliban Deputy Director of Intelligence to this article prior to this nomination. It was only about this person, so this seemed logical to me. Fram (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - One name-drop in a security document earns someone a Wikipedia article now? Not even a whiff of notability here. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not notable per above. Actually, this should most likely be speedy deleted.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.
The discussion here gives rise to no consensus to delete, in fact there is nothing remotely approaching such a consensus. Indeed, for the following reasons, the consensus is to keep. None of the delete !voters have argued that the subject fails any accepted inclusion standards (such as WP:BIO). The argument on the delete side is that the article should be deleted because of the harm it is causing the subject. That argument has, to a large extent, been refuted by the more numerous keep !votes who have questioned whether deletion is, at this stage, an appropriate and proportionate solution to the harm. That refutation hasn't been answered. Editors have recognised the changes to the article and adminstrative actions that have taken place during the course of the AfD to try to address the harm.
Our deletion guidelines for administrators say:
- When closing an AfD about a living person whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. The degree of weight given to such a request is left to the admin's discretion.
This has not affected the outcome. This AfD has shown no ambiguity about the subject's notability. In any event, I would have given little weight to the subject's wishes on the basis - arising from the consensus here - that those wishes have not been exhaustively pursued through non-deletion avenues.
Similarly, our deletion policy says:
- Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete.
Again, this AfD has not shown that the subject is a relatively unknown, non-public figure. And there is a rough consensus: a consensus to keep. In any event, I would have not have exercised the discretion to close as delete for the reason given above.
I should add that I do not have OTRS access. I have not seen the OTRS ticket. I have merely taken into account the representations of the subject's wishes in this AfD and on the article and its talk page. It is not proper for a closing administrator to be privy to any more information than the participants in the discussion. Mkativerata (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Louise Glover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject has requested deletion via OTRS. This does not qualify under BLPBAN and the subject has given no reason within the law or policy for it to be deleted.
Regardless, as an OTRS member I am bound to fulfill their request and ask that it be deleted. Ticket number is 2010111810011601 for those who would like to see. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 11:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep no reason given to delete this article. It may be worth attempting to engage with the subject to work out if there's a reasonable compromise, i.e. if there are specific issues with the article that are factually incorrect for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I assure you that has already been tried. Thank you for being so understanding. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any additional information you can pass along to those without OTRS access about why she wishes it deleted, or was it more a statement of "I don't want to be there - get rid of it"? Tabercil (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately I'm not allowed to say what was in the email, only that I received it and what reasons they had under policy. It was a very personal email so in this instance I really don't want to give too much away. However, as long as we have a good AfD I can come back to her and let her know that the community wishes to keep the article but that process has been followed and where would she like to go from here. Please accept my sincerest apologies for not being able to say more. I know it makes these things more difficult for everyone involved. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. Perhaps you could discourage her from using multiple sockpuppets to continually remove information from the article? I'll semi-protect it shortly if the blanking continues. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst I share the frustration at the mystery meat nature of some OTRS reports, it's fairly obvious, in this particular instance, what the problems are from the article-space and talk page contributions of Louiseglover (talk · contribs), Ianglover63 (talk · contribs), Iangregory70 (talk · contribs), Lidia smith (talk · contribs), and ModelPeeps (talk · contribs). Read them. Uncle G (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but blanking just the unpleasant parts of history is inappropriate, as we all know. I guess I'll have to protect the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I'd say it was pretty obvious. I have emailed her to ask her to stop. Hopefully something will come of that. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So blanking the offending section's probably out of the question, but is it possible to pare it back? Tabercil (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately I'm not allowed to say what was in the email, only that I received it and what reasons they had under policy. It was a very personal email so in this instance I really don't want to give too much away. However, as long as we have a good AfD I can come back to her and let her know that the community wishes to keep the article but that process has been followed and where would she like to go from here. Please accept my sincerest apologies for not being able to say more. I know it makes these things more difficult for everyone involved. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any additional information you can pass along to those without OTRS access about why she wishes it deleted, or was it more a statement of "I don't want to be there - get rid of it"? Tabercil (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I assure you that has already been tried. Thank you for being so understanding. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article easily passes notability requirements. Dismas|(talk) 13:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article as it stands passes the WP:GNG requirements in my opinion. Tabercil (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the fence: The article is certainly well-written and seems to be fairly neutral. She has attracted significant major press attention, including a 318 word article by the BBC. On the other hand, the vast majority of sources are newspapers such as the Liverpool Echo, St Helens Reporter, and Liverpool Daily Post. Those papers have been around for a while, but I shall defer to an Englishperson to say whether or not they are local papers or large ones. Tthe article seems to pass both WP:PORNBIO #4 and and WP:GNG and is in good enough shape so as not to merit deletion for just being terrible.On the other hand, there is another matter to consider—Ms. Glover hasn't really done anything of importance. She has posed for magazines, but of the readers of those (who only saw her a number of years ago and probably don't remember her name at all), I am not sure how many would really care about her life story. I wonder how much the encyclopedia would miss having the article around. NW (Talk) 15:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now Delete. Xymmax makes a compelling argument. NW (Talk) 05:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Educationally the article is of no benefit to the project at all. It is upsetting the subject who has attempted to correct details she says are false and the repeated insistence on including a section related to a minor assault (she has a scrap at a nightclub - whoopee-do this is what wikipedia is for) which wikipedia is now the primary location for the propagation of such personal trivia about her private life. As others have said there are also sourcing issues, with the inclusion and repeating of a fair bit of content cited to celebrity columns. All in all as NW opines, no net loss.Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as the newspapers are concerned, see User talk:Scott MacDonald#Louise Glover for discussion of this very point. More help is needed. Uncle G (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - she has courted publicity and now wants the article deleted? If there are BLP/WEIGHT etc issues let's deal with them, but she is clearly notable per WP:BIO and any other guideline you can think of. ukexpat (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per NW, I'm in the small minority that marginally notable BLPs who requested their article to be deleted should be deleted. Secret account 17:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per our 'do no harm' 'ideal'. I've just read the ticket and can vouch that this article is clearly doing the young lady a great deal of harm. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we can accept that the subject feels that the article isn't in her favour. However, there's no doubting that someone who advertises themselves with so many notable international appearances appears to be notable. Perhaps a seriously cut-down version of the article could be negotiated? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think her website counts as a independent source of the subject, nor her myspace. Secret account 21:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I'm confused then. There exists no doubt whatsoever that she's notable. Nor does there exist any doubt that she courts "positive" publicity with an enormous roll-call of appearances, which includes multiple publication by major outlets (e.g. Playboy, FHM etc) so why wouldn't Wikipedia have an article about her? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kind of agreeing with RM here... when I made my initial vote I went by what was present and referenced, plus some checking to see if said reference existed and backed up the statement. I didn't realize that some of them were perhaps less than ideal (per NW and the Scott MacDonald talk page) and that some of them made statements that Louise says didn't happen (e.g., in the Scott talk page, Uncle G indicates that "never been to israel, nor teached disadvantage children english"). So at the least I think we should pare it back to either sources that clearly reliable (e.g., BBC) or clearly did interview Louise (I'm thinking the Playboy and Savvy articles for instance). Do I think we should delete? It depends on what it looks like after the paring is done, but I think an argument will still be made that she is notable based on what's left. Tabercil (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think her website counts as a independent source of the subject, nor her myspace. Secret account 21:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we can accept that the subject feels that the article isn't in her favour. However, there's no doubting that someone who advertises themselves with so many notable international appearances appears to be notable. Perhaps a seriously cut-down version of the article could be negotiated? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Off2rioRob, per Secret, per Cavalry, and per WP:BLP and per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:PERSISTENCE. Noone's going to care about these nightclub scrapes in ten years. The article is mostly an orphan, so there isn't any harm to the encyclopedia from deleting it. THF (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Specific objectionable content has been removed and article has been placed on pending changes. That's really the appropriate response, especially since the article contains plenty of other RS'ed information demonstrating notability. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - while I probably wouldn't pass this article as a Good Article anymore, the sources suggest that she meets any and all relevant notability guidelines. While I completely agree that anything that is not acceptably sourced should be removed, overall the subject of the article is not a marginal figure and has the backing to justify an article. Canadian Paul 06:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The subject passes the GNG, and the nom hasn't proffered any policy grounds founded in deletion policy that would lead us to consider the alternative. Frankly, this looks like something of an end run around OTRS' own system to me. That you can't always delete an article at OTRS just because the subject wants it to be means that, the nom's premise notwithstanding, there is no duty to attempt to get the community to delete it for you. "Sorry, no" should have ended the matter. And if folks are looking for more solid news sources than the Liverpool Daily Post, how about this from BBC News about the suspended sentence Glover received in February for assault? [13] There is this curious notion running around Wikipedia that "do no harm" and the BLP means we ought not say disparaging things about subjects, at least not until they pass an unwritten naughtiness threshold and a majority decides that they're scum and fair targets. This is not what the relevant policies state; they merely stress the need for ironclad sourcing and not to apply undue weight to titillating details. "In February 2010, Glover was convicted of an assault committed in 2007, and received a suspended sentence of 30 months" is substantively it. Ravenswing 15:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure if your going to keep the article then a small comment about that, especially with a high quality citation like that, may well be notable for a brief mention, but it is the way users add tabloid content and wording and titillating style that brings us to the position that we find ourselves in here where the living subject is upset at our articles portrayal of her. We have a duty of care to living people to follow all our policies in regards to their articles to the letter, this was not being done and the subject has become extremely upset about it, so what I hear some comments here, well that is not my wiki, my wiki is one where we are respectful to our subjects and we insist on creating the best article we can about them, an article that is respectful and fully compliant with policies and cited to the highest quality reports and locations. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahhhh ... but that, then, is a content dispute, inappropriate for AfD. Ravenswing 19:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, we are here because the subject has requested deletion, there are some people that support such requests in some cases and thats why we are here, you do not seem to support that but some do, I do in this situation. If its kept as looks likely then the content discussions that have started here will hopefully continue on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahhhh ... but that, then, is a content dispute, inappropriate for AfD. Ravenswing 19:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure if your going to keep the article then a small comment about that, especially with a high quality citation like that, may well be notable for a brief mention, but it is the way users add tabloid content and wording and titillating style that brings us to the position that we find ourselves in here where the living subject is upset at our articles portrayal of her. We have a duty of care to living people to follow all our policies in regards to their articles to the letter, this was not being done and the subject has become extremely upset about it, so what I hear some comments here, well that is not my wiki, my wiki is one where we are respectful to our subjects and we insist on creating the best article we can about them, an article that is respectful and fully compliant with policies and cited to the highest quality reports and locations. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Week Keep It is a "Good Article" Thus I have strong reservations about deleting it with a essentially WP:IDONTLIKE argument. The individual has worked hard to be notable, Its not an involuntary become notable. I strongly agree with do no harm so I am a little torn here. If some one could send a Copy of OTRS letter (If that is possible), I will probably reconsider. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you contact me via email I can tell you a bit more about it. Wikipedia:OTRS#Dispute resolution explains why we can't give it out publicly or go into much detail! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having been in communication with Cavalry about the issues the Living person expressed, and looking over Uncle G trimming of the article. Previous to Uncle G's work, I would have had grave concerns. As the article stands now, I can't support delete at all. I think it would be advisable to use Rev-delete on older versions with the BLP Violations. Its my understanding and its quite possible to I am mistaken that Over Sighters or maybe just Developers have the ability to delete portions of revisions. I think this is what need to happen. It is was one the most disturbing BLP violations that I have seen occur. I dont want dug out of the history by shit-stirrers. This is a reminder to us all that that BLP content can have unintended real world effects on individuals. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interestingly, Canadian Paul, the GA reviewer, has said above that xe wouldn't regard this as a good article any more. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you contact me via email I can tell you a bit more about it. Wikipedia:OTRS#Dispute resolution explains why we can't give it out publicly or go into much detail! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, mainly because I find that to be the least problematic of the imperfect options. First, I have no question that she meets our notability guidelines. I do not think that she's highly notable, but I think that she clearly is past our admittedly low notability bar. Second, I believe that the information about the subject's scrapes with the law are reliably reported, and need to be mentioned in any article that purports to be a biography. Third, I have viewed the OTRS ticket, and accept the sincereity of the request there. In balancing these things, I note that while the community has rejected WP:OPTOUT, we have previously considered a subject's wishes as one of many factors in determining whether deletion is appropriate. I feel that this is a case in which the subject is not so notable that we must maintain a biography of her against her wishes. I think that I would feel differently if the reliable sources available were of greater depth. As things stand however, we can only reliably source sensationalist, tabloid quality facts. Those things alone do not a biography make. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets GNG handily. The subject's concerns can be handled by trimming the NOTNEWS stuff. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete while technically meeting gng there is nothing here of lasting significance to justify keeping this rather silly tabloid piece. Would ask everyone who believes we should keep this for purely technical reasons to think about the effect this has on the subject.--Misarxist 09:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are any number of articles on notorious, living people, and I'm sure they would all much rather not have Wikipedia articles commemorating their lives and deeds. The distinction is that most of those people probably didn't give numerous press interviews, seek exposure in magazines, set up Facebook fan pages and Twitter feeds, put out newsletters to their fans or continue to put themselves in the public eye. So far, the alleged "problem" with this article - judging from the links that UncleG contributed - is that over the course of several years, some parties claiming to be Glover keep trying to delete well-sourced information that others seek to include, several of the sources coming from interviews which Glover gave herself. Huh?
Folks, take a good hard look at this. Glover has an active web site [14]. She's got an active MySpace page [15] on which her most recent blog entry (two days ago) she discusses having her breast implants removed. She's got an active Twitter feed [16]. She's got an official Facebook page [17]. This is not remotely a person aversive to the public eye, nor someone eager to leave public life. This is nothing more than an attempt to eliminate ongoing sources of negative publicity outside the control of Glover or her handlers, and where that involves noteworthy, verifiable incidents reported by reliable sources in an otherwise notable article, we should strenuously oppose that. BLP doesn't give public figures the right to suppress negative information about themselves. Ravenswing 12:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are any number of articles on notorious, living people, and I'm sure they would all much rather not have Wikipedia articles commemorating their lives and deeds. The distinction is that most of those people probably didn't give numerous press interviews, seek exposure in magazines, set up Facebook fan pages and Twitter feeds, put out newsletters to their fans or continue to put themselves in the public eye. So far, the alleged "problem" with this article - judging from the links that UncleG contributed - is that over the course of several years, some parties claiming to be Glover keep trying to delete well-sourced information that others seek to include, several of the sources coming from interviews which Glover gave herself. Huh?
- Keep Baby. Bathwater. If there are BLP issues in the article, then fix them. If Ms. Glover or her publicist does not like the aggregation of what reliable sources say about her, then tough. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject appears notable and appears to have sought publicity. If there are BLP issues, fix them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems to meet the GNG. We are not required to meet subject's requests for deletion when it does no harm, as here. asRG Traynor says, she courts publicity, so she has no valid reason to object to a NPOV article. (In my opinion, , permitting a marginally notable subject's views on whether or not to have an article to be taken into account was a major error of ours--it intrinsically violates NPOV, for it provides marginally notable subjects to censor their articles. Fortunately, even the change in policy to permit it makes it optional--we are not required to take it into account. I would advocate we never should. If some of the contents violate, that can & should be dealt with--I would incline towards removing the last paragraph in section 2.1; it is not relevant to her actual notability, and I;d do so whether or not she asked us to. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. no valid reason for re-nomination. WP:NAC is only an essay, while WP:BURO is solid policy. You want to change policy, don't do it by pointy AfDs. Scott Mac 17:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kye Allums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural AfD. No sources in the article and the afd discussions don't reveal anything either. Incidentally it was non admin closed by a non admin with a recent history of these closes, and second without explanation but just an endorsement of DRV. All of that wrangling aside, there's still no assertion of notability outside of the simple reference that by itself fails the athlete criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just an inappropriate relisting per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kye Allums. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kye Allums (2nd nomination) and WP:BURO. The article was listed as recently as November 4th and that first listing was only closed this morning after 14 days of discussion.
- On the merits, there may be an argument for deletion on the basis of WP:BLP1E, particularly because it's a borderline stub. However that argument would need to be made. In my opinion the overall positive nature of the coverage suggests that this is not a matter for consideration of damage, and the overwhelming volume of coverage across the USA and even Canada weighs in favor of an article. So my feeling is that the article should be kept.
- If the article does not thrive a merge might be considered to an article about, say, gender and sport. I strongly suggest that the nominator take this matter to the appropriate place, which as he's been told repeatedly by experienced third parties is deletion review. This article has been up for discussion for two weeks and has so far only garnered "keep" opinions. --TS 12:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seldom seen so much wrangling about an article without actual substance by people that aren't actually in the article. The fact this article's been "nominated" 3 times has more to do with some weird wiki-political considerations than it does with any actual content. The first nom was inappropriately closed (by a user who's done a few of those), the second was similar, but by an admin who I believe is procedurally incorrect. All of that aside, all in all of this there's been no additional indication of notability for this athlete. Shadowjams (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You've already been told that the appropriate place to contest deletion discussions is deletion review. But I'm granting you the courtesy above of considering the merits of deletion, so please allow that I'm being constructive. --TS 12:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of how people behaved in the previous AfD's. This is not the right place for it. As such it needs to be closed and the opening user directed to the correct place for this. Barts1a (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seldom have I seen so many commenters afraid of a denovo assertion of an article's notability. Shadowjams (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of how people behaved in the previous AfD's. This is not the right place for it. As such it needs to be closed and the opening user directed to the correct place for this. Barts1a (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You've already been told that the appropriate place to contest deletion discussions is deletion review. But I'm granting you the courtesy above of considering the merits of deletion, so please allow that I'm being constructive. --TS 12:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seldom seen so much wrangling about an article without actual substance by people that aren't actually in the article. The fact this article's been "nominated" 3 times has more to do with some weird wiki-political considerations than it does with any actual content. The first nom was inappropriately closed (by a user who's done a few of those), the second was similar, but by an admin who I believe is procedurally incorrect. All of that aside, all in all of this there's been no additional indication of notability for this athlete. Shadowjams (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not pass WP:ATHLETE. The external link is to a YouTube video which may not comply with WP:YOUTUBE. This article strikes me as a WP:BLP1E. The coverage is directed toward the fact that the NCAA and George Washington University is allowing a biological woman to play on the women's basketball team before the player begins any gender transformation treatments. There is no in-depth coverage of the article subject beyond that basketball-playing role. I suspect that responsible news organizations are trying to respect the privacy of the subject which gives rise to focusing the coverage on the basketball team, and Wikipedia faces the same dilemma. I did find in depth treatment on outsports.com, but I don't think that that is an RS. I have not reviewed every possible news source, and if someone finds one that really does focus on Kye Allums and not the basketball eligibility, please add it to the article. Racepacket (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think Tony makes a persuasive argument and it is clear that he has a lot of experience in this area so we should listen to what he has to say. --Sherilyn69 (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- List of boxing octuple champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
We have the page Octuple champion, then this page, and the page Manny Pacquiao. The first explains whatever an octuple champion is, and the last focuses on the sole octuple champion there is. The List, however, is a 14K page listing 7 times the achievements of Pacquiao, and nothing else. There are no octuple champions, there is only one such, so there is no list either. Attempts by multiple editors, including myself, to redirect this list to the Pacquaio article, as a compromise, where reverted each time (5 times so far). Talk page discussion hasn't achieved anything either. Basically, this is as it stands a duplicative page of Manny Pacquaio and octuple champion, and wuold be in any case an unlikely redirect as well, so I don't see much purpose in keeping the redirect either, but I prefer, if it comes to that, the redirect very, very clearly above a separate article. Fram (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:SALAT. The list is too specific - there's only one item on it. There's also been arguments that there may eventually be other octuple champions, but that contradicts WP:CRYSTAL. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto Octuple champion. List of boxing octuple champions has some useful information that is missing from Octuple champion but treating it as a list is pointles when it is, infact, just information about the title and the sole claimant to that title.--KorruskiTalk 11:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The information isn't unique, it pretty much follows the template of List of boxing septuple champions and similar lists. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Good point, I hadn't realised that. Thanks.--KorruskiTalk 16:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete, it's not the first time that there are is an athlete better (and unique). It is not his blame to be the best. Also, the article was "disappeared" or "removed" last night without consensus. The person who deleted-removed it is definitively a very mediocre obsessed man (this is not military or else) and has problems in personal live with Mr. Pacquiao. Send an e-mail to the author of the article so he can defense his/her points here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.75.109 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 18 November 2010
- Comment Do not make ad hominem arguments. Please review Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am sorry, apologises. Please give us more time to vote. The people don't know yet. Have a wonderful day and again, I am sorry. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.75.109 (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's a very long article, but there's only one person actually on the list: "At present, Manny Pacquiao is the first and only boxer in history to win world titles in eight different weight divisions." I suppose it could be redirected to Manny Pacquiao. Part of the reason for his accomplishment is that there are a lot more weight divisions now than there were in the past. Hence, he's been the champ in the divisions of flyweight, super bantamweight, featherweight, super featherweight, junior lightweight, lightweight, junior welterweight, welterweight, and super welterweight. The weight divisions span a range of about 45 pounds, with Pacquiao being 112 lbs at flyweight and 154 at "super welterweight". Mandsford 13:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. The AfD notice has now been removed twice from the article. I have restored it once, but the message that said notice should stay on the article may carry more force if it is done by someone previously uninvolved with this article. Fram (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added it to my watchlist, and will keep an eye on it.--KorruskiTalk 14:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It looks like a well-written article, but again, it's basically a list of one that has been dressed up with extraneous information to cover up that fact. Angryapathy (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete This page is important and educative. He is just the first sportsman to have that recognition.
~~Io_Wiki2007~~ (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes indeed, just as Barrack Obama is the first black president of the USA. For now, it is wholly unecessary to have a List of black Presidents of the USA. At some point, perhaps, that may change. But not yet.--KorruskiTalk 16:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
x-------------x Nov 18, 2010, Thursday, 23:00hrs: DO NOT DELETE: Defining the word "list" with EVEN one item or person on it, clearly separates 'ONE' unique and superlatively one record achievement segregating that item amongst all "lists" of achievements surmountably gained by that person extremely regarded as world-acclaimed considerably treating it as "one in a billion feat amongst earth's inhabitants" super as it does unbelievable, IS ONE GOOD REASON ABOVE ALL that this page list of "List of Boxing Octuple Champions" MUST NOT, BY AND THROUGH A CRYSTAL-CLEAR ACHIEVEMENT - BE REMOVED, DELETED OR REDIRECTED. The fact that a previous "Septuplet List of Boxing Champions" was created having 2 world-acclaimed persons in it, DOES NOT DIFFER IN ANY MEANS OR IN ANY ANGLE POSED ANY GOOD REASON TO DELETE the list, "List of Octuplet Boxing Champions".
This would take us all TO PONDER and PUT A HUGE QUESTION MARK ON OUR HEADS to justify NOT DELETING this quite essential WIKI "List of Octuplet Boxing Champions" distinct and separate from all 7 lists existing, start to ask yourselves this equation-question: "Will time wait for another 25-50 or a hundred years for the 2nd man to do the duplicate feat before creating this List of Octuplet Boxing Champions, where ONE LONE MAN has already done it at this IMPORTANT MOMENT IN TIME?"
...please do not delete this page nor redirect, as it ENTAILS QUITE DISTINCT AND A crystal-clear UNIQUE AND A DIFFERENT FEAT OF ACHIEVEMENT list above all existing 7 lists of boxing champions. - Mamerto C. Macaranas, Jr. @jmacmert@yahoo.com; m.macaranas@ncbc.com, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.5.172.10 (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. I concur will the people want this page to stay. I have nothing else to say because they already said what I think. So, please, do not delete this important page. It will be unforgivable. Thanks you.First Time Writer (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)— First Time Writer is a confirmed sockpuppet of Io_Wiki2007-KorruskiTalk 17:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC). [reply]
Don't Delete it I find that this list (not matter is just one single person) is still a list, in fact a very special list. I want the page (list) to stay. What Mamerto C. Macaranas, Jr said here is right. Kudos to him.Aguacate derio8888 (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)— Aguacate derio8888 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Io_Wiki2007-KorruskiTalk 17:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC). [reply]
- Delete as totally unnecessary. I get the feeling that there is some sockpuppetry going on here and would like to warn anyone who is using multiple accounts that they can be blocked right down to their IP for that. Apart from which, single purpose accounts tend to be not taken into account as much as regulars under circumstances like this. If they behave properly, read the policies and post relevantly, they will be. Peridon (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree. Some of the posts here seem quite suspicious. Therefore, just to be sure, I have begun a sockpuppet investigation and requested checkuser.--KorruskiTalk 09:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to octuple champion, otherwise redundant to that one. --Jayron32 04:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE THE PAGE - List of boxing octuple champions. There are pages that shows the lists of boxing champions in different weight divisions like List of boxing triple champions for a boxer who won world titles in three (3) different weight divisions, List of boxing quadruple champions for four (4), List of boxing quintuple champions for five (5), List of boxing sextuple champions for six (6), and List of boxing septuple champions for seven (7) different weight divisions. And this page is all about the List of boxing Octuple Champions for a boxer who won world titles in eight (8) different weight divisions and this is not only pertains to one boxer. These lists of boxing champions in different number of weights also shows the different titles (sanctioning bodies) won by the boxer, the date of championship, the boxer's opponents for the title fight, the result of the fight and the number of defense for the world title. These lists also shows and separates the boxers' Major and Minor Titles with The Ring Title as the official version of the lineal champion included in the list of Major Titles. In this page, it just so happened that Manny Pacquiao became the first and, currently, the only boxer who won world titles in 8 different weight divisions. If another boxer will win world titles in 8 weight divisions, then his name will be included in this page. I, therefore, support that this page SHOULD NOT BE deleted or redirected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doughn (talk • contribs) 05:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT/NOTE TO FILE:
As a support to my previous argument, "NOT TO DELETE" this "List of Octuple Boxing Champions" page at Wiki's, firstly, to vouch and certify my stand and position, my valid yahoo account is: jmacmert@yahoo.com; and im connected with NCB Capital, an investment bank in Jeddah, KSA with which anyone can validly email me at: m.macaranas@ncbc.com, or contact at: +966-551-348251.
My only plead and humble contention NOT TO DELETE this one page "List of Octuple Boxing Champions" is, NOT THAT, I AM A FILIPINO and a COMPATRIOT OF Manny Pacman Pacquiao BY RACE, BUT BY SOLE AND SIMPLE REASON THAT - "a feat, equivalent to almost a lifetime, or at the most - a century period of time for all of us humans to wait, whose average capability at one speciality extraordinarily achieved - is limited to a normal achievement, as to live and co-exist with co-humans as normal as we are. This recent ONE FEAT ACHIEVEMENT THAT IS YET TO BE DUPLICATED ON FUTURE PERIOD OF UNCERTAINTY - is definitely quite deserving of a distinct, 1 full exclusive page of decent, respect, and special recognition of that "extra-ordinary" human achievement in this era, moreover in our lifetime.
To reiterate on my other position and stand, WE CAN NEVER EVER BE GIVEN ANOTHER SUCH SIMILAR FEAT TRULY a GOD-SPECIAL GIVEN SKILL TO ATTAIN SUCH EXTRA HEIGHTS OF INGENUITY, maybe by tommorow, next month, next year, next decade or the next century - OR WE CAN NEVER EVER TELL THE TIME. Thus, please, i beg u all to be considerate and fair enough on this very special moment in time of our lives where one impossible feat has been achieved, the fact that to even co-exist with this extra-ordinary ATHLETE IS CONSIDERED, ONE BEST SPECIAL GIFT GOD HAS GIVEN US IN THIS UNPARALLELED era, a one-hardest feat has been remarkably reached for the last 80 years, or at the time immemorial of boxing history in our own time - the 21st century's early period.
Think about it - are we REASONABLE ENOUGH IF WE WONT ALLOW THIS PAGE TO FLUORISH TRIUMPHANTLY IN RESPECT OF THAT MAN, supposedly deserving full screen page for even 20KB space equivalent, in respect of what has been achieved at its incredible manner?
On other contentions, would it be nice and wonderful, then, that WIKI team prepared it now, THAN WAIT FOR THE 2ND MAN TO DO THE SAME FEAT, on uncertainty of another time, then re-create it later? WHICH ACTION THEN FOR YOU IS ABOUNDING WITH A VIVID AND A CRYSTAL-CLEAR UNSELFISHNESS TO TREAT ONE WITH NICE AND WONDERFUL ACTION AND GESTURE TO PROVIDE HIM WITH RECOGNITION AND FULL DISPLAY OF WHAT, WHO, WHERE, HOW, WHEN, WHY INFORMATIVE-PROVIDING CONJUNCTIONS FOR MANKIND TO KNOW? at this point in time ur life? DELETE OR NOT TO DELETE, let thine modern-civilized conscience, "simple" as it is be put over and above the rest of the best of the olden times, when the world was as young as the great writers of medieval, roman times where "gladiators" only destination for formidability, super-agility and fame - ENDS BY A DEATH OF CO-GLADIATORS... how come we know NOT OF EVEN ONE OF THEM TODAY?
Wiki it now, today and further, lest we be put to regret and blame for only the simplest thing and action we will put today against our grandsons and daughters in century's to come, i beg u all, PLEASE DO NOT DELETE AND PROCEED TO PUBLISH UNCHALLENGED, AN ACT OF FAIR AND TRUE MISSIONARY VISION OF PROPAGATING HONESTY, TRUTH, BALANCED AND EQUALITY IN FOOTING FOUNDATION OF INFORMATION AND RECOGNITION OF THOSE DESERVING.
Lastly, i am a valid account yahoo user and an avid Yahoo Answers Boxing Section blogger-contributor with a Y/Answers handle as: junMjeddahKSA, and currently employed as a contractor-staff at National Commercial Bank Capital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (an investment bank)
Respectfully submitted with full arguments and position NOT TO DELETE THIS ESSENTIAL PAGE, "List of Octuple Boxing Champions" ..... I REST MY CASE. 213.5.172.10 (talk) Truly yours, JUN MACARANAS, 19November 2010 @13:16, KSA Time 213.5.172.10 (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - while I don't wish to stifle your right to make your argument in the way you see fit, I should point out that having a longer argument does not necessarily mean having a stronger argument. Indeed, the closing administrator is unlikely to even read a wall of text, especially one which is largely off-the-point, not rooted in Wikipedia Policies, and interspersed with random capitalisations. May I suggest that now that you have had the chance to make your case you just take a step back and wait for more people to comment, rather than continuing to add to an AfD that is becoming increasingly unreadable.--KorruskiTalk 10:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd add that there's nothing to stop the author and his friends from bringing out the fact that Manny Pacquiao has won titles in eight different weight divisions, or that this is unprecedented. The issue here is whether that fact is notable enough for a separate article. It may be "septuple" in this instance, since some would consider "super featherweight" and "junior lightweight" to be the same 127 to 130 pound class. Mandsford 13:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: It isn't as if there's anything to merge not already in the Pacquiao article. Truth be told, I quailed from going through all those turgid, overlong paeans to save this "article," in search of an actual valid policy ground to retain it. Perhaps the sock/meatpuppets would care to proffer one, concisely? Ravenswing 15:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's almost funny that the sockpuppet(s) are acting as though deleting this "List" is the same as deleting the Paquio article. The information conatined here is already at two other articles. As said above, arguments need to be rooted in WP policy, and not in, "IT'S A GREAT ACHIEVMENT DON'T DELETE". Angryapathy (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Great achievement. Bad list. pablo 16:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article Octuple champion is already about 8 time boxing champions and consists of a single name so this article just replicates an existing one. All previous articles about multiple division boxing winners have been titled in the form "n-tuple champion". In addition, both seem to run afoul of WP:SALAT since they're "lists" consisting of 1 name. Papaursa (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as per Wikipedia:Overcategorization among other criteria. I suggest immediate deletion--WP:SNOW clearly applies here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and rename List of boxing septuple champions to List of boxing septuple or more champions so that Manny Pacquiao's accomplishments will be recognized without needing a separate article to do that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE. This page does not refer to one boxer only. It does not attribute the boxer's autobiography. These lists shows the different sanctioning bodies/titles won by the boxer by weight divisions, the date of championship, the opponents of the boxer for the title fight, the fight result and the total number of world title defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.241.217 (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - note that the above ip user initially added an earlier 'do not delete' !vote in this discussion, the one now dated 05:17, 19 November 2010, and signed by Doughn. It looks from the history as if the ip user made the post, then deleted it. Shortly afterwards Doughn reposted it. To me, that suggests that he and the ip user may be one and the same. If so, the above !vote is not valid.--KorruskiTalk 11:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - User Doughn copied my first statement. Maybe he/she wants to repost it. I want to revise my statement because I want it short and simple. DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE. It is very relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.241.217 (talk • contribs) 22 November 2010
- Delete Giving the same information in 3 separate articles makes no sense. I do like Metropolitan90's suggestion about renaming List of boxing septuple champions. Astudent0 (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I haven't seen one valid argument for keeping this article and several valid ones for deletion. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE. This page is very important. Its not about the boxer, its all about the different titles won by a boxer. Like the List of boxing Triple Champions, Quadruple Champions, Quintuple Champions, Sextuple Champions and Septuple Champions pages, it describes why a boxer became a Champion in Multiple Divisions by showing the different titles he won in different weight divisions. Before Manny Pacquiao won the sixth division world title, Oscar De La Hoya, the first and only six-divison world champion THAT TIME, was listed in the list of major title holders in the List of boxing sextuple champions page. De La Hoya is the only one listed in the list of major title holders of that page (the time before Pacquiao won the six-division world title) but no one suggested that it should be deleted or redirected. So this List of boxing octuple champions page SHOULD NOT BE DELETED. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.251.189 (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete as a wholly unsourced biography of a 16-year-old making extraordinary claims. The external links point (where they point at all) to things that are about a completely different person. Uncle G (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Matheus Reis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A hoax. non-exist footballer Matthew_hk tc 10:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - absolute nonsense. GiantSnowman 14:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as hoax. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. no valid reason for re-nomination. WP:NAC is only an essay, and Wikipedia is not a WP:BURO is solid policy Scott Mac 17:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- UCL Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Renominating because of an improper non admin closure. Shadowjams (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep If a close is disputed, then the appropriate process is deletion review. Immediate renomination in the hope of getting a different result is disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DRV would be for appropriate closures. Inappropriate actions can be heard as they were. Shadowjams (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are begging the question. It is not established that the previous close was inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a policy, which you know... and you know my answer to your question. Abductive had some questions, and DGG had a long paragraph.... but again, why the dedication to keeping every permutation of every topic? Do you think that improves the encyclopedia? I don't. I'd much rather see relevant content in the articles we already have.
- In the previous discussion, no editor supported the nominator's proposition that the article be deleted. The clear consensus was that it should be kept. That close was therefore quite accurate and proper. This renomination is, contrariwise, not proper, per WP:DEL which states "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." That policy, by its link, indicates that editors who engage in such action may be blocked. I therefore advise you to withdraw. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the long run I think people who think like I do about Wikipedia have probably already lost. It will grow and grow until the currently small force that maintains its accuracy, tries to keep it free of vandalism, tries to verify facts in it, becomes inconsequential, sees no more need to do so, and moves on to more interesting things. I'm damn close to that myself. I imagine others who know how this process works are similarly inclined. I don't really know what kind of encyclopedia you envision, but I guarantee you that if what I've described is the future, it won't be one I can't care about. I don't want to see something so amazing fail, but there's a part of me that feels like it's inevitable, because of these, small cuts. Shadowjams (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't let the Colonel discourage you, Shadowjams. He is part of the minority, although an extremely vocal minority. However, I agree with him that DRV is the correct procedure here. The non-admin closure of the previous AfD was completely inappropriate. The AfD only ran for 2 days, and the nominator didn't withdraw their nomination. If this is brought to DRV, it will almost certainly be overturned and relisted. SnottyWong comment 16:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that there is a long thread at Wikipedia:AN#Violation of non-admin closure which is currently discussing the various inappropriate non-admin closures by the user who closed the previous AfD here. Taking this to DRV would be an open and shut case. SnottyWong verbalize 16:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't let the Colonel discourage you, Shadowjams. He is part of the minority, although an extremely vocal minority. However, I agree with him that DRV is the correct procedure here. The non-admin closure of the previous AfD was completely inappropriate. The AfD only ran for 2 days, and the nominator didn't withdraw their nomination. If this is brought to DRV, it will almost certainly be overturned and relisted. SnottyWong comment 16:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the long run I think people who think like I do about Wikipedia have probably already lost. It will grow and grow until the currently small force that maintains its accuracy, tries to keep it free of vandalism, tries to verify facts in it, becomes inconsequential, sees no more need to do so, and moves on to more interesting things. I'm damn close to that myself. I imagine others who know how this process works are similarly inclined. I don't really know what kind of encyclopedia you envision, but I guarantee you that if what I've described is the future, it won't be one I can't care about. I don't want to see something so amazing fail, but there's a part of me that feels like it's inevitable, because of these, small cuts. Shadowjams (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. no valid reason for re-nomination. WP:NAC is only an essay, while WP:BURO is solid policy. You want to change policy, don't do it by pointy AfDs. Scott Mac 17:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ethnoburb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Renominating because of an improper non admin closure. Shadowjams (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- why was closure improper after much circular discussion and quite past the 7 days? I don't see a different outcome.DocOfSoc (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also like to note that WP:NAC is only an essay and not a guideline or policy. How does one violate an essay with no rules?DocOfSoc (talk) 11
- 09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't the place to argue policy... but your note about NAC is instructive... indeed NACs aren't part of policy... non admins, within strict policy, should never be closing AfD discussions. Shadowjams (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me the policy. I don't see you on the admin list, so there seems to be a double self-defeating standard here. And the quality of the close has nothing to do with the status of the closer. There is no other consideration - certainly not imaginary caste-system rules. Not trying to be snarky Shadow, I really want to know, especially since I and everyone else will just repeat what was said before in the second nomination. This all seems to be a HUGE Waste of time to prove non-existent point. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Trust me, I'm not making friends pursuing this argument, which I'd note garnered a very appropriate WP:ANI discussion... You want the admin standards it's at WP:ADMIN, apparently I've found some old wiki editors that disagree with me. I'm amazed that a non admin can make a clearly out of policy decisions about an AfD (more than one actually), and then when that article's relisted, another non admin (actually a delisted admin) can remove it and be backed up by another current admin. This isn't how this process works, and if it is then... I'll strongly consider retirement. Shadowjams (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't consider retirement, but this is the way things work. If we had people popping up and re-opening deletion listings over every quibble, we'd have little time for anything else. You've just relisted an article here that was kept after well over two weeks of discussion in which no consensus to delete was found. Hopefully you'll stop contesting perfectly good deletion closes and the problems will end. --TS 12:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. no valid reason for re-nomination. WP:NAC is only an essay, while WP:BURO is solid policy. You want to change policy, don't do it by pointy AfDs. Scott Mac 17:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Air Myanmar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Renominating because of an improper non admin closure. Shadowjams (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said before, it has to be assessed whether the information given in this article is notable at all. If it's not, then the article is to be deleted. If it is, I think the content would be much better suited in the article of whichever company had this idea. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. no valid reason for re-nomination. WP:NAC is only an essay, while WP:BURO is solid policy. You want to change policy, don't do it by pointy AfDs. Scott Mac 17:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- James Horley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Renominating because of an improper non admin closure. Shadowjams (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree that the non-admin closure of the previous AFD was flawed, but only because I would have closed it as a Keep instead. The sourcing was improved, and the primary issues identified are cleanup problems. The debate was open for the required 7 days (21, actually), and so no early closure flaw exists. If this is a re-nomination due to the no-consensus close, nominator should indicate that; at present, though, there is no deletion rationale indicated. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. no valid reason for re-nomination. WP:NAC is only an essay, while WP:BURO is solid policy. You want to change policy, don't do it by pointy AfDs. Scott Mac 17:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mariza Ikonomi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Renominating because of an improper non admin closure. The previous reasons by Gigs were never addressed, and the only response that addressed it on point was responded to. Previous history at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariza Ikonomi. By the way, don't non admin close. Shadowjams (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The consensus from among the established accounts is that the subject lacks notability. The keep vote (from among the established accounts) indicate that there are sources; however none are cited. Without sources, I cannot say that they have refuted those favoring deletion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Paolo Corallini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The notability of this man is tenuous at best. All of the references are self published, and the editors reek of conflict of interest, despite my attempts to tell them to cease editing pages they are involved with.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The subject of the BLP appears to meet WP:ATH as the highest ranking in their sport. COI edits, in themselves, are not a reason to delete but a reason to manage the article and potentially take action on the contributor account. Should the sources be found to not verify the facts in the article, then that would be a different reason to delete and I would happily change my opinion on that basis. Fæ (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This man's notability is quite clear and undisputed within Aikido and japanese martial arts community. Articles about this man already exist in spanish, italian and croatian language, and this looks like a signal of a suitable notability in a certain sport.In order to avoid conflicts of interests, according to Wikipedia policy, that would be helpful to help managing the article with citing sourcing and references, which seem to be quite available on the internet community, especially among martial arts web archives, which are not necessarily linked to the person. Deleting maybe is not the most suitable action, being probably more helpful to improve this page. Bests Nagemasu (talk) 10:57, 18 November 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.55.68.146 (talk)- — 82.55.68.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep I believe this page is not suitable for deletion. The notability of this person is confirmed by secondary sources (most of them already cited inside the article), which should let us presume a person to be notable, according to the WP:BIO basic criteria : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people). Il also seems this person matches the two WP:BIO additional criteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people): 1- The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor (this man received a gold medal from the Italian Government and the Olympic Italian Committe) 2- The person has made a widely recognized contribtion that his part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field (it’s a fact this person imported traditional Aikido in Continental Europe by inviting the japanese master Saito Morihiro for the first time in 1985 in Italy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.28.170.131 (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]- — 79.28.170.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note: We've had two IPs (one of whom signed as a logged in account), both of which appear to have a conflict of interest.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere’s no reason indeed to delete a page about Paolo Corallini, who’s more than well known in Aikido community worldwide.Referring to notability guideline “The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary”.The relevant profile of this person on an international basis among martial artist shows a public attention worthy to be recorded. On a second hand, this page seems to match also the “verifiability” criteria, as most references used in this page are secondary sources (in this case Aikido Journal, which is the biggest indipendent webzine and publisher in Aikido field), which are mostly used in wikipedia:[18]I don’t understand why this page has been considered for deletion. As others said, it might be improved and completed with more reliable information, instead.Should there be some “double IP” users I think the best would be to delete their account, instead of deleting a page which might be of interest.Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MB220781 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]- — MB220781 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - Why should this page should be deleted?According to deletion policy it doesn’t seem this article requires this action, indeed: the article can be easily attributed to reliable sources, it maches notability guidelines, especially WPBIO criteria. It also seems that this page has a relevant interest among internet community: a normal research on internet shows the public profile of this person.Edits made by double accounts is not considered by Wikipedia a reason to delete an article, instead this behaviour may be stopped towards these particular subjects, but it shall not compromise the interest of creating a living person’s biography which has an international following in martial arts field.Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesco Falappa (talk • contribs) 12:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]- — Francesco Falappa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't read or speak Italian, so I can't evaluate these sources. I glaced at the Spanish and Italian Wikipedia entries, and they don't seem to use these sources. Does anyone know whether these are reliable, independent sources? I am not convinced by the English language sources. Racepacket (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The main source used as reference for the page is "Aikido Journal" and, as far as it's possible to see from the web, it is the most indipendent Aikido publisher and magazine available. Most of articles related to "Aikido" use this as a reliable source, and most of these articles have been considered suitable and in accordance with Wiki rules. Just as examples: Masamichi Noro (just one reference from Aikido Journal and one from kiia.net). Some other articles have only self-published contents, for example "Stefan Stenudd", where there are no references at all, and, as external links,two references, one of which is Stefan Stenudd's website. The same with Hitohiro Saito: this page has two references: his website (selfpublished) and Aikido Journal (one article), nevertheless on that page editors are just invited to add citation, but the article is not under deletion process..I hardly see the difference and where the problem is lying.I believe the cited sources are reliable and matching Wiki rules, anyway. Pages in other languages too can be improved.Thanks.Nagemasu (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.1.41 (talk)[reply]- — 82.51.1.41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Nagemasu, if that is who you are, you are not allowed to vote twice.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: To the closing admin, this whole AFD has been disrupted by SPAs and IP editors parading as logged in users. As such, I have requested semi-protection to deter future SPAs.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrator note I striped the above "Keep" due to extremely likely Meat or Sockpuppetry. Two votes where signed with the same username, but cast from a different IP adress. The other editors have never edited before, and still mention to quote Wikipedia policy and guidelines. This, combined with the fact that the texts use the same structure, leads me to believe that someone created a call for comment somewhere and included some default tags to use - or that someone is hopping IP's in order to place these comments. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see any evidence that he meets any of the notability criteria under WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MANOTE and I don't think there are sources to show he passes WP:GNG.Astudent0 (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It matches the following criteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts, having more than 100 dojos all over is a notability guideline, as signed. Lot of sources are externally available, which is not found on other martial artist's pages...Please verify better. Some pages are still running despite being self published (Hitohiro Saito's pages has no other sources than his website). This page should be improved too, but not deleted. It meets WP:ATH, WPBIO, and, as formerly noted, it matches these rules too: notability guideline “The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary”.The relevant profile of this person on an international basis among martial artist shows a public attention worthy to be recorded.Bests —Preceding unsigned comment added by RCspecial (talk • contribs) 11:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — RCspecial (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GedUK 08:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ed Reilly (karting) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Of the two claimed references, one is a dead link and the other is just the main page of the "Scotkart Indoor Kart Racing" website - if it mentions Ed Reilly anywhere, I wasn't able to find out where. There are very few Google hits for "Ed Reilly" karting, apart from copies of the Wikipedia article. Delete for the lack of verifiability. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am even thinking of nominating the page for speedy deletion as a joke page, see the comments of 222.155.28.191 (talk · contribs). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC) This is the comment referred to, I assume.--KorruskiTalk 12:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - probably not a joke as such; more likely its a vanity page for a fairly non-notable junior sportsman. I can't easily judge the notability of the events he's competed in and, apparantly, won, but either way he doesn't appear to meet WP:ATHLETE and I cannot find a single source to verify any of the contents of the article. Possibly there was a case for a BLP PROD, but as it's at AfD now, I imagine it may as well stay here.--KorruskiTalk 12:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, having tracked down the comment that (I assume) you were referring to, I see what you mean. Maybe it is an exageration for 'humorous' effect but, by the sound of it, is not completely untrue.--KorruskiTalk 12:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above. RayTalk 23:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aron Jóhannsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pro footballer, borderline notability. I saved this from speedy. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this website confirms appearances in the Icelandic league but not the Danish one. He therefore hasn't played in a fully-professional league and fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 12:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Has played in the Danish leagues too per this link, but still fails WP:ATHLETE since only appearances in the Superliga are notable. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per above. Without fully pro appearances he fails WP:ATHLETE. Also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)`[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. ——innotata 16:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Zak Sobel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. The article makes a number of unsubstantiated claims. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A Google search just yields the usual Facebook and YouTube hits that would be expected for a young performer starting out. No evidence of notability by our standards, and the article doesn't include anything that establishes notability either. Cullen328 (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not appear to have reachedn sufficient recognition to meet WP:BAND.--Kudpung (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I saw Zak sobel last week at a performance. And searched for more info online. I was glad to find this page. I dont know what exactly deletion means but this was helpful as I want to write an article on him for the local paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.123.254 (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. GedUK 08:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rugby Challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No links or information to confirm the existince. Sillytimmy1 (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikpedia is not a crystal ball. Cullen328 (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep AFD was added 3-4 minutes after the page was first created, give the author and others a chance to actually revise the thing before deleting. Unreferenced tag would be much more appropriate. Chopper Dave (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article is also much improved since AFD, which IMO invalidates Delete votes. Chopper Dave (talk)
- Comment Article still lacks independent, reliable sources needed to establish notability. If they are added, consider my delete recommendation withdrawn. Chopper Dave, please assume good faith in your edit summaries. Thank you. 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The title is well into development (as shown in TV article) and has merit as an intellectual property. The publisher has an official site for the game, has issued a press release, both included in the article, and is well into development. It is releasing in less than a year. Kiwichix0r (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) X201 (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (or at least Delay decision) WP:VG was only made aware of this article's existence today (Article did not have project tag, and deletion discussion was listed in games deletion discussions section rather than video game deletion discussions. Suggest waiting for additional comments from project members. - X201 (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The News 3 segment is good, but I think I'd like to see an additional source (other than press releases) to warrant anything other than a redirect/merge to the developer's article. At this point. Marasmusine (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional coverage on NZ Gamer here. Kiwichix0r (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep There are a few sources out there, and it seems likely to expand in the future as more sources become available. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, additional significant coverage at NZ Gamer, thanks Kiwichix0r. Marasmusine (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per crystal ball Stuartyeates (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Justin Green (New Zealand Cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod removed with no improvement or justification. Fails WP:ATHLETE, not played at the top level in a professional sport. No substantial WP:RS that discuss the subject. Tassedethe (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He is currently the subject of significant discussion in the New Zealand cricket community regarding his skills, record and potential - It has been suggest he has the potential to play for the New Zealand national cricket side if he can avoid injuries.
His stature is significant enough that he is accorded a page on the cric info site and was the subject of alot of scrutiny on the site during New Zealands recent tour with India and the injuries sustained —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.55.7 (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Green is a non-notable cricketer as he has not played first-class, List A or Twenty20 cricket, so as per WP:CRIC is non-notable. As he has not played cricket professionally (at the highest level) he fails WP:ATH. Also, to the address the comment, Tom Austwick also has a Cricinfo page, this in itself does not make him notable, likewise with Justin Green. Also, chatter doesn't make someone instantly notable - at the age of 28, I think the chances of him playing international cricket are pretty remote considering he hasn't played high-level representative cricket. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reasons of notability. I wondered whether it was a spoof: people tend not to bowl round-arm much these days and if his height is "5.01" he's either rather tall or rather short. A specialist fielding position of long-stop suggests he hasn't played much for sides with reliable wicketkeepers! Johnlp (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 122.57, he's not notable until he's either done something (play top-class cricket) or been the subject of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable sources. He may have a great future, but, like a 1 week old Don Bradman, he isn't notable yet. Until then, delete. --Dweller (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Cricinfo appears to have taken down the listing for this player, although, at the time of writing, it is still available in Google's cache. I share Johnlp's scepticism. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes indeed, the page no longer exists on Cricinfo. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:NOTABILITY; POV-written fansite. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable, POV. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Obviously the article needs much expansion--and I;d suggest writing an article on the author , who has done other work also. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Tyranny of the Market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A book written by a non-notable professor of a University. It doesn't meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (books). -WarthogDemon 03:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator withdraws nomination - Usually I'm very good with Google searches. And even though I did google search for sources and for books that referenced this book, somehow I didn't find them. No idea how I missed them, but the below editors have found them. This is clearly notable, so I withdraw the nomination. -WarthogDemon 19:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep By adding the author's last name to a Google search, I readily found many reviews, plus this book has been cited in at least two more recent books. The book is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As have I, at least in terms of finding reviews. However, from what I've read in Notability (books), it doesn't make this article notable unless the reviews have shown that the book has made a significant contribution to a form of mass media or movement. Could you show me the two books where this book has been cited though? I didn't see them when I google-searched, so I must have missed them. -WarthogDemon 04:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A book only needs to meet one of the five criteria to be considered notable. You are requiring two criteria, WarthogDemon. Cullen328 (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think you maybe be under the impression that I'm disagreeing with you, which I'm not. You've said I made a mistake so I'm now trying to find the books it has been sourced in. I'm not requiring two criteria, only one. What I was saying was that while I don't see how the review criteria works, being cited in several books obviously does, like you said. The only thing I'm asking is what books have used this as a source? I'm usually brilliant with Google searches but the books elude me. If you can help me find the books and verify my mistake, I'll immediately withdraw my nomination. :) -WarthogDemon 04:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not saying you've made a mistake, instead I am pointing out the policy interpretations I am relying on. Here are three recent books that reference this particular book:
- Principles of Economics, by N. Gregory Mankiw
- Financial Ethics: Critical Issues in Theory & Practice, by John R. Boatright
- Information and public choice: from media markets to policy making, by Roumeen Islam
- Sorry these aren't complete references, but I am sure that Google books will furnish all the information you need. Cullen328 (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If a book has been the subject of in-depth, multiple, independent newspaper articles or reviews in reliable publications, then, by that criteria alone, it will be assumed to be notable by that single criteria. That is the most common criteria by which books qualify for notability. It is not necessary that a book fulfill more than one of the five listed criteria. I appreciate your wish to be stringent, but we need not be too stringent. Cullen328 (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The notability (or not) of an author does not affect the notability of a book. A book can be notable even if the author has not yet achieved the threshold of notability under WP:BLP. Cullen328 (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. These reviews satisfy WP:BK criterion 1:[19][20][21]. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mel Krajden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was improved upon a little bit more since prior AFD. Bringing back to AFD for a community reassessment and discussion post the changes to the page. Procedural nom. No opinion on notability expressed by nomination to AFD itself. -- Cirt (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Msrasnw (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Evidence of notability for passing WP:Prof is indicated by Web of science which lists 150 published items by Krajden which have been cited a total of 3,523 times and calculates a h-index of 26. (Accessed Nov 2010). Also use by Health Canada as an expert and use by National Media of him as an expert. All seem well cited.(Msrasnw (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep Agree with above. The Eskimo (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep per Msrasnw academic index assessment.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. GS cites are 1590, 1126, 149.... h index = 27. Although this is a highly cited field WP:Prof#C1 is clearly satisfied. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep Appears notable by WP:ACADEMIC because of the large number of articles and citations at Google Scholar. --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yak Shaving Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Why was this undeleted? No sources anywhere; only source given was a non-notable dictionary and a link from Wiktionary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N. Endofskull (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of independent, reliable sources needed to estalish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Surprise, surprise, article from 2004 when someone was watching a rerun of "Ren and Stimpy" late one night. As far as I know, this early 90s Nickelodeon show, as with "Doug", hasn't been seen in years and years. Still, not notable then, not notable now. Mandsford 13:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable, no reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Thoroughly non-encyclopedic. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Chicago Cubs minor league players. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Blake Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Blake Parker has yet to play at the major league level. Though he was on the Cubs 40-man roster for a while (if I recall correctly), he is not entirely notable yet. Alex (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Chicago Cubs minor league players. He's a 25 year old in Triple-A. He could make a major league debut. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge same reason as Muboshgu.--Yankees10 19:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above. Spanneraol (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pokettokon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Search for reliable-third sources comes up with nothing. Convention only lasted for three years and doesn't appear to be returning as the website is down. Fails both WP:NOTE and WP:ORG. —Farix (t | c) 02:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 02:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This should be deleted even if they're still active: non-notable, local convention; no coverage or independent sources. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not appear to have been notable in the three years it ran. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks notablilty and references to back it up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. GedUK 08:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Spoony Experiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- List of The Spoony Experiment episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Won a notable award, but utterly fails every other criterion of WP:N. An extensive search has found absolutely no reliable third-party coverage. A singular award win doesn't mean a thing without any reliable third party sources; several webcomics have been deleted despite winning notable awards. What's more, the source of the award in question (Mashable) is of dubious notability itself, further decreasing the notability that the award could convey. tl;dr: no secondary sources, no notability, no exceptions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If you look at the criteria at [[22]] it says "web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria". So a notable award would indeed be enough without anything else.
- Also wouldn't TGWTG be seen as an "Online Broadcaster" which is another criteria it meets. TGWTG has been mentioned in the Chicago Sun Times which is definitely reliable. Note that the article also mention Channel Awesome which The Spoony Experiment is part of. CyberWasteland (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - This was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Spoony Experiment episodes and non admin closed by a user that recently non admin closed quite a few articles... to the point that it generated an WP:AN thread. I'm of the opinion that the previous closure was inappropriate. Shadowjams (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: WP:WEB (criterion two) does clearly state that winning an award is full qualification for notability, as per CyberWasteland and my note on the article's talk page. In about a month we'll see the nominations for this year as well which may reinforce this claim (as per note six on WP:WEB). If any webcomics were deleted despite this then I'd say those deletions were at fault and not following the correct notability guidelines. I see no problem with the Mashable awards' notabilty and the award is both well-known and independent, as per the guidelines. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So let me get this straight. Even though there isn't a SINGLE reliable source on the whole internet about the site, it still gets to totally subvert WP:GNG just because of one award? Am I the only one who thinks this isn't making any freaking sense? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, absolutely. It's right there in the specific Wikipedia:Notability (web) policy that applies directly to the notability of web content such as this. The guidelines are there to clearly describe the policy under which Wikipedia operates, which is what I've been doing. The Spoony Experiment fulfils criterion two, and probably criterion three, as laid out on that page. You can't uphold the rules when they're in your favour and then ignore them just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Besides, strictly the Mashable site is itself a reliable source that fulfils the criteria of WP:GNG. Incidentally, I don't see why you're leaving comments on my talk page; I didn't write the policy. If I can't use a published directly-applicable guideline as a directly-applicable guideline then what else can any Wikipedian do? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The award meets the requirement at WP:WEB. Obviously web related things aren't covered in mainstream media very often, so instead of having an incomplete encyclopedia, other rules were made to determine what should be included. Dream Focus 08:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Winning a web award is not notable in any serious context. --68.34.58.232 (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)— 68.34.58.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Except it very clearly and explicitly is notable as already mentioned. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agreed, winning a mashable isn't notable in the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.204.128.85 (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC) — 99.204.128.85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep Winning that award meets requirement #2 at WP:WEB. Jarkeld (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Did it win an award though? It seems that the creator and his Twitter account actually won the award. —Half Price 18:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Same thing. If it was hosted on Twitter before Spoony Experiment .com or whatever, its still the same thing by the same creator. And when something wins an award, they give it to the creator of that thing. Dream Focus 16:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. —Half Price 18:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The mashables are a joke.96.18.225.18 (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The Mashables are essentially an easy to rig popularity contest on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.233.209 (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: My heart says delete but my mind says keep. As perverse as it is, the article seems to pass notability guidelines. —Half Price 18:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete: His award for the Mashables was obtained by telling his fanbase to vote for him constantly. The awards therefore don't reflect legitimate recognition of talent, and as a result do not fall into the notability requirements. --DeadHorseInterchange (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see no evidence the Mashable Awards are notable (the news website is) and if it is I don't see it as being well-known. With the lack of independent coverage The Spoony Experiment got from winning this award I say delete. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Open awards are common enough and respected in other fields. Just stating that he was elected by a large populace rather than a small judging panel doesn't diminsh the award. I see no evidence that the Mashable Awards are not notable either (and the fact they are awarded by a notable website lends them prestige and notability; in a general, not-just-wikipedia-definition sense). Google searching is complicated by entrants but here's a link to Google News. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete as A1 by CactusWriter. NAC on AfD discussion. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eastmount school hull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page shows pure nonsense with no information that is useful. Sillytimmy1 (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per A1: no context. Hard to tell which school this article is about. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I will assume good faith and welcome this new editor to Wikipedia. That being said, this article is so far below our standards in every way that is has to be deleted until an acceptable version is provided. Cullen328 (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy The article has simply has no context →GƒoleyFour (GSV) 23:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Additionally provided sources make the delete arguments based on lack of sources moot. GedUK 08:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where the Buffalo Roam (webcomic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources found. Only source is a Usenet post. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only source (that works) doesn't make it notable enough. Endofskull (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:WEB. You know an article is in serious trouble when the one and only source is a usenet post. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep being one of the first online comics should confer notability. There is nothing wrong with the usenet source for material as old as this (practically pre-web). This search for a printed newspaper source found this preview:
- Colorado Daily comic strip draws readers into a ruckus
- Claire Martin; Denver Post Staff Writer DENVER POST November 26, 1991
- I wonder if the "Find sources" link above should be improved to help find these sources? -84user (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to find more sources I edited the Find Sources link above to this and then clicked the 1990 to 1999 decade and found another newspaper source:
- BOULDER EDITOR YANKS 'SEXIST'COMIC
- November 12, 1991.
- KEVIN MCCULLEN ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS STAFF WRITER
- "Boulder newspaper has pulled a comic strip for what he said was sexist depiction of women. ... Hans Bjordahl, ... satirical"
- Here is a hopefully more useful link: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (there's another news source in there for the curious). This search for the author finds a few too. -84user (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Added better Find sources links above and added feature request to Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/RFA#Add better Find sources links to AFD/XFD -84user (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've improved the sourcing. No more Usenet, six different newspapers. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep after adding of sources. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Purple Pussy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Closest thing to notability is a lawsuit from the artist. No reliable sources found beyond that. Webcomic hasn't won any notable awards, nor does it meet any WP:WEB criterion. Last AFDs were three years ago. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I guess it must have some notability. It's a webcomic who was controversial, won an award, and was up for the earlier part of last decade, who's had a page since late 2005. By the way, you're wrong about this being it's second nomination. It's actually the third. J390 (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that it's had a page since 2005 is immaterial. Also, I know it's the 3rd nomination; blame Twinkle. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Fails WP:N by lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Neither notable as a webcomic nor for the WP:ONEVENT of accusing another artist of plagiarism one time. Note that contrary to the keep comment above, this has not "won an award"; it instead "was a short-listed nomination in the 2004 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards." In other words, it got maybe as few as 4 or 5 votes in an online voting contest organized and run by the comic's own web host, and then didn't even win this little-known, non-independent "award." Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are no reliable sources about the comics besides the ones about the Todd Goldman incident. It also did not win an WCCA which IS a notable and independent award. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (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)
- Comment although I could not find any reliable sources except for comixtalk, I propose re-purposing this as Dave Kelly (cartoonist), after heavy pruning to just the verifiable claims and adding mentions of his other works: Living In Greytown (salon.com mention) and Shmorky. -84user (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like an excellent idea to me. J390 (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Parodies of Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Egregious trivia, very few sources discussing the actual concept of a Harry Potter parody, just a list of works that have parodied it. WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO, WP:TRIVIA. Last AFD suggested WP:SOFIXIT but I still don't think it's reparable; if anything it's only gotten 9001 times worse since then. Also, none of the other people who said "keep but trim" stepped up to the plate, thus forming one big damn infinite loop of "someone else's problem". That's been happening way too often. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It was right to keep this last time and it still is. It's fixable, and the fact that it still has issues after a year doesn't justify deletion.--Michig (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As far as I am aware, a fixable article doesn't stop being fixable just because noone has bothered to fix it in over a year.--KorruskiTalk 09:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's useful information to people interested in the topic, and harmless for the rest of us. AfD fans would do better to focus on articles which could harm real people. It also does not need to be "fixed." The title shows it's a formless mass of trivia. People who like that will enjoy it, others should avoid it altogether.Borock (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Im-freaking-peccably sourced, with 112 footnotes. The billion dollar Harry Potter franchise has spawned a cottage industry of parodies, so I can't agree that this is simply trivia. According to the Sunday Times, Harry Potter is the most parodied work of literature [23], with the Lord of the Rings in 2nd place, and Sherlock Holmes in the top 20. Mandsford 13:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Classic argument to avoid. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So are we gonna fix the damn thing or what? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD is (still) not for cleanup. If you have concerns about an article then its talk page is the place to raise them. --Michig (talk) 07:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Every single time I've posted to a talk page it's gone unanswered for as long as a year. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Besides the reasons proposed for this nomination, the parodies themselves are not notable. It's more than enough to mention that Harry Potter has been parodied in several media in the Harry Potter article with some examples. Shakespeare's work has been parodied several times but that is not a good reason to list every single parody that has existed that is not notable by itself. Moreover, the parodies should be mentioned in the original work where they were released, not in an article that list them independently. Most sources used are either to talk about how Harry Potter was referenced, not about the importance of the parody itself, or are descriptions of the parody without commentary or review as to why the parodies are notable. The article is a derivative article, an unnecessary split and an unneeded content fork. This type of article is material for a fansite but not for an encylopedia. Jfgslo (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per reasoning by Jfgslo. Hekerui (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep fixable and expandable. The way to over topics that are not themselves individually notable is to have them in a combination article. DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Keep. The nomination has been withdrawn, and thus this item may be speedily kept. Articles meeting the criteria for WP:SK are eligible for Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. There is also a WP:CONSENSUS to keep. Johnsemlak (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Christopher Soghoian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was previously nominated for deletion in 2009 and could easily have been decided delete, or at very least no consensus, as there did not seem to be consensus to keep. Subject is notable for a single event, and coverage related to that event is not substantial enough to otherwise pass. Many sources uses are from the subject himself. A search for reliable (ie not computer forums, blogs, etc) provides little. Grsz11 01:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll withdraw the nomination at this time, but like Nomoskedasticity said, it could use some editing. Grsz 11 18:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, in part because there seems to be no reason to re-nominate: deletion requires consensus, and if there is no consensus then the article is kept, so the decision last time was correct. The article could probably be trimmed a bit, but I think it passes on GNG if nothing else. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He seems to meet the WP:GNG as a public intellectual and security activist. RayTalk 23:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep. If the nom has a problem with the prior close, this is not the place to contest how it was closed. Nom's admission that the prior close could have been "no consensus" suggests that there was nothing wrong with the close -- the result would be the same, as the article would be kept. Agree it passes GNG. I suggest that nom look beyond the refs in the article, as required by wp:before -- there is robust coverage in RSs of the subject of the article, and quotes of his views.[24][25][26][27].--Epeefleche (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue isn't the previous nomination. The question is if Soghoian is notable for more than one event, and if not, is the coverage significant enough to overcome that fact. Grsz 11 04:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 77 google hits, and all around the same time. That's a pretty clear indicator of WP:BLP1E. Grsz 11 04:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If by "around the same time" you mean "within 3 years of each other," that would be accurate. However, I decline to regard somebody in the news for 3 years as lacking persistency in coverage. RayTalk 10:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree w/Ray. Furthermore, the entire first half of the nom's nomination was a discussion of the prior nomination. That could tend to make one think it had something to do with his rationale for nominating the article for deletion. (Plus, 2 of the 3 !delete voters at that AfD didn't have five prior edits to their name collectively before the AfD or since, making their !votes quite odd--and making nom's above characterization of the AfD even more peculiar).--Epeefleche (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If by "around the same time" you mean "within 3 years of each other," that would be accurate. However, I decline to regard somebody in the news for 3 years as lacking persistency in coverage. RayTalk 10:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 77 google hits, and all around the same time. That's a pretty clear indicator of WP:BLP1E. Grsz 11 04:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue isn't the previous nomination. The question is if Soghoian is notable for more than one event, and if not, is the coverage significant enough to overcome that fact. Grsz 11 04:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets WP:GNG. WP:ONEEVENT states that "[t]he general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person", however, it also suggests that it certain cases it is more appropriate to name the article after the person. I'm convinced there are enough sources over enough period of time to indicate that the article is named properly. Location (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per Nomoskedasticity and per AWP:Energy conservation. °°Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul Calello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a memorial, no notability that sets him apart from anyone else in a similar position Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. The article is not written as a tribute, so the (true) fact that Wikipedia is not a memorial is a specious argument. The encyclopedia contains many, many thousands of biographies of people no longer living. The subject of this article clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Bongomatic 01:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Amended opinion to speedy keep after nominator's responses made it clear that the nomination is not based on guideline or policy. Bongomatic 08:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep clearly meets the WP:GNG. If there were only sources reporting his death, then a case for WP:BLP1E could be made, but there are hundreds of other mentions in google news over the years. WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply, unless of course the creator is related to this guy, which I have no reason to believe is the case. SmartSE (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article itself does not point to notability, and was written only after his death. The article should actually show why the subject is notable, rather than having the reader search the sources.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If that were correct, it would be a reason to improve, not delete the article. In the words of WP:ATD—which is policy—"if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." There are more comprehensive thoughts along these lines at WP:BEFORE.
- Being chairman and CEO of a bulge bracket investment bank is in itself a claim (possibly rebuttable, but a claim no less) of notability. Bongomatic 01:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep easily meets the General Notability Guidelines. That he is dead is not relevant to the deletion discussion. --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Bongomatic's point about a credible claim of notability is the key point, here - and there is no question that the claim is accurate (he was the CEO). We have lots of articles about the deceased, many written after their deaths. The rush of coverage on someone who has recently died frequently opens the door to further research into sources from their life - which forms what ends up being a reasonable article. Prominent obituaries in widely varied sources can also indicate notable subjects who don't already have an article - the deaths list frequently sees editors create articles for otherwise notable people, specifically to support the subject's entry on that list. If it expands our coverage with properly sourced articles on notable people, that's a win. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good arguments in general. However, in the instant case, the subject had attracted sufficient coverage (some included in the current version) prior to his death—indeed prior to his illness—to meet the relevant guidelines. Bongomatic 15:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed - thus, the keep. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good arguments in general. However, in the instant case, the subject had attracted sufficient coverage (some included in the current version) prior to his death—indeed prior to his illness—to meet the relevant guidelines. Bongomatic 15:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. The references here clearly indicate notability. Gobonobo T C 00:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "no notability that sets him apart from anyone in a similar position" as applied to people who are really important leads to some pretty odd statements, no more notable than other noble prize winners, than other best selling authors, than other olympic athletes, than other astronauts, that other winners of a grammy. It would limit is to who ever is the most notable of all Nobelists, the best of the US presidents, the best novelist in english, and so on. But I think the actual problem is the the failure to understand how people who engage in business are notable. The senior executives of the most important major companies are notable, but those who think this part of the world much less important than the other things we cover, do not tend to realize it. It's the field of our greatest negative subject bias. DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Obituaries from multiple major papers clearly establishes notability. The New York Times doesn't bother with obits for nobodies. -- Whpq (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - an Obit in the NYT says it all. Probably not eligible for WP:Speedy keep but I think WP:SNOWBALL is relevant here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In personally disregarding the merits of this article, it is obvious that only Bongomatic has worked on it. An experienced editor (100,000+ edits) nominates for deletion, and at least three others who voted "keep" are the same ones that voted "delete" along with Bongomatic at some previous recent afd's (including one I had an issue with recently). This is what I was refering to at a recent ANB incident. A borderline subject, but strength in numbers influences the afd outcome. Obvious quid pro quo? Or, is this again a conspiracy theory? WildHorsesPulled (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you ask, this is conspiracy theory. This is not a borderline subject. Of the eight editors that have opined "keep" as of this time, two (including me) opined in the same manner at the AfD to which you refer, one offered the opposite opinion, and the rest were uninvolved.
- At less contentious AfDs with near unanimity, the fact that editors opine in the same way is wholly unremarkable (for example, you will note that the Herman Phaff AfD was unanimous other than the nominator). Most participants at AfD—with some obvious exceptions—don't use the forum as a place to express allegiance or personal grudges. Bongomatic 04:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will reply on my talk page. I apologize for making the comment hereWildHorsesPulled (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources, including coverage as a featured obituary in The New York Times. Subject clearly meets notability guidelines. Alansohn (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:NOTMEMORIAL says Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Note the last part. Paul Calello meets our notability guidelines so we keep it. The fact that the article was created shortly after he died is irrelevant. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Economist has an obit that makes it clear that Calello was one of the "good bankers" in the credit-crunch crisis. I think this makes the case for at least a small bio in WP. I'm sure whoever wrote the article in The Economist would agree. AWhiteC (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Blake Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined speedy, apparently non-notable musician and producer. I can't find significant coverage, but perhaps someone else can. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I still can't find anything. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Appearing on MTV doesn't establish notability, nor does name-dropping. The best claim for notability would be the 1999 Dove Award nomination as producer for The Return in the category of "Rap/Hip Hop/Dance Album of the Year". But a single nomination isn't enough either. -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jesse Johnson (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am nominating this and his movie Double Negative (2010 film). The latest attempt by Kaleb Wilson to get himself a spot on Wikipediea (the connected article on him was recently deleted). The director does not satisfy notability for directors, no notable films, a lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. The film does not satisfy notability for films, no reviews, a lack of coverage (and Wilson is according to himself and IMdb an executive marketing assistant for this film, conflict of interest and promotion issues). For further reading see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaleb Wilson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaleb Wilson (2nd nomination),Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Obi-WanKenobi-2005/Kaleb Wilson. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of the Above. The decision to delete a independent film producer smells bad when the subject page in question contains a beg for money message from Jimbo Wales. There is clearly way too much East Coast user/admin bias on these deletions. A film production and inclusion on IMDB is notible whether it be a long or short career. Actors and artistic media creators should not be deleted by armchair critics who have no personal knowledge or have actually seen their work. Rather than deletionism why not try to improve the content or reach out to the contributors by obtaining more information? PsychClone (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignore troll's comments. JDDJS (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. JDDJS (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Short career indicates this article is WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Costume Cauldron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails Notability test for companies. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. References are either from Primary source[28] (PRWeb), simple listings that denote no notability[29], or un-related to the specific company in question[30]. Eclipsed (t) 13:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Strong Delete clearly Fails Notability test for companies .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. GedUK 08:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dr. Homer Kent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Simply being a published professor, is not, in it of itself notable, also fails WP:V due to a lack of non-trivial third party sources. 2 says you, says two 14:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He was president of his college. That's a pass of WP:PROF right there. Closing admin should move to Homer Kent, however. RayTalk 22:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He clearly passes WP:PROF. Doesn't need deleting, just more references. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:01 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak delete. College has only 160 students. WP:Prof#C6 refers to major academic institution. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Actually he was prez of both the college and seminary; seminary presently has 160, while the college presently has about 1300 students. I don't know what our definition of "major" is though. Definitely should be moved if kept. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sort of on the borderline, I would think. If there were anything else it would help, but there doesn't seem to be. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to Homer A. Kent, Jr.. Kent is a prolific author who is widely quoted in the world of biblical study [31], although I would have said that he was notable simply for being President of Grace College and its seminary. Granted, the snivelling, "would it be ok if we have an article?" language of WP:PROF leaves the question open, qualifying even a presidency with the addition that one has to be president of a "significant" accredited college or university. That's consistent with the self-loathing that one finds throughout Wikipedia:Notability (academics); apparently, there are people who worry about whether their college is "significant enough". Mandsford 14:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are not quotes they are ads. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- It's from Google books, not an advertisement. Maybe this will illustrate it better [32]. Mandsford 21:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- XLEAGUE.TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable, entirely primary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is or was a television channel in the United Kingdom on satellite. Vodello (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete programming way up in the 'nobody cares' channels which by the article's own admission lasted less than two years and appears to have had no impact whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We have the most inane of paid teleshopping channels remaining here as they aired on a cable or satellite system in Britian once, this is no different. Article is plenty sourced and as a production unit, remains a going concern. Nate • (chatter) 01:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is also listed in the video games section as well since it was part of eSports history. It would also need a consensus from that section as well for it to be a fair removal from Wiki. Ryoga3099 (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete pending usable permission. If permission is provided, a second AfD should be procedurally launched to permit consideration on the merits. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Roger Dean (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Probably an autobio with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have blanked the article (except for the aFD tag) as the article substantially copies material from http://www.roger-dean.com/biography.php -- Whpq (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There's nothing wrong with it, it's all factual and accurate. What a rigmarole! of course it has similarities, believe it or not the page is talking about the same bloke! if you bother reading it you will see many added extra details and facts that are not on www.roger-dean.com! Perhaps you could just save me the hassle and agree to keep it or delete instead of acting like the chief inspectors of the internet poliice force over this small non isulting and very factual article on an entertainer many people in the UK enjoy watching! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.246.150 (talk)
- Reply - The reason is that the article content has been blanked out is due to it being substantially copied from a copyrighted source without permission in violation of copyright policy. That has nothing to do whether the information is factual or accurate. -- Whpq (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: and the reason that the two sources are similar at www.roger-dean.com and wiki is because I wrote the information on both the website and wiki therefore as the information is about the same entertainer then it's going to be incredibly similar and if people read the wiki article they will see there are substancial differences where detail is expanded upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.246.150 (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Also please can you tell me why you say that this information infringes copyright without persmission? I've had no one contact me to confirm whether my permission was granted or not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.246.150 (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: will i get any further response here to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.149.92 (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Unfortunately, these pages are not watched for this kind of conversation. The page was created by User:.wozza1982, and instructions were left at User talk:.wozza1982 for the kinds of permission that we are entitled to accept. Since there is no sign of these, the article has been deleted. A second note has been left at that page with further instructions. The article can be restored if the permission is verified, but it should be relisted to permit consideration of the concerns that launched this AfD to begin with at that time. In terms of the differences, under the U.S. law that governs us, evidence of difference does not bar finding of infringement; courts look at similarities. Expansion on a copyrighted base creates a derivative work. Of course, if you authored both the external content and the Wikipedia article there is no copyright concern, but we do need you to verify that through one of the processes described at wozza1982's page. If you have additional questions, please come by my talk page (follow the link after my username), or I'm afraid that they may go unseen. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Differences between Christian mysticism and Evangelical mysticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Although heavily footnoted, this article appears to be largely original research wherein the author synthesizes his or her own non-neutral conclusion based on disparate sources. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Original research can be fixed. I'm pretty sure articles are to be deleted only if improving is not actually possible and/or the subject lacks notability. NotARealWord (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If an article is really original research, that's one thing that cannot be fixed. From WP:NOR: "The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research." JohnCD (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If reliable secondary sources exist, then the article can be improved/fixed, even if removing the original research means having to rewrite the article entirely. Deletion is only if such sources cannot be found. That having been said, I'm not voting to "keep" since I'm not sure whether or not such sources exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotARealWord (talk • contribs)
- I think "keep unless sources cannot be found" is too strong - one can never prove that a source for a proposition like this does not exist, and "keep in the hope that one day sources may be found from which it can be totally rewritten" is not a practical policy. It depends on the likelihood of sources and of a rewrite. A reading of the text will usually give a good feel for whether the author is summarising someone else's view or advancing his own; given reasonable time, the burden of proof is on the author, or the defenders of an article, to show the sources for the conclusion. JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research, specifically sythesis. This is an impressively-researched and carefully-written piece, but what the author does is use his sources to reach definitions of "Christian mysticism" and "Evangelical mysticism" which he can contrast to make his point: that they differ. That point seems to me to be original and not found in the sources; this is exactly the "analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources" prohibited by WP:No original research. Indeed his definitions of the two types of mysticism seem themselves to be verging on synthesis from the fairly widely diverse use of the various terms by the sources.
- It is possible that this article might be acceptable to our sister project Wikiversity; I do not know enough about that project to be sure, but it would be worth the author's while to investigate. Another possibility is Wikademia (not a Wikimedia project) which explicitly welcomes original research. JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as OR: it's an essay, not an article. Jonathunder (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Move some of the content of the article to Christian mysticism and Evangelical mysticism articles : The article started at the article Christian mysticism, where researchers wanted to make contributions to the article Christian mysticism, to show how it is Gnostic mysticism, and not Christian mysticism. For that conclusion MANY sources are available. But such changes were not approved of by the Wiki administrator. The article Christian mysticism and Evangelical mysticism doesn't allow for a neutral and thorough overview of the two streams, and because edits were not approved of to advance more neutrality, this (comparative) article was the only other option. See the discussion board on Christian mysticism.(WalkingInTheLight2
- or Rename and combine : Rename the article "mysticisms in Christianity" and combine the articles on Evangelical mysticism and Christian mysticism in one article, looking at the streams of mysticisms from various angles. Changing this article slightly.(WalkingInTheLight2 (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment The discussion at Talk:Christian mysticism seems to point to the following sequence of events:
- WalkingInTheLight2 (talk · contribs) came into the discussion with a lot of new, unsourced ideas about the topic
- Walking was told that his ideas sounded more like personal reflections and a sermon than like an encyclopedia entry
- Walking suggested that perhaps a new article could be written that expounded upon his ideas
- Without any other users commenting on whether that would be a good idea, went ahead and wrote said new article.
- Walking's suggestion that "researchers wanted to make contributions to the article" seems specious: Walking wanted to make contributions, and others told him his contributions weren't really appropriate, so he wrote his own article. While I would agree that the whole area of mysticism is poorly covered at Wikipedia due to the contending streams of thought on the topic, I don't think this particular article, full of Walking's own synthesis of the available published material, is the way to solve the problem. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An essay, not an article giving the generally accepted facts on a topic as suitable for encyclopedia readers. Besides the very title presents an extremely non-neutral point of view when it contrasts "Christian" with "Evangelical." Borock (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Potential replacement article is included in the discussion section here. Article name Mysticism in Christianity(WalkingInTheLight2 (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment The replacement article looks as much like original research as the original. Just cast in a different light. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article does not look to me like original research (WalkingInTheLight2 (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Reply As the author, you may have too close an attachment to the subject to recognize that you are inserting your own synthesis of disparate ideas into the article. While, to you, the conclusions you draw are merely the logical result of the facts presented, to an uninformed reader, the fact that you are drawing conclusions at all constitutes the original research. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Which conclusion or conclusions are you spesifically referring to? I consider the replacement article to be neutral. (Even if you can point out one or two places where conclusions have been drawn that I didn't see, it can be fixed, as the overall article is neutral, my view). (WalkingInTheLight2 (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Note to WikiDan: I can see that you are an experienced and honoured contributor at Wikipedia, and I respect your input. You and me may not share the same views or beliefs with regards to the topic at hand, but I honestly believe that my revised article is carefully worded particularly neutral with adequate reliable sources. The article on Christian mysticism was much less neutral. Before I gave my inputs on there (of which some still remains), it was written from the assumption that all mysticisms in Christianity is called Christian mysticism and that all Christian mysticism share the same theological views. These generalized theological views had then been described in the article as a given. It was about this, that I was most uncomfortable. I propose a deletion of the article Christian mysticism entirely, and rather an article "Mysticism in Christianity" which looks at the subject more broadly, allowing for various streams and theologies within Christianity related to mysticism to be discussed. This would allow Wikipedia as a whole to provide a more neutral overview of the subject. If the term "Christian mysticism" had indeed been "hijacked" by Gnostic streams within Christianity, it needs to be pointed out. But if "Christian mysticism" means any mysticisms within the Christian community, then that needs to allow for an overview of the various streams, and cannot be associated with a particular theology or worldview as a generalization. (WalkingInTheLight2 (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Note to all the voters, please consider: The following are some prominent streams within Christianity:
The "mystery" interpretations of Scripture as well as the mysticism experiences and practices tollerated or promoted by these streams are not all the same. As Gnosticism had been considered a heresy by mainstream Christianity at large, the mysticism and mystical explanations associated with this stream is also rejected by the same. To say that there is no differences, is to already presuppose that Gnosticism and mainstream Christianity is reconcilable and is essentially the same thing. For that assumption I am confidant there is absolutely no reliable sources, and NOT for the argument that there are distinct differences as supposed by the article nominated for deletion. PS: The theology or scriptural interpretations described by the article Christian mysticism leans towards the theology of Gnostic Christianity and not of Pauline Christianity nor Evangelical Christianity. And to imply that there are no mysticism associated with the other expressions of Christianity is another unreasonable and unsourced assumption. (see also Gnosticism and the New Testament) (WalkingInTheLight2 (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete. As I read the article, it was clear to me that I was reading a piece of persuasive writing which uses sources to support the author's conclusion, which is a desire to make a distinction between her own religious tradition and other Christian traditions. There's certainly room for that sort of essay, but it should be published in an evangelical journal; it's outside the scope of an encyclopedia. This looks like synthesis to me, not simply reporting the facts but using them to support a thesis- that mysticism as practiced by many Christians isn't 'real' Christianity.' Notice that none of the sources seem to actually use the phrase 'evangelical mysticism,' and a google search on the phrase brings up a few blogs but no reliable sources. I'm not at all convinced that 'evangelical mysticism' exists as a notable school of thought, and I think that the recent article Evangelical mysticism should probably be added to this AfD as more of the same: lots of sources that aren't actually about something called 'evangelical mysticism,' used in synthesis to try to create the impression that 'evangelical mysticism' is a subject anyone is writing about. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: okay, one of the sources uses the phrase 'evangelical mysticism,' but since it was written before the evangelical movement, it can hardly mean what the article thinks it means. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. No response from the "delete" side to the improvements. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neil Montier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Absolute self-promotion. Lack of verifiable third-party significant coverage. All links are vanity. WP:NOTFACEBOOK. — Timneu22 · talk 14:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Lacks GHITS and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a notable because of a lack of reliable secondary sources Morgankevinj(talk) 23:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Yes, a clear case of autobiography, but a fairly modest one: the claims made in it were clear and minor, some of them were already backed up with sources (despite what is said above) when I got to the article, and others among them were easily sourceable via the world's best-loved search engine. -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the changes in the article since the delete comments above a relist seems appropriate. Davewild (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Death Korps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD, though the only reason it wasn't a speedy is because I couldn't find a criteria that it fit into. Non-notable film produced by students, of zero notability. roleplayer 00:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Student film with no notable actors and no notability of its own.--KorruskiTalk 09:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The article itself says it in the lede..."It spent just over a year in development, and is currently in Pre Production." Lack of ANY coverage in reliable sources means this one does not even qualify as an exception to NFF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fails WP:NSPORT as he has not played in a fully professional league. The WP:IAR arguments don't cut it, as discussion elsewhere has shown that a significant contingent believe that our athlete notability criteria are actually too permissive. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jüri Jevdokimov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 00:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Professional player in professional team, very talented and only 22. He is also one national team candidate. Probably gets to professional league this year (or atleast next year) as Nõmme Kalju is selling him. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Under WP:NSPORT playing for a professional team is insufficient, to establish notability. A player must play in a fully pro league, which the Estonian league is not. The rest of the above comment is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just saying that he deserves an article. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any subject that is not notable, does not merit an article, and your comment has not demonstrated Mr. Jevdokimov's notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand and know the rules, but I don't agree with them, Estonian league is not fully-professional, but there are some players, who are professional and are worth an article. So I'm requeting to keep the article. Thank you. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case it is up to you to demonstrate that the player passes WP:GNG, which you have not done. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand and know the rules, but I don't agree with them, Estonian league is not fully-professional, but there are some players, who are professional and are worth an article. So I'm requeting to keep the article. Thank you. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any subject that is not notable, does not merit an article, and your comment has not demonstrated Mr. Jevdokimov's notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just saying that he deserves an article. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to say Keep because while he doesn't play in a fully pro league, the Meistriliiga is the highest level of football in Estonia. Also, looking at his club's roster, nearly every player on the team has article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As with the previous comment, please explain how this makes him notable. As for your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comment, I should point out that every player on that squad that doesn't explicitly meet WP:NSPORT (i.e. has played in a fully pro league or for the estonian national team) has been PROD'ed at some point or another. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As to my point regarding Meistriliiga, since it's the highest level of football in his home country, he shouldn't be disqualified from notability for playing in a semi-professional league. The team itself is professional, and players often choose to play in their home country instead of more prestigious leagues. After doing a little Google searching, I found a site called Transfermarkt that estimates his transfer value as 220,000 Pounds. He's also second in the league in goal scoring currently! While certainly not star value on a European level, he is valued as a skilled professional footballer by the wider football community.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid you're missing the point. The guidelines as to what subjects are and are not notable have been very clearly laid out. He does not meet WP:NSPORT. I think we can all agree on that. Therefore, in order to be he must have significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:N. If you, or someone else can provide show that he has received significant coverage, I'd be more than willing to withdraw the nomination. Without it, however, this article cannot be justified under Wikipedia policy. Regarding you're source, while Transfermarkt's database is usually accurate, it is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards since it is user edited. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly don't agree that he doesn't meet WP:NSPORT, and I've outlines my reasons above. It may be that he doesn't strictly meet certain quoted requirements ('fully professional league') but WP:SPORT is just a guideline, not policy and it should be applied with common sense. He plays on a professional team and is its leading scorer, and is the second leading scorer in Estonia. He plays at the highest level possible in his home country. If he were a minor player on such a team I would agree but clearly he is an important player to his team. In my opinion he meets WP:NSPORT I'll concede that the Transmarkt source is not reliable by WP's standards, however I still regard it is evidence of the player's professional credentials. In any event I believe the player's accomplishments thus far are notable by themselves.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid you're missing the point. The guidelines as to what subjects are and are not notable have been very clearly laid out. He does not meet WP:NSPORT. I think we can all agree on that. Therefore, in order to be he must have significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:N. If you, or someone else can provide show that he has received significant coverage, I'd be more than willing to withdraw the nomination. Without it, however, this article cannot be justified under Wikipedia policy. Regarding you're source, while Transfermarkt's database is usually accurate, it is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards since it is user edited. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As to my point regarding Meistriliiga, since it's the highest level of football in his home country, he shouldn't be disqualified from notability for playing in a semi-professional league. The team itself is professional, and players often choose to play in their home country instead of more prestigious leagues. After doing a little Google searching, I found a site called Transfermarkt that estimates his transfer value as 220,000 Pounds. He's also second in the league in goal scoring currently! While certainly not star value on a European level, he is valued as a skilled professional footballer by the wider football community.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - regardless of whether the league he plays in is notable or not, he fails WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's been around two years since I have been to an afd nom and, sadly, I see little progress. Not that I believe that this article is particularly valuable to the project, but the general trend of adhering to guidelines over common sense is worrying. Meanwhile, could someone please update me on the process of obtaining notability though domestic and European cups? BanRay 23:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maxwell Street Klezmer Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an article I originally created a good while ago, before I really had much experience of WP:RS. I've re-examined it again, and I'm really not sure it satisfies the notability guidelines, so I thought I'd better bring it here and see what the consensus says -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veretski Pass
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharkov Klezmer Band
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Two of the three sources don't appear to be independent of the subject, and the third is just an award. If you like, you're the only contributor on the main article - you could userfy for further work, or G7 it to delete, as you like. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Performancecast.tv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Orphan Article about a non-notable company Scirocco6 (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Quite easily fails WP:WEB.[33] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.